国家互联网信息办公室关于《互联网信息服务管理办法（修订草案征求意见稿）》再次公开征求意见的通知 [Notice from the Cyberspace Administration of China on Seeking Public Comment Again on the "Administrative Measures for Internet Information Services (Draft for Comment—Revised Draft)" 3 July 2026]

 

Pix credit here (Rene Magritte)

On July 3, 2026, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) released for comment a new draft of a substantial revision of its "Administrative Measures for Internet Information Services Law" [《互联网信息服务管理办法》]. Geopolitechs has provided a quite useful English language summary and analysis of its provisions, including an English language translation of the provision. That summary and analysis may be accessed from their website HERE. 

I add only the following comments.

developed in conversation with Google Gemini

 As one considers this addition to the constellation of Chinese AI regulatory production (itself an element and a factor in the ability of China to appropriately develop its productive forces in ways that align with its current understanding the of historically appropriate general contradiction within the guardrails of the 3rd and 4th Plenum focus on the trajectories of development and its character). Within these overarching constraint structures, China’s regulatory architecture operates on two distinct regulatory axes. The first is the Ideological/Value Axis: Driven by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and Party leadership, this track ensures that generative outputs, algorithmic recommendations, and multi-channel distribution adhere tightly to mainstream socialist values. This is executed through binding mechanisms such as algorithmic filing, security assessments for systems with public mobilization capabilities, and strict generation/synthesis watermarking. The second is the Technical/Industrial Axis: Coordinated via ministries like MIIT and the Ministry of Science and Technology, this track focuses on infrastructure, compute allocation, standardizing large model toolchains, and data security classification (e.g., the recent Network Data Security Risk Assessment Measures).

Here is my own summary of the Law--the complexity of which, along with its layering in and ar0und the growing stable of related or applicable law, regulation, and instruction on administrative application begin to reveal a regulatory foundation which, eventually (and like their European counterparts through the elaboration of their culturally necessary performance of regulatory supervision) can be understood, synthesized, aligned  and eventually driven by and through the computational capabilities of a machine systems. The result, as in Europe is the continued evolution of textually based simulacra, or instruction manual, from which simulation or virtualized instruction set for an idealized and deeply programmed performative rationality human collectives, their interactions and the role of individuals within it may be programmed. Indeed, what these measures suggest is merely another layer of the larger project of textually programming human behaviors by developing not law but a set of computational parameters that can be encoded onto the human (collective) body and the performance of humans within it. Perhaps it cannot be helped; and perhaps it is a vision of the what lies ahead as humans march toward the detachment of their idealized reality from the human condition, and thus detached of enhancing the role of vanguard human elements as the priest/experts/technician types of a scientifically ordered world the genius of which is now safeguarded in and as the idealized simulacra of the world which will represent the physical simulation of the the simulacra of perfection. 

Overview and Administrative Framework

The document consists of two main parts: an official notice issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China (简称“国家网信办”) dated July 3, 2026, announcing a public comment period ending August 2, 2026; the full text of the revised draft regulation (comprising 6 chapters and 94 articles); and an accompanying explanatory note detailing the rationale behind the revisions.

Chapter 1: General Provisions (Articles 1–7)

The first chapter establishes the statutory basis, scope, and foundational principles of the Measures.

• Statutory Basis and Scope (Articles 1–2): The regulation is formulated pursuant to upper-level laws including the Cybersecurity Law of the PRC. It applies strictly to any internet information services conducted within the territory of the PRC, as well as the supervision and management of those services.

• Core Principles (Article 3): Service providers and regulators must adhere to the leadership of the Communist Party of China, use Socialist Core Values as guidance, and follow the principles of human-centric design, classified management, collaborative progression, and innovative development. The explicit goal is to create a positive, healthy, and "clear" cyberspace.

• Regulatory Matrix (Article 4): The draft codifies a multi-agency horizontal division of regulatory authority:

  • National Cyberspace Administration (网信部门): Responsible for overarching coordination of national cybersecurity and the direct supervision, management, and enforcement of internet information content.

  • State Council Telecommunications Department (电信主管部门/MIIT): Responsible for industry management, market access, market order, network resources, and network infrastructure security.

  • State Council Public Security Department (公安部门): Responsible for physical network security protection, maintaining public order in cyberspace, and punishing cybercrimes.

  • State Security Agencies (国家安全机关): Responsible for combating internet activities that endanger national security.

  • Other Departments: Exercise supervision within their respective portfolios, while local authorities' duties are determined by state regulations.

• State Encouragement and Obligations (Articles 5–7): The state protects citizens' and organizations' rights to use internet services, encourages foundational research, and prioritizes IPv6 adoption. Providers must fulfill cybersecurity obligations, observe commercial and social ethics, and accept public supervision. Industry organizations are encouraged to establish self-regulatory codes. Article 7 mandates state monitoring and mitigation of domestic and overseas threats to national security, public interests, or citizen rights.

Market Access and Operational Establishment

Chapter 2: Establishment (Articles 8–13)

This chapter regulates the entry barriers, licensing tracks, and personnel requirements for operating an internet information service.

• The Approval Mandate (Articles 8–9): No entity may engage in internet information services without prior approval from the telecom department. If the service constitutes a commercial telecommunications business, the operator must secure a Telecommunications Business Operation License.

• License Revocation and Data Reporting: If an approved provider fails to conduct relevant business for two consecutive years, or ceases to meet the licensing criteria, the telecom department will cancel the license. Providers are also required to report network resources and operational metrics to assist market monitoring systems.

• Technical Compliance and Standards (Article 10): Services must utilize telecom-compliant network resources and deploy information security management systems and technical safeguards that meet mandatory national standards.

• Sector-Specific Pre-Approvals (Article 11): For specialized content areas—specifically news, culture, publishing, audio-visual programs, education, religion, and finance—operators must obtain explicit administrative permission from the respective sector-specific ministry prior to filing for telecom approvals or licenses.

• Personnel Qualifications (Article 12): Employees must maintain correct political, value, and public opinion orientations. Crucially, personnel in internet news information services must obtain specific professional qualifications and undergo mandatory training and assessments organized by national news, publishing, and cyberspace departments. Platforms must systematically train internal information security reviewers.

• Corporate Modifications (Article 13): Operators ceasing business must cancel their permits. Any changes to licensing parameters caused by mergers, acquisitions, or corporate restructuring require formal modification procedures with the original approving organ.

