You’ve described things too vaguely. Although we oppose continuing to revise our work, that’s because they are traitors who only engage in revisionism. We won’t be like them and fabricate rumors to attack others. So if you want to say what exactly makes them reactionary, you need to explain the whole story clearly—how it happened and what it was all about. What you’ve said so far is not enough to form a complete logical connection between evidence and conclusions.
Only a small number who have earned Honghua’s trust can join the offline融工 group, while other members who want to融工 are doing individual融工, similar to working a part-time job.
So you’re letting yourselves go to work, with no economic ties between each other, right? What is this so-called raising 3,000 yuan about?
Revisionists are truly the worst scammers
The 3,000 units were sold, Ziyi kept delaying and refusing, saying he needed to report to Honghua, but in the end, he still returned them.
The traitors’ friendship is really solid; they say give money and they get money. Maybe it’s because Cheng is still in university, and it’s easy to get money from his family.
He is no longer firm now, and he has also broken ties with CRS, and is also an anti-CRS member.
Everything you mentioned is still very confusing. Please organize your thoughts later and write a complete account of the underlying process. Many things are still unclear at the moment, and we shouldn’t jump to conclusions too early.
Red Flower set up a WeChat group to solicit donations from the organization’s members for the CRS organizational members, and after the donations were collected, they disbanded the group. The purpose was to help a girl escape and get away from the oppression at home. They donated 3,000. The audio messages would be delivered every day in their internal group. And basically, it was Red Flower using the tactics of “formalist democracy” to骗取 (fraudulently obtain) the organization members’ trust. Other members had relatively few opportunities to participate. Most of the time, Red Flower alone lectured. Also, the Party-style dogma problems in their editorial department were serious—they required that anyone writing articles must be forced into a written format and that no other issues could appear. If you did something poorly or didn’t comply, you would be subjected to coercive criticism. In other words, Red Flower has already become the Left Circle emperor on xmpp.
This is Qinghuo Hong’s self-introduction—i.e., his current view of the “left circle” on xmpp
March 20, 2026
Criticize the chaos of the “left” petty-bourgeois circle on xmpp
I joined xmpp in 2024. In the past, I was a worker—I worked as a waiter, a kitchen helper for dish service, and did day labor. Life was very difficult. I lived with my mother, depending on each other. I failed at “small-bourgeois” romance in the past, and I was deceived by various black intermediaries. Because I couldn’t endure the brutal oppression and exploitation by capitalists, I was dismissed or forced to flee, leading a life of drifting and constant hardship. So sometimes I wondered: did our Party and country get “repaired”? After all, why would any Communist Party protect the interests of big capital and let the working class suffer? (After all, before this, my understanding of the communist movement had been mostly emotional. I’d seen Lenin in October, and videos about the Soviet Union, too. At that time, what I encountered most was on Bilibili. I must have been in student days then, not yet properly integrated into society.)
After I learned the materials that the “petty-bourgeois left” promoted to me, I concluded that my suspicions were right: China indeed took the path of revisionism after the fall of the Gang of Four in 1976. Not long after that, a petty-bourgeois leftist sent me a private message on Bilibili, gave me an email address. After I filled out a questionnaire, I came to xmpp. At that time, I was still in full-time “leave from work,” and I put my energy into studying revolutionary theory. (Because I had serious problems with how I viewed issues then, and I hadn’t mastered Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought properly.)
And when I first arrived at xmpp, things were especially chaotic: the decayed atmosphere of the petty bourgeoisie was rampant—truly widespread. Also, “wangdou” attacks were particularly frequent. In the beginning, I fought liq森月川’s line, and I also established the Revolutionary Newcomer Room. Later, Shanhe used help to funnel attention to me, provided robots—those immediate benefits—deceiving my trust. So I handed over owner privileges to him.
As a result, their small sect kept making the group-chat environment worse and worse. So I chose to oppose them and threw in with Left Mutual Aid. At that time, I had some wrong views about Ma diao kong. You could say his main problem wasn’t purely a stance issue; it was more a knowledge issue. He wanted to use the heavy-sword small sect to restore xmpp to a “left-less” kingdom. But at that time, I had issues with my understanding and blindness toward objective laws—so I inevitably committed all kinds of “left” adventurist errors, which gave the heavy-sword small sect a handle to attack and expel me without mercy.
However, I made a mistake then. When opposing Left Mutual Aid, I went “left” and expanded the criticism, opposing Ma diao kong in a too-broad way, and I made an incorrect critique. I treated his problems as stance problems. Back then, when I opposed Left Mutual Aid, I basically had no strength at all. Even I had to cooperate with people from the petty-bourgeois left circle to oppose the heavy-sword small sect of Left Mutual Aid.
It wasn’t until the birth of the “Cultural Revolution Struggle Society” that I was left with a piece of revolutionary ground for opposing the bureaucratic sect of Left Mutual Aid and all kinds of opportunists. Back then, I even actively spoke in the Cultural Revolution Struggle Society about ancient Chinese history. But good times didn’t last.
Ever since Honghua—the opportunity opportunist who plays big games of plotting and scheming—established the “Continue the Revolution Society,” he used revolutionary slogans to disguise revisionist theory and his counterrevolutionary organizational building, deceiving the trust of the majority of the petty-bourgeois masses. (In fact, many supported him consciously, because Honghua could represent their personal interests. So naturally, those petty-bourgeois creatures would support them. Because when, at present, I am criticizing and opposing Honghua’s small sect, those petty-bourgeois creatures either inform on me or suppress and persecute me in all sorts of ways.)
