. . . Call me crazy - but I think the bakers are the same bakers we've had for a long time, generally speaking. The whole "comms bakers" fiasco was the first attempt at subversion and hopes of demoralizing bakers and eventually taking over the line of succession.
Now, they (or some other party with a bit more brains) have created their own board and intend to try and split the board, utilizing the idea it is the "comms bakers."
The reason why "comms bakers" are important to establish as both an entity and a controversy is to create the appearance of a faction to align with. This is a classic tactic employed - get named parties to have followers and then have those parties conflict - which creates a partisan divide in the followers - then have one party go their own way and hope people follow that partisan divide.
The attacks against "comms bakers" were intentionally annoying and foolish. Now that "comms bakers" are making their own board and "the people who won" have split breads, etc - there would understandably be some who think that the "comms board" is where the real bakers of old went and this is basically a shill board.
Which is precisely what everything the past several months with the "comms wars". There are no "comms bakers." There are bakers. They occasionally use the comms board to coordinate. Anyone can post there and some glowing niggers likely made use of that to then badger anons about a comms conspiracy.
I'll give them credit for effort and ingenuity… But one must wonder what kind of person astroturfs a subversion conspiracy on a board which needs to be subverted to prevent the exposure of state conspiracies. Let's use fire hoses to push back the tides.