Operational Regulations and General Intermediary Duties

Chapter 3, Section 1: General Operational Provisions (Articles 14–40)

This section lays out the baseline compliance rules for day-to-day operations, applying across infrastructure, domain, and content service layers.

• Infrastructure and Domain Integrity (Articles 14–15): Network access providers (ISPs) are forbidden from providing hosting or connection services to any platform lacking a valid telecom approval number. The establishment of domain root servers, root registries, and recursive resolution services requires explicit telecom licenses. Domains must be legally owned by the operator, cannot contain legally prohibited content, and must be updated or cancelled upon corporate expiration. IP address allocation operates under a strict filing registry; ISPs cannot provide connections to unverified or false IP allocations.

• Public Filing and Labeling Display (Articles 16–17): Providers must file their operational indexes with local public security bureaus within 30 days of network connectivity. Platforms must clearly display their license numbers, approval IDs, and public security filing numbers in conspicuous locations. Operating outside the approved scope of services is strictly prohibited.

• Internal Governance and User Verification (Articles 18–19): Platforms must maintain robust internal structures, including user registration controls, account management, content review protocols, public patrol systems, emergency response capabilities, and content orientation management. They must verify user-submitted credentials if the user operates in a field requiring specific professional qualifications.

• Real-Name Identity Verification (Articles 19–21): Access providers, domain registrars, and information platforms must verify the true identity of users via national public network identity authentication services, resident identity cards, or unified social credit codes. Services must be withheld if a user refuses to provide valid identity info. Special verification measures must be deployed for minor users. Article 20 outlaws identity evasion tactics, such as using false credentials, misappropriating external accounts, or providing technical support to bypass real-name gates. Platforms must run dynamic verifications on existing accounts; accounts inactive for over six months must be flagged, prompted, or subjected to functional restrictions, suspension, or closure. Platforms must also support unlinking phone numbers when line ownership changes.

• Crime Prevention and Content Promotion (Articles 22–23): Intermediaries must deploy technical checks to prevent their services from facilitating criminal activity and report violations to public security organs. Conversely, Article 23 explicitly encourages the production and dissemination of content that elevates Socialist Core Values, traditional Chinese culture, revolutionary history, national unity, and achievements in socio-economic development.

• Prohibited and Adverse Content (Articles 24–25): Article 24 contains nine distinct bans on content that opposes constitutional principles, threatens national security or state secrets, incites subversion or secession, promotes terrorism/extremism, damages ethnic unity, desecrates revolutionary martyrs, devalues the military, spreads obscenity/gambling, propagates rumors disrupting economic order, or violates civil rights (reputation, privacy, intellectual property). Article 25 targets "adverse information" (不良信息), such as sensationalizing major policy adjustments, sudden emergencies, or high-profile criminal cases, as well as content harming minors. Such information cannot be highlighted or placed in prominent high-traffic sections.

• Market and Information Order (Articles 26–30): Article 26 explicitly bans malicious traffic manipulation, including illicitly publishing, deleting, or suppressing links for pay; automated algorithm gaming; bulk account creation; generating fake clicks, votes, rankings, or comments; hijacking traffic; or deliberately bypassing state regulatory technical controls. If prohibited or adverse information is detected, platforms, electronic message blasters, software download portals, and ISPs must immediately sever transmission, delete or block content, restrict account monetization or functionality, preserve logs, and report to authorities (Articles 27–29). Overseas entities generating content that damages national security or public interests face targeted state countermeasures. Article 30 bans providing data, tools, hosting, billing, or advertising assistance to anyone known to be violating these provisions.

• User Rights, Vulnerable Groups, and Specialized Frameworks (Articles 31–40):

  • Fact-Checking: Platforms must maintain mechanisms to actively refute online rumors (辟谣机制).

  • Fair Competition: Operators are prohibited from blocking competitors' legal links, interrupting app installations/upgrades, or using misleading buttons to divert users without consent (Article 32).

  • Consumer Protection: Pricing and service items must be fully transparent; bundled or forced subscription alterations are forbidden (Article 33).

  • Customer Service: Providers must supply human customer service staff scaled to their user base to handle complaints and appeals within reasonable windows (Article 34).

  • Minor Protection: The development of specialized "minor modes" and anti-addiction systems is heavily incentivized (Article 35).

  • Accessibility: Services must provide dedicated features and safety interfaces for elderly and disabled citizens (Article 36).

  • Security Assessments: Any service possessing public opinion attributes or social mobilization capabilities must complete a formal administrative security assessment (Article 37).

  • Special Management Shares: Media and publishing platforms may be subject to the state's special management share ("golden share") system (特殊管理股制度) (Article 38).

  • Log Retention: Platforms must preserve user registrations, published information records, and network logs for a minimum of 6 months, including NAT (Network Address Translation) registries for shared access points (Article 39).

  • Open Source: Operators are encouraged to prioritize open-source operating systems for app development (Article 40).

Specialized Intermediate Frameworks: Platforms and AI

Chapter 3, Section 2: Platform Information Services (Articles 41–54)

This section introduces precise obligations for platform service providers acting as structural intermediaries.

• Rule Transparency and Credit Grading (Articles 41–42): Platforms must visibly display their community guidelines, rulebooks, and terms of service on homepages or application settings. Alterations require formal public comment periods. Regulatory authorities can order revisions of non-compliant rules. Platforms must track user accounts via credit-grading systems and report these metrics to the CAC.

• Public Account ("We-Media") and MCN Management (Articles 43–46): For accounts operating in regulated professional domains (e.g., medicine, law, finance, education, military), platforms must verify their professional backgrounds and certifications, applying specific visual tags to their accounts. Public account homepages must display the operator's actual identity, unified social credit code, contact info, IP location, and their associated Multi-Channel Network (MCN) agency. High-impact public accounts are forbidden from spreading prohibited or adverse content; platforms must deploy strict penalties (monetization suspensions, account caps, bans) against violators. High-impact account registries and livestreaming platforms must file their background rosters with provincial cyberspace departments within 30 days of operation.

• Anti-Cyberbullying Mandates (Article 47): Platforms must build algorithmic detection models, feature databases, and risk-warning alerts to identify cyber-violence. If risk is detected, platforms must dynamically re-verify account identities, throttle traffic, or issue warning pop-ups. They must also provide users with immediate defensive tools: one-click blocking of specific users, disabling trackbacks/comments, rejecting direct messages, and automated evidence preservation features.

