I mean there was that time researchers at Carnegie Mellon poisoned the network with malicious nodes

Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about. The Carnegie Mellon people used a Javascript exploit to do what they did. To quote a random vpn website:

In 2014 the FBI – with assistance from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University – developed an exploit based on a Firefox JavaScript flaw that successfully de-anonymized some Tor users, including the operators of the popular Silk Road website. Although the vulnerability that allowed those attacks was fixed within days of its discovery, the incident nonetheless created fear among Tor users that it may not be 100% secure after all.

The reader should ponder to themselves why this user wants to make it appear we’re talking about two different incidences.

TOR has definitely never been successfully subverted.

If you have better suggestions for anonymously communicating with a violent mass audience, I’m all ears.

You are doling out really bad and dangerous advice.

And you’re doling out fear and paranoia to keep people from taking up arms, based on the idiotic idea the “American” government is omniscient (it isn’t). It goes without saying that anyone willing to organize violence against the “American” government is taking their life into their hands, and the more effective they are, the more resources said government will utilize to destroy them. The advice I have given, in fact, is probably the safest advice for any organization wanting to go about conducting warfare against “American” government by mobilizing those who can be mobilized to fight them.

What is the truth about Rwanda? I know basically nothing about that.

I recommend the books Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa: From Tragedy to Useful Imperial Fiction by the Québécois nationalist Robin Philpot, and Rwanda 1994: The Myth of the Akazu Genocide Conspiracy and its Consequences by the British Trotskyist Barrie Collins, to begin to understand what actually happened there. The essay here is also okay, but very brief.

Tor is financed by the US government, and they have repeatedly discovered the identities of people that used it.

All those cases have been due to people misusing Tor, and being identified by Javascript. I don’t think you can even use Tor anymore outside of the Tor browser, which disables Java by default, though in the old days it was a separate application that you turned on and off.

Tor is open source software, and has been looked at by many, many people now, and any backdoor would have been found out a long time ago, and it would have been utilized by other governments around the world to catch people doing all sorts of illegal activity already.

I don’t think it is possible to creare any kind of leftist militant organisation over the internet, there need to be personal contacts.

The exact opposite is true. Trying to do this with “personal contacts” is how you’re going to be arrested before you ever do anything. Either that, or talked out of it completely, and told to do some ritualized meaningless protest activity.

This article is extremely idiotic in many ways (the imperialist narrative on Rwanda is so dear to them, the bourgeoisie would sooner change their narrative on WW2 itself than give up this lie), but it goes to show the fear in the minds of the ruling class. They don’t fear Trump or Biden (lol!) organizing for civil war, what they fear is that not enough people will pay attention to them to prevent a civil war.

Make no mistake, “America” has zero political parties. The Democratic and Republican “Parties” are not ruled by ideology, political lines, dues paying members who believe in things, etc. They really are nothing but State-institutions that exist to facilitate the ability of capitalists to fill vacancies in political offices. The bourgeoisie call the shots on both sides, and no matter what happens, the people they control will be screeching “We need to compromise! Violence is wrong!” at the top of their lungs on the news 24/7.

That isn’t to say, there aren’t millions of stupid people who don’t understand this. The head of any State is largely a symbolic figure, and Trump is bad for “America” because it makes too many people unable to identify with the regime. Likewise, millions of stupid whites actually do think the Hollywood celebrity from Queens represents them in some way, and his removal could lead quite a few of them to acts of violence. No matter what the outcome, people should expect a sharp spike in unorganized, spontaneous violence from highly politicized masses.

The difference between this and a full-fledged civil war is the difference between powerful forces in society organizing it or not. What organization, say, on the “America” “Left” exists that has the resources and ability to coordinate mass violence, much less the desire to do so? Is the DSA going to turn into Gonzaloites overnight, and start using their control of the imperialist labor apparatus to turn their union organizers into recruiters for armed conflict? Of course not! As the author of this piece hints several times, the “Left” that is under the control of the Democratic “Party” will not only not do anything like this, they will actively try to suppress violence at every opportunity.

