The Universal Truth About Biltsiginà Cadres in Cyber World
Posted: 22 Nov 2025, 09:02
The Universal Truth About Biltsiginà Cadres in Cyber World
By Fayyis Oromia*
Biltsiginà cadres are very active in the cyber world. We read a lot from the experienced cadres and, of course, also from the “new” ones—especially those writing articles on divisive topics such as “Amhara vs. Oromo.” As we have observed on Ethiopian websites and forums, these cadres talk to each other in an attempt to divide the opposition, particularly within the Amhara (“multinational”) democratic camp. Some act as pro-conservative Amharas, others as liberal Amharas, some as Eritreans, and a few as Oromo, etc. In such forums, we find almost no genuine Amhara (whether conservative or liberal), very few genuine Eritreans, and almost no genuine Oromo.
The cadres follow similar tactics on Oromo websites, where they target the Oromo freedom movement. There, they pretend to be members of different Oromo regions, parties, and religions, and they try to provoke quarrels to give the impression that Oromo groups are fighting over secondary issues. In general, Biltsiginà cadres enter every forum to sow discord between Amhara and Oromo, between different Amhara groups, and between different Oromo groups—aiming to prevent coordinated opposition between these two major nations.
But by observing political developments on the ground, one fact is clear: nothing will save them from the coming political demise. Amharas and Oromos need to keep the following in mind and let the Biltsiginà cadres talk only to each other when they attempt to divide Amhara parties or Oromo fronts in Oropia (Oromic-led Ethiopia).
Oropia, formerly called Ethiopia, is defined here as a union in which the following five points (FADOB-score) are implemented:
F – Freedom from systems of domination
A – Afan Oromo as a working language of the federal government
D – Democracy as the rule of the game in the union
O – “Oropia” instead of “Ethiopia” as the name of the union
B – Black-Red-White as the Cushitic flag of the union
This Upper Nile country, called “Oropia” by its native inhabitants, has been referred to historically as “Abyssinia” by the Portuguese, “Cush” by the Jews, “Alhabesh” by the Arabs, “Punt” by the Egyptians, and “Ethiopia” by the Greeks.
The Polarization Tactics of Biltsiginà Cadres
Their main mission is to polarize groups such as:
- “Nefxenya Amhara” vs. “oppressed Oromo”
- Pro-independence OLF vs. pro-union OLF
- Protestant vs. Waaqeffata
- Wellega vs. Arsi
- Gojjam vs. Gonder
- “Stupid OLF leaders” vs. “poor followers”
- “Idiot” Amhara opposition leaders vs. their bases
- “Moderate” Amhara vs. “extremist” Amhara
- …and many more.
We should allow Biltsiginà cadres to write whatever they want—it is their human right—but we must always keep them in check. The reality is that those who quarrel in cyber spaces to “show” that Amhara and Oromo are enemies, or that Oromo organizations are divided, or that Amhara parties are perpetually in conflict, are mostly not genuine Amhara or Oromo. As one American Republican strategist once said: “Any time you get your opponents to fight amongst themselves, that’s a good day.” This maneuver has worked so far—hasn’t it?
A typical Biltsiginà tactic in Oromo forums is to begin by writing many pro-Oromo statements, only to demonize one Oromo group at the end—whether Phenxee, Waaqeffata, Muslim, Orthodox, Wellega, Arsi, Harar, Macca-Tullama, OPDO, OLF, Daud-group, Oromo scholars, Oromo peasants, or others. They also highlight “weaknesses” of individual Oromo leaders or raise the narrative of “Nefxenya Amharas vs. Free Oromia.” Their contribution to opposing the ruling regime is minimal; the main goal is simply to divide Oromo groups.
No conscious Oromo would do this at such a crucial historical moment. The more these cadres write, the more identifiable they become. Let them continue—the Oromo cyber community is taking note.
Five Main Tactics Used to Attack OLF / QBO
Biltsiginà cadres usually disguise themselves in one of the following ways:
- As radical pro-unity Amharas who label Oromo liberation forces as “separatists.”
- As pro-federalist Tegaru who fought for nations’ rights, but accuse Oromo liberation forces of being anti-federalist.
- As supporters of the OLF who attack QBO leadership.