• MCN Agency Accountability (Articles 52–53): Content content distribution networks and MCNs must register as formal businesses, appoint content directors, maintain sufficient review staff, and publicize internal rules. If their contracted accounts violate content laws due to the MCN's lack of oversight, the MCN faces shared legal liability. MCNs are prohibited from organizing, inducing, or assisting accounts in violating rules, and platforms must penalize non-compliant MCNs via service restrictions or blacklist bans.

• Large-scale Internet Platforms (Article 54): Defined specifically as platforms possessing over 50 million registered users or more than 10 million monthly active users (MAUs). They are legally required to:

  1. Maintain independent compliance departments and dedicated compliance officers, conducting regular open security reviews.

  2. Publish distinct platform rules protecting the rights of internal vendors and platform-dependent laborers.

  3. Resolve complaints regarding prohibited content or adverse behavior within an accelerated 24-hour window.

  4. Publish annual corporate social responsibility reports tracking data safety, privacy, and minor safety.

  5. Report adjustments in major shareholders, actual controlling individuals, or primary business vectors to local cyberspace bureaus.

  6. Refrain from utilizing data, proprietary algorithms, or platform rules to disadvantage competitors or harm consumer rights.

 

Pix generated with Google Gemini

Chapter 3, Section 3: Smart Information Services (Articles 55–64)

This section regulates the development and hosting of artificial intelligence and algorithmic recommendation systems.

• Development Incentives and General Transparency (Articles 55–56): The state balances safety with development, supporting high-quality datasets, algorithm standards, and AI model training. Smart service operators must publicly disclose the basic technical principles, core deployment mechanisms, training data sources, and intended objectives of their models.

• Algorithmic Filings and Data Lineage (Articles 57–59): Models with public opinion or mobilization capabilities must undergo independent security reviews, complete formal algorithm filings (算法备案), and track subsequent updates or cancellations. Apps accessing smart hardware systems must undergo compatibility and security testing. Training data data processing must rely on legal data and verified base models. If a smart service generates news content, its training corpora must be sourced exclusively from units officially authorized by state regulations.

• Synthesized Content and Recommendation Restraints (Articles 60–61): Generated or synthetically altered content must feature permanent watermarks complying with national technical standards; altering, removing, or hiding these labels is prohibited. Recommendation engine providers must allow users to easily opt-out of personalized profiling or select entirely non-personalized alternatives. Algorithms must favor mainstream values in high-visibility areas (landing pages, hot-searches, pop-ups) and are prohibited from tagging users with illegal interest keywords, manipulating search rankings, over-recommending content, or engineering fake trending topics.

• Gig Economy Labor Safeguards (Article 62): AI systems used for labor scheduling, recruitment, or job evaluation must follow strict necessity principles. Order distribution, payment algorithms, and work-hour assignments must remain fair, reasonable, and transparent. Algorithms affecting labor rights cannot be modified without seeking input from workers and publicizing changes beforehand.

• Agent Services and Risk Mitigation (Articles 63–64): Providers of AI agents (智能体) or agent distribution platforms must ensure their products comply with national safety rules and maintain active security oversight. If a model generates prohibited information or exhibits major systemic risks, operators must immediately halt generation, cut transmissions, update training protocols to rectify the error, and file reports with cyberspace departments.

Supervision, Inspection, and Corporate Liability

Chapter 4: Supervision and Inspection (Articles 65–73)

• Agency Powers (Articles 65–66): Cyberspace, telecom, and public security organs possess full mandates to inspect providers, who cannot refuse or obstruct investigations. Agencies must coordinate to prevent overlapping or redundant inspections. Shared information systems must link licensing data, MCN filings, and user registries. Criminal cases must be transferred to judicial organs promptly.

• Investigative Actions and Special Controls (Articles 69–73): Regulators will focus inspections on complaint processing, account crackdowns, platform rules, and credit monitoring. If safety risks emerge, regulators can formally summon (约谈) corporate legal representatives for mandatory rectifications. During investigations, officers are authorized to interrogate witnesses, copy network logs, conduct on-site inspections, and seize or seal electronic hardware, storage drives, and premises (Article 70). Confidential information acquired during enforcement must be kept secret by staff (Article 71). Under Article 73, subject to direct State Council approval, cyberspace and telecom ministries can enforce temporary, localized, or functional restrictions on any communication platform possessing public mobilization capabilities during severe cyber or social crises.

Chapter 5: Legal Responsibility (Articles 74–89)

This chapter outlines the penalty scale for compliance failures.

Offenses	Statutory Penalties and Administrative Actions
Unlicensed Telecom Operations (Article 74)	Confiscation of illicit revenue; fines of 3 to 5 times the illicit gains. If gains are under 50,000 RMB, fines range from 100,000 to 1,000,000 RMB. Serious cases face mandatory business suspension.
Operating Without Baseline Approval (Article 74)	Ordered rectification; persistent failure results in forced operational shutdown.
Missing Public Security Filings (Article 74)	Warning and ordered correction; failure to comply leads to technical network suspension.
Fraudulent Licensing/Approvals (Article 75)	Revocation of permits/IDs; confiscation of gains; fines from 100,000 to 1,000,000 RMB.
General Structural Infractions (Article 76)	(Covers missing labels, rule failures, bad customer service, minor safety leaks). Warnings, revenue confiscation; persistent or serious failures trigger fines from 50,000 to 500,000 RMB, website/app closures, or business license cancellations. Executives face personal fines from 10,000 to 100,000 RMB.
Severe Content & Algorithmic Failures (Article 77)	Standard: Fines up to 500,000 RMB, app suspension, or license revocation. Serious: Fines from 500,000 to 2,000,000 RMB; managers face 10,000 to 100,000 RMB fines and 6-month to 1-year sector management bans. Extremely Severe: Fines from 2,000,000 to 10,000,000 RMB; managers face fines up to 1,000,000 RMB and a permanent ban from executive or security roles in the internet sector.
Failure to Halt Prohibited Content (Article 81)	Fines from 50,000 to 500,000 RMB; serious cases trigger fines from 500,000 to 2,000,000 RMB. If the fallout causes "especially severe consequences," corporate fines scale from 2,000,000 to 10,000,000 RMB, and executives face personal fines up to 1,000,000 RMB.
"We-Media" Violations (Article 83)	Baseline accounts face warnings and profile restrictions, plus fines from 10,000 to 50,000 RMB. High-impact accounts face fines from 50,000 to 500,000 RMB alongside account termination or re-registration bans.
Market/Traffic Manipulation (Article 84)	Fines from 100,000 to 1,000,000 RMB; serious infractions scale from 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 RMB with mandatory business suspension.
Regulatory Misconduct (Article 82)	State staff leaking data or abusing power face formal administrative or criminal prosecution.