The situation is similar on the “Right” in “America.” There doesn’t exist anything like the Organization from the Turner Diaries to be able to mobilize masses of Euro-“Americans” for combat against a newly installed Biden regime. The Republican “Party” already bends over backwards to do everything they can to stop white settler rebellion on the “Right.” As Sakai said in his fascinating essay The Shock of Recognition:

Obviously, rightist political views that touch on fascism are held by many white Americans. They’re conditionally loyal to the government (and in the government) only because their level of prosperity and privilege is so high that why should they lift their faces from the trough? But if the u.s. capitalist class left it to a “democratic” vote of its white citizens, known fascists like David Duke would be in the u.s. senate, there would be no W.T.O. but also no Civil Rights Act, and much of America would proudly fly the Confederate flag of the slavemasters. The imperialist State’s largest domestic security priority is not terrorism, the ghetto or the border as they pretend, but restraining and defusing white settler rebellion to the right.

In my years and years of dealing with the “American” “Left,” it’s quite obvious to me rebellion will first break out on the “Right.” Trump is not a cause, not even a symptom, of what is happening. Trump is bourgeois medicine poured down the throats of the stupid whites to dope them up and keep them from turning against their Christian Zionist overlords. It is the bourgeoisie trying to serve up some existential-elixir, so the stupid whites can at least fantasize they got their own Fuhrer that cares about them.

Whether or not a civil war is going to erupt is going to come down to the existence of an organization, with a desire and the resources capable of bringing it about. Most of the masses of North America will sit it out, of course, but there are tens of thousands of “Left” people who could be motivated to violence against a second term Trump regime. A revolutionary organization that made the dividing line of us/them about violence itself, rather than historical narratives about the Cultural Revolution, could unite many people for semi-organized violence.

I say semi-organized, because such an organization would first have to take a page from the Siege playbook. Once the call for individual violence is put out, the organization would need to see how many people hear the call. So if some such group did that to all the (self-proclaimed) revolutionary English-language “Left” spaces they could, they could count up the amount of incidents around the country, and get a reliable estimate of the size of their anonymous army.

From there, it would be a matter of developing the strategy and tactics, and leadership to command the people willing to fight. The most important thing at that point would be maintaining lines of communications to the people who responded to the initial revolutionary call to violence, probably via a tor node hosted in a hostile country to the US (so the server simply can’t be taken offline), and this would be the beginning of the revolutionary army, hopefully it would be able to outgrow the anonymous stage of the conflict.

couldn’t have been done by some random communist

This is one of the purposes of the lie; not only to paper-over the differences between liberalism and Marxism, but to imply the US government is some sort of omnipotent entity that couldn’t be shook to the core by the actions of a single individual. Can’t have people getting the idea that they too could change the course of history, if they are just willing to pick up a gun and fight!

I’d rather trust that unnamed source than the official narrative.

The “American” government has no qualms peddling bullshit themselves to gullible people; just look at the QAnon stuff.

JFK wanting to do away with the CIA because they had too much power

There was a quote about Kennedy allegedly wanting to do this that was popularized a few years ago by Wikileaks, as they made it a password to some file they were spreading on the internet. The quote is completely fictitious, of course, first appearing in print 3 years after Kennedy was dead, and (allegedly) given by an unnamed official at that.

Perhaps you should consider why you think it is a legitimate practice to do history by way of anonymous quotations from dead people who can’t confirm or deny what people claim they told them in private. What makes this stuff believable to you? So the CIA got wind (somehow) that Kennedy didn’t care for them, and they immediately plotted his murder? So why didn’t they kill everyone involved in the Church Commission a decade later?

Notice also how the motive changes from conspiracy to conspiracy. Is it because he failed to give air support to gusanos in Cuba, was going to withdraw the troops from Vietnam, or because he was going to get rid of the CIA? Whatever the motive, Kennedy happened to tell someone about it, and then years later someone tells someone else. Charles Bartlett first put his own anti-war-hero-Jesus Kennedy quote to print in 1985, over two decades after the fact. You know, when the JFK conspiracy theory was already believed by the vast majority of “American” society, like it is today, and no one would bother trying to call him out on it.