- As pro-union Oromo who call OLF leaders “secessionists.”
- As pro-independence Oromo who accuse the OLF of “betraying” the independence cause.
Regardless of the tactic, the aim is always to divide, attack, and weaken the Oromo liberation movement. Some naïve Oromo unknowingly play into this, but they need to reflect on their actions. While legitimate criticism is acceptable, cyber forums are not the appropriate place for it—because, in modern politics, cyber critique can function like firing a bullet at one’s own camp.
Two Wings in the Oromo Liberation Struggle
There are two general ideological wings within the struggle:
- The Independence Wing – seeks full independence of Oromo people and land from Abyssinian domination, with or without union with other nations.
- The Oropia-Union Wing – seeks liberation from domination but aims to preserve the integrity of Oropia (Cushland) from Meroe to Mombasa, believing these regions share ancient Oromo roots.
The second wing appears to be gaining momentum and has even gained acceptance among some OLF leaders. This vision is also interesting to Habeshas who advocate for unity, because Oropia is a broader concept than the Ethiopia they envision.
Toward an Oropian Union
Oromo leaders aligned with the second principle argue for a free Oromo state within an Oropian union rather than independence without such a union. That is why alliances such as PAFD and MEDREK were formed—to promote freedom for all peoples in the region and establish multinational democracy. To achieve this, the primary divider and destabilizer of the region—Biltsiginà—must be removed. Alliances like PAFD are the antidote to the Biltsiginà dictators, who are the region’s political cancer.
Some Oromo, however, swing between the two political goals: full sovereignty and compromise-based unity. They do not yet understand that Oromos should struggle for the optimal solution (Oropia), not merely the compromise. We accept the compromise only if we cannot achieve the optimal goal.
The optimal end is Oromo freedom with Oropia’s sovereignty.
The compromise end—accepted by OFC within MEDREK—is Oromo freedom with unconditional unity.
Those who focus on compromise should instead push for the optimal end. Once we are strong and push for our preferred goal, opponents will ask us for compromise. We should not emphasize the compromise; we should push boldly for the optimal end.
In general, let the Biltsiginà cadres continue their divisive work, and let the Oromo unite for the common end: a union of free peoples in the form of Oropia.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/oromia-th ... ber-world/
By Fayyis Oromia*
Biltsiginà cadres are very active in the cyber world. We read a lot from the experienced cadres and, of course, also from the “new” ones—especially those writing articles on divisive topics such as “Amhara vs. Oromo.” As we have observed on Ethiopian websites and forums, these cadres talk to each other in an attempt to divide the opposition, particularly within the Amhara (“multinational”) democratic camp. Some act as pro-conservative Amharas, others as liberal Amharas, some as Eritreans, and a few as Oromo, etc. In such forums, we find almost no genuine Amhara (whether conservative or liberal), very few genuine Eritreans, and almost no genuine Oromo.
The cadres follow similar tactics on Oromo websites, where they target the Oromo freedom movement. There, they pretend to be members of different Oromo regions, parties, and religions, and they try to provoke quarrels to give the impression that Oromo groups are fighting over secondary issues. In general, Biltsiginà cadres enter every forum to sow discord between Amhara and Oromo, between different Amhara groups, and between different Oromo groups—aiming to prevent coordinated opposition between these two major nations.
But by observing political developments on the ground, one fact is clear: nothing will save them from the coming political demise. Amharas and Oromos need to keep the following in mind and let the Biltsiginà cadres talk only to each other when they attempt to divide Amhara parties or Oromo fronts in Oropia (Oromic-led Ethiopia).
Oropia, formerly called Ethiopia, is defined here as a union in which the following five points (FADOB-score) are implemented:
F – Freedom from systems of domination
A – Afan Oromo as a working language of the federal government
D – Democracy as the rule of the game in the union
O – “Oropia” instead of “Ethiopia” as the name of the union
B – Black-Red-White as the Cushitic flag of the union
This Upper Nile country, called “Oropia” by its native inhabitants, has been referred to historically as “Abyssinia” by the Portuguese, “Cush” by the Jews, “Alhabesh” by the Arabs, “Punt” by the Egyptians, and “Ethiopia” by the Greeks.