• Coordinated Statutes and Civil Remedies (Articles 86–89): Other infractions defer to upper-level laws like the Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law. Civil damages must be compensated independently, and criminal accountability overrides administrative fines. Under Article 88, severe violators face inclusion on the Internet Serious Dishonesty List, resulting in long-term multi-platform restrictions on registering new accounts or using information features. Mitigations follow the Administrative Punishment Law guidelines. 

Supplementary Definitions

Chapter 6: Supplementary Provisions (Articles 90–94)

Article 90 provides precise definitions for ten core operational terms used throughout the regulation:

1. Internet Information Services: Providing information to the public via websites, applications, or agents using microblogs, instant messaging, search engines, livestreams, video, text sharing, knowledge reasoning, task execution, or public accounts.

2. Internet Access Services (ISPs): Providing network routing or hosting to platforms, including IDC (Internet Data Center) operations, CDN (Content Delivery Network) management, and basic ISP access via network proxies, server hosting, or space leasing.

3. Internet Accounts: Usernames and profiles registered to use internet information services.

4. Internet User Public Accounts ("We-Media"): Accounts producing text, graphics, or audio-visual content aimed at the general public, excluding profiles meant solely for private communication.

5. Highly Influential Public Accounts: Accounts categorized by substantial follower bases, high read/forward/comment volume, significant annual monetization revenue, or prominent influence within a specialized domain or demographic.

6. Public Account Production/Operation Entities: Individuals or organizations registering and running public accounts for content generation.

7. Internet Information Content Multi-Channel Distribution Services (MCNs): Agencies providing planning, production, distribution, marketing, promotion, or brokerage services to public accounts.

8. Internet Livestreaming Platform Providers: Platform intermediaries hosting live broadcast content.

9. Application Distribution Platform Providers: Marketplaces hosting and distributing software applications.

10. Large-scale Internet Platforms: Digital platforms with over 50 million registered users or more than 10 million Monthly Active Users (MAUs), whose operations exert a significant impact on economic performance, online order, or user rights.

• Foreign Investment and Transnational Services (Articles 91–92): Foreign-invested entities must comply with specific foreign investment statutes, alongside special rules governing e-commerce retail and supply chains. Foreign entities or individuals distributing information into the PRC or utilizing domestic internet infrastructure must strictly obey these Measures. International treaties apply unless the PRC has explicitly registered a reservation.

• Cross-Sectoral Compliance and Enforcement Date (Articles 93–94): Services touching upon data privacy, competition, media management, or state secrets must obey adjacent specialized laws. The document leaves the final enactment date open for subsequent formal confirmation.

The text of the original draft appears below. 

El caldero de la sabiduría: vislumbres de las transformaciones en la investigación para los productores de conocimiento y la horticultura de datos.

 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE VERSION 

 Ya no son solo los estudiantes quienes descubren el valor de las fuentes de investigación en línea —incluidos compiladores, modelos de lenguaje de gran tamaño (LLM), sitios de recomendación y sistemas similares a los *chatbots*— que facilitan la labor operativa de generar conocimiento en plataformas dedicadas al consumo y la producción de datos, los cuales los seres humanos a veces interpretan como conocimiento. Estas plataformas se disponen en capas dentro de un espacio tridimensional entre los productores de conocimiento (organizados a su vez en jerarquías sociales y económicas: académicos, *influencers*, líderes de opinión, manipuladores, propagandistas, teólogos, agitadores, la "gente común", organismos económicos, sociales y culturales, entre otros). Cada uno de estos grupos impone sus propias reglas de producción y consumo y, a menudo, se encuentra profundamente interconectado con los demás (mediante dinámicas de acoplamiento estructural, irritación o interpenetración —alineadas con intersubjetividades totales o parciales—). En conjunto, estas dinámicas impulsan ahora a los sistemas colectivos humanos hacia la gestión o la búsqueda de estructuras más conscientes para ordenar sus "jaulas cognitivas" y, a partir de ahí, ordenar a los seres humanos agregados que constituyen sus consumidores y productores —ya sea en la producción económica, social, cultural o política—, sirviendo además como el medio por el cual la cognición y el ordenamiento humanos pueden volverse colectivos, estables y objeto de una disciplina (a veces extrema). Dicha disciplina adopta ahora una forma virtual, manifestándose a través de los tropos heredados de antiguas formas de apostasía, herejía, desviación, conductas rebeldes y similares; elementos que siempre han servido como objetos de datos e información para las plataformas destinadas a mantener no al individuo humano, sino necesariamente al colectivo humano (aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí y aquí se encuentran enlaces a reflexiones sobre diversos aspectos de esto).

Sin embargo, es en la organización de la base de producción de conocimiento de esta industria fundamental —dedicada a la protección, producción y disciplina de la colectividad estable en la era de lo virtual, donde la inteligencia de las máquinas comienza a asumir el papel de guardia pretoriana colectiva—, donde estos impulsos vuelven a resultar interesantes. Estas reflexiones surgieron al considerar una publicación bastante interesante y útil en "X":