Glad you enjoyed my response enough to make a completely different thread about it!

Whether or not the US government actually killed its own head of state was never addressed by me. Such issues are actually decided on the evidence. I offered my opinion on such ideas, namely, that there is no reason to actually believe any of that nonsense. You’re of course, free to agree or disagree with me.

What I offered was to ponder over the implications that the belief in this conspiracy has had on the minds of the entirety of the one-foot-in-the-grave “Left.” I myself was most active in student organizing when 9/11 truthers were everywhere, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, these people were a combination of imbeciles and government agents. The sincere ones actually believed that, somehow, if the majority of people just accepted the idea that the US government did 9/11, that the government would just spontaneously collapse on its own. The government agents would just show up to protests they didn’t even organize with bullhorns and screech it as a disruption tactic. Now the majority of the people on the planet believe some form of this conspiracy theory, and guess what? Nothing has changed at all. And this includes people actually living in New York City, though by the time OWS was around, these people only gathered in handfuls at a time, their numbers having dwindled down to the sincere believers only, and were no longer the force of disruption they once were.

I also asked the reader to consider what it could mean if the conspiracy is actually true. If the “American” government is willing to murder their own heads of state, why don’t we see more political violence of this type? Why aren’t US presidents shot every couple of terms? Why aren’t senators and governors and congressmen who don’t toe the line of the murder-the-president-and-get-away-with-it faction killed? Why isn’t US history filled with more civil wars?

Hell, it is clear probably the vast majority of the US ruling class despises Trump. Why don’t they simply murder him, and blame it on antifa? Is not sending the troops into Syria on behalf of their Wahabi-contras just as offensive to the kill-the-president faction as not acting as the gusano air force was allegedly to them during the Bay of Pigs invasion? Why was that particular moment in history so special? If Cuba meant so much to them, why is it still today ruled by communists? Did the kill-the-leader-of-American-imperialism faction have post assassination regrets?

And finally, if you actually investigate all the claims about Kennedy wanting to “end the war” or any such nonsense, it is all based on nothing. It is not merely grasping at straws to say that because JFK signed National Security Action Memorandum 263, that he was opposed to the Vietnam war. This is borderline lying to people. Signing a document which says “The war is going great, we can reduce our troops by about 1,000” is turned into evidence for the feelings opportunist geriatric “Leftists” project onto the figure of JFK. But organizing the coup against Ngô Đình Diệm for even suspicion of wanting to negotiate a settlement with the North is just conveniently forgotten, because it doesn’t fit the narrative they want to tell themselves about their anti-war-hero-Jesus president murdered by his own government. So they torture the evidence until it says what they want it to say, and then trot out a handful of people who say Kennedy told them personally he wanted to withdraw from Vietnam, often these quotes appearing for the first time decades later, with of course, no way to actually confirm any of this, and would mean nothing even if it he did say what tons of people in the US military circles already believed and were telling JFK about the war being unwinnable, about not wanting more “Americans” to die for Vietnamese people, etc. Seriously, offhand jingoistic remarks about the lives of “American” soldiers not being worth the conflict are turned into (secret!) plans for immediate withdrawal after his re-election.

This is, of course, the lynchpin of the whole narrative, and without it, there is nothing at all, so of course the whole thing is sustained by nothing but lies about the contents of public record documents and imaginary conversations reported to historians desperate to substantiate the anti-war-hero-Jesus presidential myth, so the geriatric “Leftists” can die believing they have done a good thing by collaborating with the “Left” wing of “American” imperialism, least that ever elusive ultra-deep-state-murder-the-president-faction ever decides to act again when they don’t get their way. Watch out Trump!

One thing I’ve always wondered is, why did all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists never once put forth the obvious proposition; they simply asked their Wahabi-contras to do it, then preceded to attack an Arab nationalist government (Baathist Iraq), and a thinly veiled Pashtun nationalist one (Taliban’s Afghanistan)? Instead we’re treated with ideas of flying holograms and bombs planted in basements.