The Polarization Tactics of Biltsiginà Cadres
Their main mission is to polarize groups such as:
- “Nefxenya Amhara” vs. “oppressed Oromo”
- Pro-independence OLF vs. pro-union OLF
- Protestant vs. Waaqeffata
- Wellega vs. Arsi
- Gojjam vs. Gonder
- “Stupid OLF leaders” vs. “poor followers”
- “Idiot” Amhara opposition leaders vs. their bases
- “Moderate” Amhara vs. “extremist” Amhara
- …and many more.
We should allow Biltsiginà cadres to write whatever they want—it is their human right—but we must always keep them in check. The reality is that those who quarrel in cyber spaces to “show” that Amhara and Oromo are enemies, or that Oromo organizations are divided, or that Amhara parties are perpetually in conflict, are mostly not genuine Amhara or Oromo. As one American Republican strategist once said: “Any time you get your opponents to fight amongst themselves, that’s a good day.” This maneuver has worked so far—hasn’t it?
A typical Biltsiginà tactic in Oromo forums is to begin by writing many pro-Oromo statements, only to demonize one Oromo group at the end—whether Phenxee, Waaqeffata, Muslim, Orthodox, Wellega, Arsi, Harar, Macca-Tullama, OPDO, OLF, Daud-group, Oromo scholars, Oromo peasants, or others. They also highlight “weaknesses” of individual Oromo leaders or raise the narrative of “Nefxenya Amharas vs. Free Oromia.” Their contribution to opposing the ruling regime is minimal; the main goal is simply to divide Oromo groups.
No conscious Oromo would do this at such a crucial historical moment. The more these cadres write, the more identifiable they become. Let them continue—the Oromo cyber community is taking note.
Five Main Tactics Used to Attack OLF / QBO
Biltsiginà cadres usually disguise themselves in one of the following ways:
- As radical pro-unity Amharas who label Oromo liberation forces as “separatists.”
- As pro-federalist Tegaru who fought for nations’ rights, but accuse Oromo liberation forces of being anti-federalist.
- As supporters of the OLF who attack QBO leadership.
- As pro-union Oromo who call OLF leaders “secessionists.”
- As pro-independence Oromo who accuse the OLF of “betraying” the independence cause.
Regardless of the tactic, the aim is always to divide, attack, and weaken the Oromo liberation movement. Some naïve Oromo unknowingly play into this, but they need to reflect on their actions. While legitimate criticism is acceptable, cyber forums are not the appropriate place for it—because, in modern politics, cyber critique can function like firing a bullet at one’s own camp.
Two Wings in the Oromo Liberation Struggle
There are two general ideological wings within the struggle:
- The Independence Wing – seeks full independence of Oromo people and land from Abyssinian domination, with or without union with other nations.
- The Oropia-Union Wing – seeks liberation from domination but aims to preserve the integrity of Oropia (Cushland) from Meroe to Mombasa, believing these regions share ancient Oromo roots.
The second wing appears to be gaining momentum and has even gained acceptance among some OLF leaders. This vision is also interesting to Habeshas who advocate for unity, because Oropia is a broader concept than the Ethiopia they envision.
Toward an Oropian Union
Oromo leaders aligned with the second principle argue for a free Oromo state within an Oropian union rather than independence without such a union. That is why alliances such as PAFD and MEDREK were formed—to promote freedom for all peoples in the region and establish multinational democracy. To achieve this, the primary divider and destabilizer of the region—Biltsiginà—must be removed. Alliances like PAFD are the antidote to the Biltsiginà dictators, who are the region’s political cancer.
Some Oromo, however, swing between the two political goals: full sovereignty and compromise-based unity. They do not yet understand that Oromos should struggle for the optimal solution (Oropia), not merely the compromise. We accept the compromise only if we cannot achieve the optimal goal.
The optimal end is Oromo freedom with Oropia’s sovereignty.
The compromise end—accepted by OFC within MEDREK—is Oromo freedom with unconditional unity.
Those who focus on compromise should instead push for the optimal end. Once we are strong and push for our preferred goal, opponents will ask us for compromise. We should not emphasize the compromise; we should push boldly for the optimal end.
In general, let the Biltsiginà cadres continue their divisive work, and let the Oromo unite for the common end: a union of free peoples in the form of Oropia.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/oromia-th ... ber-world/