Emrullah @emrullahai 

Traducido del turco
SITIOS QUE LOS ACADÉMICOS Y ESTUDIANTES DE DOCTORADO UTILIZAN SIEMPRE, PERO QUE NO QUIEREN QUE TODO EL MUNDO CONOZCA. Guarden esto sin falta. No necesitan seguir pagando constantemente en el ámbito académico. Los sitios que figuran a continuación serán más que suficientes para ustedes. 1. http://annas-archive.org La biblioteca abierta más grande del mundo. Casi todos los libros de texto asignados por sus profesores están disponibles aquí de forma gratuita. 2. http://scispace.com Un motor de búsqueda de artículos académicos. Ordenen los resultados por citas para encontrar las investigaciones de mayor impacto. 3. http://papernity.com Un motor de generación de tesis y artículos académicos. Redacción de secciones sin alucinaciones. 4. http://semanticscholar.org Buscador de artículos impulsado por IA, desarrollado por el Allen Institute. Resalta cada cita en su contexto. 5. http://connectedpapers.com Introduce un artículo y visualiza todos los trabajos relacionados en un gráfico. Revela qué leen realmente los expertos en conjunto. 6. http://elicit.com Un asistente de investigación basado en IA. Haz cualquier pregunta y obtén tablas de artículos estructuradas junto con hallazgos clave. 7. http://consensus.app Combina los resultados de miles de artículos en una única respuesta. Evita la selección sesgada de datos (*cherry-picking*). 8. http://researchrabbit.ai El Spotify de los artículos. Sugiere nuevas investigaciones basadas en lo que ya has leído. 9. http://litmaps.com Visualiza cadenas de citas. Muestra cómo una idea se ha propagado a lo largo de décadas de investigación. 10. http://scite.ai Indica qué artículos respaldan, refutan o mencionan una afirmación concreta. Ahorra horas de verificación de datos. 11. http://core.ac.uk 200 millones de artículos de acceso abierto en un único índice de búsqueda. El archivo académico gratuito más grande del mundo. 6:24 a. m. · 30 de junio de 2026·391,1 mil visualizaciones (Fuente citada AQUÍ; original en turco AQUÍ)

Permítanme ser claro, aunque solo sea porque los impulsos actuales de ciertos sistemas cognitivos podrían interpretar esto como una forma de cebo de clics (*clickbait*) o de incitación a la ira (*rage bait*), bajo diversas perspectivas. En primer lugar, no me preocupa el valor de estas recomendaciones; no comparto la lista como un respaldo ni para fomentar comportamientos —éticos o no— en la producción o el uso del conocimiento, independientemente del sistema o el propósito con el que se utilicen estas herramientas potenciadas por máquinas. Dejo eso para quienes estén más interesados ​​en preservar la integridad de la "jaula cognitiva" en la que se encuentren inmersos.

Quizás lo más interesante sea la forma en que estas herramientas emergentes de producción de conocimiento mediante máquinas permiten vislumbrar cómo la generación de saber se desvincula de la experiencia humana. El conocimiento se convierte, cada vez más, en una mercancía —una materia prima— para la construcción de otros objetos (sociales, culturales, económicos, etc.) y para la creación de procesos y objetos de utilidad social; entre ellos, los bloques de conocimiento que permiten a la sociedad racionalizarse a sí misma y, en consecuencia, ordenar racionalmente sus fuerzas productivas —incluidos los seres humanos— en su seno. En este proceso, se invierten los planteamientos del posmodernismo y su crítica social.

Lo que constituía el elemento crítico de lo humano en la formación del *habitus* (Bourdieu), el poder-saber (Foucault) y el *Lebenswelt* o mundo de la vida (Husserl) está mostrando signos de transferir ese papel fundamental a los sistemas de máquinas y a sus crisoles de producción de conocimiento y datos —heredados o apropiados de los humanos—. Los expertos (médicos, psicólogos, académicos, criminólogos: esa clase experta de vanguardia) ya no pueden ejercer autoridad basándose en la apariencia discursiva de poseer hechos objetivos, desplegados con autoridad dentro de discursos históricamente establecidos (Foucault). En su lugar, se convierten en canales de autoridad, siempre y cuando resulte socialmente útil dotar a su función ministerial de tal significado. El conocimiento ya no se genera exclusivamente en plataformas especializadas (los campos de Bourdieu, el mundo académico, el derecho, la medicina) supervisadas por expertos que actúan como agentes cuyas percepciones y prácticas están moldeadas por su *habitus* (hábitos y disposiciones culturales arraigados) en una suerte de bucle intersubjetivo recursivo (Bourdieu). Pasan a ser facilitadores, operarios de una producción cuya intersubjetividad ocurre ahora en los crisoles del aprendizaje automático y en espacios computacionales (y pronto cuánticos), para luego ser traducida y simplificada para el consumo humano. Los expertos humanos pueden servir ahora de puente entre los «sistemas expertos» abstractos (como algoritmos, instituciones o ciencias formales) y las realidades intuitivas del mundo de la vida. Pueden aportar el contexto, la empatía y el criterio necesarios para aplicar el conocimiento teórico a escenarios humanos complejos del mundo real. Sin embargo, hay un paso muy breve entre preservar el papel del experto como canal y democratizar el canal mismo.

¿Y adónde conduce esto al colectivo humano? Quizás de vuelta a Nietzsche y a su *El crepúsculo de los ídolos*. Nuestras élites quedan reducidas nuevamente al arquetipo del sacerdote: esa vanguardia elegida, de algún modo, para interpretar o «escuchar» la voz de una fuente externa generadora de verdad; una verdad cuya creencia sirve de argamasa para racionalizar el mundo y organizar a los seres humanos colectivizados. Ahora es posible percibir la ironía en la célebre pregunta de Nietzsche: «Dios ha muerto. Dios sigue muerto. Y nosotros lo hemos matado. ¿Cómo nos consolaremos, nosotros, los asesinos de todos los asesinos?». La respuesta, al parecer, es la que advirtió en su día Mary Shelley: recreamos a Dios a nuestra propia imagen; hemos moldeado un dios a nuestra semejanza e insuflado vida humana a sistemas de máquinas a los que ahora serviremos, convirtiéndolos en un mecanismo más para que las vanguardias controlen a los seres humanos colectivizados (cuestión que se analiza más a fondo en el contexto cognitivo de la era de la inteligencia de las máquinas aquí: *The Soulful Machine, the Virtual Person, and the “Human” Condition*).

 

A continuación, se presenta la versión en formato póster de la primera imagen, a modo de resumen del argumento. Versión HTML AQUÍ. 

 

The Knowledge Cauldron--Glimmerings of Research Transformations for Knowledge Producers and the Horticulture of Data

 

Image created with Claude

 Versión en español

It is not just students any more who are discovering the value of online research sources, including compilers, LLMs, recommender sites and quasi chatbots that aid in the blue collar work of knowledge production on platforms for the consumption and production of data in a form that humans sometimes signify as knowledge. 