I was active in student organizing just a few years after 9/11, and dealing with these people was a nightmare. I couldn’t ever tell if they were just stupid, or if the government was paying them to show up to events they didn’t organize to scream this garbage. I’m sure it was a mixture of both. Many of them seemed to sincerely believe that if the majority of the “American” population came to accept the idea, they would just spontaneously overthrow the government. Now the 9/11 conspiracy, in one form or another, is the most widely believed conspiracy theory in the world, with the majority of the planet accepting some version of it, and guess what? Nothing changed because of it.

There was a lot of political posturing going on in German-speaking countries, but the line of the KPD was informed by the murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht by the SPD regime of Friedrich Ebert during the German revolution in 1918, not to mention the Bolshevik experience, and basically the entire experience of social-democratic treachery the world over at the time.

In Austria, it was even stranger. There, the ‘Austrian’ social-democrats had the same line as the Nazis on the Anschluss, that is to say, they also called for the unity of Germany and Austria into a single state. The Nazis hated the Austro-fascist regime of Engelbert Dollfuss so much that they murdered him in 1934, something which almost caused a split between them and Mussolini at the time. Later on, the Austro-fascists even re-legalized the ‘Austrian’ social-democratic party in an attempt to ward off the Nazi invasion in 1938, which went almost completely unopposed by the population. The ‘Austrian’ communists even went so far as to argue Austria really was (no joke!) a separate nation from Germany. The Bolshevik government itself did not oppose the idea of the Anschluss until after 1933.

There are even more crazy things that went on between communists, social democrats and Nazis in that place once called Prussia (yet another German-speaking country, this one the Allies didn’t see fit to allow to come back to life after the war), if you care to google it yourself. Also take note of how few SPD politicians were killed by the Nazis, and draw your own conclusions.

There are some bourgeois sources that took the trials seriously, back when they happened. The first person that comes to mind is US ambassador Joseph E. Davies, whose book Mission to Moscow was turned into a Hollywood film that is fairly pro-Soviet. The labor politician Denis Pritt was also there, and took them seriously.

Very few bourgeois historians have actually tried to substantiate the claim that the trials were all completely phony. It really is an axiomatic thing, as poking around too much into the foundational assumptions of anti-communism only hurts them, so they simply dismiss the topic out of hand. The few that even address the topic at all simply point to Trotsky’s Dewey Commission or the Khrushchev era rehabilitations, most just expect the reader to be familiar with the (forced) school reading of Orwell’s fiction or Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon. What the anti-communists can’t prove with facts, they simply fill in with fictional narratives. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever even read a bourgeois account of the trials that didn’t explicitly reference Darkness at Noon, usually right at the beginning!

One of the things I’ve always found though, is that anti-communists always play on people’s inability to understand that communists, and the Bolsheviks in particular, were violent revolutionaries, who essentially waged a decades long conspiratorial struggle against social-democrats, culminating in the overthrow of the social-democratic Kerensky regime itself. This aspect of Bolshevism most people simply do not understand, and hence it becomes confusing to people why communists would conspire against each other in the first place. This gap in understanding is then filled in with the cartoon caricature of Stalin as mad evil despot, and the rest writes itself. In reality, the knowledge that communists (at least the successful ones) are violent people that devote their lives to conspiring against governments, and that have developed an entire analysis on why their Left opponents are a bunch of agents of capitalism, opponents that most people can’t easily distinguish between them and the communists, should give one a ready-made understanding of why communists would conspire to overthrow one of their own.

Instead, we’re treated with the odd appearance of the bourgeois lionization of certain communists. Mad-devil paranoid Stalin killing innocent honest communist saint Buhkarin, says the bourgeoisie! Even their own literature on the topic shows they have never moved beyond “Left” wing resentment that their faction lost, which is the ultimate origin of all this nonsense.

There isn’t going to be a communist revolution in any advanced capitalist country anytime soon, so it doesn’t really matter that a bunch of anarchist children haven’t yet dropped their edgy ideological fashion accessories for mainstream liberalism yet. You’re better off attempting to steer them into an analysis of the imperialist labor bureaucracy, and then the serious ones will immediately understand why Marxism-Leninism attracted millions and anarchism attracts stupid white kids.