The Cultural Revolution Struggle Society then increasingly had to march toward death, and by the end it died completely. (Actually, those petty-bourgeois creatures in the Cultural Revolution Struggle Society only saw that my fighting spirit was strong and that I had “value for use.” So they welcomed me to actively oppose all kinds of opportunists. And when that value became less useful for them—or when it became more useful for their purposes with Honghua—they all defected to Honghua. Even a small number of them served as Honghua’s running dogs. Where are Wu Guang Bai Ma CAD, UU, those working-class elements, anyway?—they’re nowhere to be found.)
After that, I could only carry out activities in the CRS organization, because the Cultural Revolution Struggle Society no longer had any living space for “left without leftness.” During my period of studying theory, they suppressed and pushed me around in all kinds of ways. Even if they cared, it was only fake, in words. Because I didn’t obey their organizational forms and didn’t do work for their sectarian organization, they treated me so viciously.
At that time, before I moved into “integrating with/serving in workplace labor practice,” I had blind spots in my understanding of them. I was deceived by the illusion of their revolutionary phrases, and I wrongly believed that those beasts wearing human skin were revolutionary comrades—until I participated in融工 practice, and a network mobilization failed. Then my unrealistic fantasies about the CRS revisionist sect ruling group were completely shattered.
After that, I worked with those two comrades to oppose CRS. During this period, Yang Feng in May tried to use our three people to help Yang Feng’s small sect in Jinggangshan overthrow CRS, so that he could rise to become a new ruling group of the “left circle” on xmpp. (From how they treated us, it was clear that we had committed blind-movement errors again and again.)
So I split with Yang Feng and that group of petty-bourgeois creatures and thoroughly opposed them. At that time, I held a wrong view: I thought the problem with CRS was only a tiny minority, while most of the masses were good. But in the old left circle where petty-bourgeois students hold power, that is basically a joke. They chose to support CRS because of personal opportunistic motives—not because of some stance, but because of self-consciousness. That “majority” of “masses” was actually just a small handful of petty-bourgeois opportunist creatures. They were like faithful lap dogs, kneeling and worshipping the right-opportunist融工 line that CRS used toward the disengaged-from-the-proletariat “masses.” That融工 black line completely matched the interests of a small number of petty-bourgeois people. It also matched Honghua “Lord’s” personal interests of becoming a bureaucratic capitalist. Honghua wanted to transform those “left without leftness” and petty-bourgeois left who blindly worship him into laboring slaves for the organization—so the organization could put them to work. (No “left without leftness” is possible. Petty-bourgeois left, when detached from social practice, is easy to be domesticated into unconditional obedience to the organization—into lap dogs.)
So, Honghua is a self-appointed counterrevolutionary authority. He relies on deceiving petty-bourgeois masses and being elected by petty-bourgeois masses as a leader, but he basically doesn’t represent the interests of the proletariat. Therefore, we must grasp objective conditions offline, win over more masses, build revolutionary organizations, and proletarianize xmpp. Only then can the old stage of the old left circle where petty-bourgeois left holds power come to an end completely.
Down with the Sino-Revisionist social-imperialism! Long live the proletarian revolutionary cause of liberation! Completely overthrow the old world and open up a new world! Proletarians of the whole world, unite!
Their voice software for lectures and meetings is called Jitsi Meet, and it can be downloaded in the FD software.
What does this Azure Fire Red have to do with you?
Watchtower: Responsible for audits
Cultural Revolution Struggle Society: Mascot
Continued Revolution Society Public Group: Mass group chat
Engineering Department: Responsible for the technical work of the masses, such as flashing ROMs, creating bots
Military Armament Department: Discuss strategies and tactics to respond to Chinese repairs
The same question, now what I see is only this self-proclaimed “青火红” testimony, not fgugf1’s testimony.
I am a friend of Qinghonghuo, mainly because he revealed to me the inside stories of those who continue to run underground parliaments. He is unable to express them, so he wanted me to expose this information publicly, so he gave me the forum link, mainly out of fear of crackdown.
Why is it hard to speak up? If the Social Correction Organization has grasped Qinghuohong’s personal information, we should be able to find him offline, right? I feel this is a bit troublesome, because Qinghuohong’s name has already been revealed. If the people from the Social Correction Organization see the post, they will definitely go back to cause trouble.
He said CRS has become dominant in XMPP, so no matter what, he wants me to reveal the truth about the Jije organization, even if there are some security risks. In any case, the risks must be taken, but we should try to avoid unnecessary security risks.
Can we have the person Qinghuohong come to the forum in person? The forum isn’t XMPP, and if there’s nothing to hold onto to continue refining it in their hands, coming to the forum would be very easy.
Don’t casually label people as petty-bourgeois scum. There are many petty bourgeois, and the person himself is also petty bourgeois. The petty bourgeoisie also divides into left, center, and right, each with its own differences. The most powerful critique is a theoretical and factual critique, not belittling others and exalting oneself in language. In this paragraph, criticizing reformers is just insults, while praising oneself as revolutionary. This style is not much different from those traitors, and we do not follow this approach.