These platforms are layered in three dimensional space among knowledge producers (themselves organized in social and economic hierarchies (academics, influencers, through leaders, manipulators, progagandists, theologians, rabblerousers, "common people," economic, social and cultural organs and the like), each of which enforces their own production and consumption rules and each of which is sometimes deeply inter-connected (through the dynamics of structural coupling, irritation, or inter-penetration (aligned with aligned or partial inter-subjectivities) that together now propel human collective systems in their management or drive toward more conscious structures of ordering their cognitive cages, and from that of ordering the aggregated humans that constitute their consumers and producers--as economics, social, cultural or political production--and as the means by which human cognition and ordering may be made collective, stable, and the subject of (sometimes extreme) disciplining. That disciplining itself  now takes virtual form as the inherited tropes of older forms of apostasy, heresy, deviation, rogue behaviors and the like which has always been the data-information object platforms for the maintenance, not of the human, but necessarily of the human collective (some links to reflections on aspects of this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).    

But it is the organization of the knowledge production basis of this fundamental industry for the protection/production/disciplining of stable collectivity in the age of the virtual, in which machine intelligence now begins to assume the role of collective praetorian, that these impulses become interesting again.  These thoughts came to mind as I considered a quite interesting and useful posting on "X" :

Emrullah @emrullahai

Translated from Turkish
SITES THAT ACADEMICS AND PhD STUDENTS ALWAYS USE BUT DON'T WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW ABOUT. Save this for sure. You don't need to keep paying constantly in an academic sense. The sites below will more than suffice for you. 1. http://annas-archive.org The world's largest open library. Almost every textbook assigned by your professor is available here for free. 2. http://scispace.com A search engine for academic articles. Sort by citations to find the most impactful research. 3. http://papernity.com An academic thesis and article generation engine. Section writing with zero hallucinations. 4. http://semanticscholar.org AI-powered article search developed by the Allen Institute. Highlights every citation in its context. 5. http://connectedpapers.com Enter an article, and see every related work mapped out as a graph. Uncovers what experts are actually reading together. 6. http://elicit.com An AI research assistant. Ask any question and get structured article tables along with key findings. 7. http://consensus.app Combines the results of thousands of articles into a single answer. Prevents cherry-picking. 8. http://researchrabbit.ai The Spotify for articles. Suggests new research based on what you've already read. 9. http://litmaps.com Visualizes citation chains. Shows how an idea has spread through decades of research. 10. http://scite.ai Tells you which articles support, refute, or mention any given claim. Saves hours of fact-checking. 11. http://core.ac.uk 200 million open-access articles in a single searchable index. The world's largest free academic archive.
6:24 AM · Jun 30, 2026
·391.1K Views (Source Cite HERE; original Turkish HERE)

Let me be clear, if only because the current impulses of certain cognitive  systems of might see ion this some sort of click or rage bait frm or through any number of lenses. First I am unconcerned about the value of these recommendations; I am not sharing the list as either any sort of endorsement or to encourage either ethical or unethical behaviors in the production or use of knowledge within whatever system and for whatever purpose any of these machine enhanced systems may be utilized. I leave that for those more interested in preserving the integrity of whatever cognitive cage in which they may be invested. 

 What becomes more interesting, perhaps, is the way in which these emerging machine knowledge production tools provide a glimpse at the detachment of knowledge production from human expertise. It becomes, increasingly, a commodity that is raw material for the construction of other objects (social, cultural, economic, etc.) and the production of societally useful objects and processes, including the knowledge blocks from out of which the society itself may rationalize itself and thus rationalized order its productive forces, including humans, within it. In the process it turns the post modernism and its social critique on its head. 

What had been the critical element of the human in the constitution of habitus (Bourdieu), power-knowledge (Foucault), and lenbenswelt (Husserl) is showing the signs of passing that critical role to machine systems and their inherited or appropriated human data-knowledge production cauldrons. Experts (like doctors, psychologists, academics, criminologists--the vanguardist expert class ) no longer may wield authority through the discursive appearance of the possession objective facts deployed authoritatively within historically established discourses (Foucault). They become instead authoritative conduits, for as long as it is socially useful to construct their ministerial role with that sort of signification. Knowledge is no produced within specialized knowledge production platforms (Bourdieu's fields, academia, law, medicine) curated by experts acting as agents whose perceptions and practices are shaped by their habitus (ingrained cultural habits and dispositions) in a sort of recursive inter-subjective loop (Bourdieu). They become, instead the facilitators, the field hands of production the inter-subjectivity of which occurs now within the cauldrons of machine learning and computational (soon quantum) spaces, then translated and reduced for human consumption.  Human experts may now serve as the bridge between abstract "expert systems" (like algorithms, institutions, or formal sciences) and the intuitive realities of the lifeworld. They might provide the context, empathy, and judgment needed to apply theoretical knowledge to complex, real-world human scenarios. Yet it is only a small step from preserving the role of expert as conduit and democratizing the conduit itself. 

And where does this take the human collective? Perhaps back to Nietzsche and his Twilight of the Idols. Our elites are reduced again to the type of the priest--the vanguard elected in some fashion to interpret or "hear" the voice of some exogenous producer of truth, the belief in which is the cement with which the world may be rationalized and collectivized humans can be organized.  And now it is possible to hear the irony in Nietzsche's famous question: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? " The answer, it appears, is as Mary Shelly once warned--we recreate God in our own image, in our own image we have fashioned a god and breathed human life into machine systems which we will now serve as yet another mechanism for the control of collectivized humans by its vanguards (considered further in the cognitive context of the machine intelligence age here:  'The Soulful Machine, the Virtual Person, and the “Human” Condition'). 

Pix credit here

 The full poster version of the first image as a summary of the argument follows below. HTML version HERE. 

Communism, Settler Colonialism and the American Way: Reflections on Independence Day Remarks of President Trump at Mt. Rushmore and Mayor Mamdani in New York City

 

Pix credit here

July 4 is celebrated in the United Sates as Independence Day--the day when the Continental Congress is said to have ratified the Declaration of Independence. In past years I have posted U.S. Independence Day  reflections to this site (here. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) as a way to commemorate the event and celebrate the holiday.

Pix credit here

For this year I again offer a reflection. This year the focus is on President Trump's July 3th message to the nation from Mt. Rushmore (Transcript: President Trump Remarks at Mount Rushmore, Jul. 3, 2026) and Mayor Mamdani's equally interesting message to the nation from behind the desk once used by George Washington in New York City (Transcript: Mayor Mamdani’s Address Marking America’s 250th Birthday). The text of both addresses follow below. They are twins of sorts.They are best understood as the  quintessentially American form of creating in the other a sort of semiotic monstrosity against which each offers themselves as some sort of advance guard of protection and a core of leadership whose guidance will bring the uninformed and undeveloped masses to an appropriate relationship with the essence of the4 meaning of their relationship to power and society. Each, in their own way continue the process of peddling the sort of Leninist oversight the trajectories of which have only accelerated since the end of the 19th century, and the naming of which honors the Soviets who were first able to develop what ultimately become a pathetically failed effort (like that of the Cuban proteges today) of a style of governance that appears at its most ruthlessly successful when encased in the Priestly Leninism of an (Iranian) Mullah-Mamluke state or as practiced in the more dynamic and culturally sensitive version of Marxist Leninism as practiced in China today (for Iranian Leninist constitutionalism here; for Chinese Marxist Leninist constitutionalism here). 

Pix credit here

American liberal democratic Leninism, like the politics of the United States, is, if anything, a study in contrasts. It is more than that. Those contrast converge around the art, psychology and semiotics of "othering"-- people, religion, ethnicity, race, sex, habits, size, diet, car choices. . . . it doesn't really matter, the "othering" is what matters. There is no shame in othering and it has no affinity to political. social, cultural, ethnic, racial, or other categories form and through which "othering" becomes both sport and politics--with social consequences and Leninist aspirations (in the sense of using  othering in the service of identifying what passes in the United States for vanguards of social, religious, political, academic or other forces all eager to lead and guide everyone else toward whether ideal has captured their fancy or through which they have come to order the world and insist that everyone else partake in the glory of that vision). the political left or right, whether from the position of social expectations or religious premises, race, or something else. . . it doesn't really matter, the "othering" is what matters.  Education may supply the language; it is not a predicate for the convergence of the habits of othering that have become, in a sense, the great identifier of the American spirit in 2026. 

That becomes clear when one compares two political figures who might be styled exemplars of the art of othering--not just each other--but as a means of signifying actions, events, and characteristics as the spyholes through which worlds can be constructed, concepts and objects can be signified, and the "other shoe" of othering--its fatal attraction to the Leninist impulse to view humans as clay (and dumb or uneducated, or unenlightened lumps of possibility) that may be molded to suit some vision or other than they assume each embodies.  Yet the self-appointed drivers of American values, belief, actions, expectations, different in every generation but always interested in influence--of belief, of the ordering of a rationalization of (political but also social and economic) of reality and thus its forms of approaching challenging and envisioning an ideal (the signification of the otherwise abstracted notions that constitute the normative framework of the Republic). 

 

Pix credit here

From a semiotic perspective the speeches are remarkably similar. Each invokes old political-cultural objects and signifies them in ways that align with underlying foundational presumptions about an idealized version of the United States that then serves as the basis through which one can elaborate those expectations, including expectations of belief, that then serves as a means of othering heretics and identifying apostasy.  In this case they seek to other each other and in the process invoke the very sort of Leninist settler colonialist palette that each finds useful when deployed against the other. Settler colonialism, usually deployed as a semiotic fetish in shaping discourse and the significs of power relations among differentiated groups within and among polities (especially among certain political elements of intellectual elites and their claques but by no means limited in its utility to them and their narrow political-social-cultural agendas), might also be thought useful as a way of framing, more generally, the dynamics of settler-indigenous relations not just historically but as a contemporaneous expression of the political-social-cultural consequences of migration as a function of particular ways of approaching the meaning and application of core abstract concepts of a liberal democratic polity as populations are displaced, engorged, and thus transformed. It is migrant-colonialist in the sense of the notion that waves of migrations have an inherent or natural right or expectation of embedding their own signification of politics-economic-religion etc, into the territories which they then occupy or gather in. At its limit it suggests the assimilation of indigenous populations into the lebenswelt of migrants; but it also is embedded in the idea of migrant contributions to (re)shaping their lands of settlement through the contributions of their own cognitive cages into and now as part of the fabric of an expanded indigenous colonial space. It is Leninist in the sense that it also embraces the notion of vanguard leadership the purpose of which is to shape or direct  (and accelerate) this process of political reshaping of indigenous socio-culture to suit a re-imagined ideal that is the product of this assimilation. 

For the President that colonialist experience became hard wired with the founding of the Republic; for New York's Mayor settler colonialism is an ongoing experience  lubricated by and through waves of migration  that reshape the Republic more to their liking. Each then defines patriotism with respect to their sense of the temporality of settler colonialist power. 

The Mayor's settler colonialism is worth a little more examination if only because it raises some interesting issues the resolution of which  may not be possible (or may expose the subtextual premises or objectives that drive analysis). It is possible to read in the Mayor's text the suggestion that colonialism is shaped differently in every generation and in context, but that that migration represents a form of settling colonialism that is very much in the spirit of the founding ideology of the Republic--which itself is, for him perhaps, grounded in the notion of constant revolution driven by waves of migrants who reshape the Republic in a sort of dialectic with the indigenous population into which they are embedded or will displace (the latter for example in the subtext of the discursive oddity of identifying and counting discrete groups as objects signifying power to project and impose cultural-social-economic-and political norms against shifting collective ideals).  What makes the Mayor's settler colonialism good is the conceit that the waves of migrants were forced to the Americas against their will in one way or another. Notice the passive voice: "For generation after generation, we have been told that when the world has sent its people to our shores, it has not sent its best." Any yet that appears to be, one might suggest, the traditional patterns of migration of peoples all over the world. It is a thin reed indeed to distinguish similar consequences from migration--indeed it is not intent but perhaps effect that might be a useful additional consideration. In any case, the New York Mayor consciously represents the ruling forces of such displacement as an elite (and therefore leading element) of the  the newer waves of colonialist migration (as he mentions) in which role one can view that collective as a vanguard element of the rationalizing reshaping of the Republic more in the image of that current wave of colonialist migration. He represents good settler colonialism among as opposed to others against some of which he has campaigned. 

 The truth, my friends, is that America is exceptional because here, nothing is fixed into place. The frontier may be closed, we may have walked on the moon, but the work of fulfilling the values first enshrined in the Declaration of Independence — that work endures and it belongs to us all. It belongs too to our newest Americans, those standing here with me today, all of whom were recently naturalized. Nearly a decade ago, I too felt what you feel, the joy of no longer being just a New Yorker, but an American too. You each hold a special power, the power to determine what America means. (Mamdani Remarks)

The President references a colonialist experience locked in time: 

You do not have to be born here, but you do have to love what we have built. You must love our country. There has never been anything like us anywhere on Earth, and we are not going to let anyone take that away. . . . Yet, as we approach this magnificent anniversary, we see our American identity under a renewed attack. A generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of communism, there is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success. . . As for those who peddle Marxist lies about our heritage, tell our children that we live on stolen land or that our heroes were oppressors, they’re doing something much worse than slandering our past. They are slandering and attacking our future. Not going to let that happen. They’re trying to tear down the great American character to destroy the people who declared independence, who crossed the Delaware, who settled the West and conquered the skies. You know who those people are. But we will never let that happen. (Trump Remarks)

The communist trope ought not to be underestimated in its own right. It is both a historical trope and a current semiotic signification of precisely the sort of deviation that is quite visible through the lens of the Trump Administration (see discussion Leninism Unbound?: The U.S. Celebrates "Anti-Communism Week 2025" [2-8 November]: A Reverie on President Trump's Proclamation). The object now is the very essence of the constant revolution  which is the signification in which Mayor Mamdani alludes and which the President understands. These then shape their sense (the semiotics) of patriotism, and in the process provide a window onto its political expression within  the MAGA and Democratic Socialist (both so-called) camps.  For the New York Mayor it follows that the Republic, as a function of migration as a constant, is a social-ethnic state of settler colonialist revolution/transformation, in the style of Trotsky:

There are some who respond to those who ask for more from America with a simple refrain. “Love it or leave it,” they say. But patriotism has never been about pretending our nation is without flaws. Patriotism is every act of righteous dissent. It is every march led under the heavy sun. It is every protest held a decade before its time. It is precisely because we love this nation that we will not leave it. After all, who loves America more than those who have sacrificed so much to make it free?(Mamdani Remarks)

For the President, this  state of transformation and dialectic, and certainly one grounded in the inherent transformative nature of migration, is  the essence of subversion:

For generations, it was understood that the core patriotic duty of every American was to pass this culture on to our children and to preserve the nation for centuries and centuries to come. But in recent years, there’s been an undeniable attempt to change this exceptional character, to beat the American spirit out of us, alienate us from our history, and to make it impossible to even answer the question, what does it mean to be an American? (Trump Remarks)

And both embrace quite distinct significations of the fundamental principles that each extracts from the founding documents. That is the most fascinating part of the comparison--the evocation of common text into which are infused substantially distinct significs made possible because the grounding cognitive starting points of each is to some extent largely incompatible--and deliberately so.  What separates them is the object of their Leninism. The Mayor's world, and world view, is fundamentally organized within and as collectivized, it is a collectivized reality the object of which is to manage the relations among them. Individuals are visible avatars of the only object/person with signification--the collective--ethnic, religious, affective, social, and the like. Like the organization of politics within Chinese Marxist Leninism (and its Whole Process People's Democracy), the individual may be a recursive expression of collectivized organs, but it is that organ that signifies and represents  that collective and within governance stands for them and as them. And each has a set of characteristics that are immutable and historically embedded.

Hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants arrived with stomachs aching from a famine manufactured by imperial cruelty. Chinese sailors settled in what is today Chinatown. Millions more traveled under the Statue of Liberty and through Ellis Island, Jewish people escaping pogroms, Italians fleeing poverty, Syrians seeking economic opportunity. Each of these new arrivals peered through portholes onto a city that was changing as fast as the nation. They saw merchants peddling their wares on the docks, streets being laid out on a grid, buildings rising into the clouds. They could not yet see the nativism they would face, the jobs they would be refused, the landlords who would not rent to them, and the abject labor and living conditions they would withstand. But no matter how much smog hung over the harbor, they still saw an opportunity to begin anew. (Mamdani Speech).

Semiotically, then, the collective is signified and that signification themselves as the template within which its avatars, the individuals assigned within collectives mat be rationalized and through which social relations may be constituted.  President Trump flips this around to some extent. The President's world and world view is fundamentally organized within the concept of individual and individual agency. This is the world of Campbell's hero story, and to those ends, systems must be maintained to permit the process of the hero's journey to unfold. That is the purpose of social relations. And with it failings and triumphs in context of challenges, evil, obstruction and vindication. 

Above all, Americans love freedom. We cherish independence, and we know that we are the heirs to the most beautiful land, the most thrilling story, and the most precious legacy in which the sun has ever shined. In America, we do not need anyone’s permission to say what we think and to live as we please, to worship as we choose, or to keep and bear arms. . . . Americans believe in self-reliance. . . Americans honor excellence. We admire boldness. We respect ambition. We are a nation of dreamers and believers, warriors and explorers, doers and fighters. In every human endeavor, Americans see an unfinished competition. . . . Unlike societies based on class, clan, or tribe, we see every citizen as an individual equal under the law and equal under the eyes of the Lord. (Trump Speech)

The semiotics of individual, like that of the individual as a singular avatar of a collective construciton, suggests a starting point for organizing and rationalizing the world around one. And each necessarily leads to quite distinct politics, social relations and belief in the "truth" or "value" of any of these. Just as capital is aggregated and assumes its form in that way, humanity is also an amalgam of distinct forms of capital; both are productive forces that must be put to good use under the guidance of  the aggregating (or in this case coordinating) vanguard.  

Taken together one begins to see the shape of the Republic that may be emerging. It is one in which old text objects have been revivified as the representation of contemporary desire; in which the impulse of settler colonialism remains strong--especially in newer waves of migration, and in which the impulse to identify and vest authority in vanguards of leading social forces that are dedicated to reshaping the cognitive cages in which the Republic knows itself, and against which contemporary deviance is monitored, assessed, and corrected, appears as string now as when these notions first came into modern style play after the violence of 1861-65. The United States will no doubt emerge the stronger for it; yet semiotically it will also emerge as something that, true to itself, will redefine its present by recasting its past toward a reimagined future  solidarity with which will distinguish future patriots from counterrevolutionary or subversive forces that recertification of whom will engage our new leading forces.