>>10398163

the original poster, from the other bread would say that his point is that the 'movement' that people hear of may come from POTUS's video where he says 'our movement' but remember, that video was from before Q even ever posted.

There are many many people who come here, and they aren't in a 'movement' together, like Anitfa or BLM.

it's not organized.

but the movement for change is real. Q and this place don't own that.

many pepole may have never heard of Q and they support what POTUS spoke of in his video, and have no idea about or what 8kun is.

I suppose many imagine those are few however, the point isn't that there isn't a movement, but that it isn't 'Q's movement, nor is it the movement just of anon. But anyone who knows that the system is messed up and needs serious reforming.

that is what I feel that the original poster meant.

>>10398211

your not getting through, your message is garbled. I was unable to ascertain any meaning.

I say real things and they might have typos.

I do not gaslight.

If i say something ironic, I note it because people are dense, intentionally dense.

the jaberwalky word garble thing that you do isn't typos, it's you speaking nonsense and typing it.

So you can't claim a spelling error.

the only real error would be assuming you could get away with doing it and pretending that you aren't just trying to be a disturbance.

>>10398185

the accusation and assumption of bad behavior based upon a group of bullies misinterpretation is bad enough but then the assumption of this 'MUST make the choice we say': you are a dispicable sot.

and what you do is akin to waht you claim to be against.

the term you use to describe what others do could also be used against you for sluring the , what do you call them, Jullio-cluadians?

no that wasn't it.'

that was a group that would have been more akin to your kind of 'do what we tell you or else' point of view.

the harping about anti-ethnicism is the bane of the harpped upon group. the false accusers bring a curse upon their own group, a self fulfilling prophecy, borne from a self loathing, I suppose, and a fear of the fact that, yes, you were born fortunate, and that other story of 'Schruggle' was bullshit that you were told to make you a 'little fighter' and then they made you a power addict. and you write bully letters to make your self look foolish.

fortunaly no one will blame the Judeao-Christians (that is an oxymoron) for your stupidty of mock-supremicism based upon your own insequirities.

>>10398439

it's very easy to fix this: stop buying into the lie that AI and banning people arbitrarily can solve the problem of hatred.

the idea that one group can impose that kind of a system upon all the rest is very very hateful.

if those people who buy into that keep buying that, they need to understand that it's going to be a loss for them, with no depreciation. They won't be able to write it off any longer, but will have to face the civil rights charges that will be brought upon them either here, or in some further court of the future.

the do not win with their mark-of-the-beast AI system of control.

they have to reverse course or they are guilty and they know it.

guilty of what?

they know that too

>>10398147

the story is complicated and deals with international law that is outside of the control of China if the story is correct.

they defaulted on some bonds.

they defaulted and said they would never pay them back.

it was a real lot of money.

but a few years back one of the 'frenz' from Britain came up with some and they swapped them for the Yun (this was a zero hedge aggrigator linked story).

and because the greed-communists took an exchange for the bonds once, they have to meet the terms for all the other bonds at the rate that they gave, it's a really really large amount of money with all the interest.

that's the story.

>>10398595

you don't get it.

we hand them worthless paper, they give us back American Federal Reserve back bonds.

it's a really really large amount of money that they are on the hook for paying back.

and international law is said to be rather clear about these things. Those swiss bankers don't care about politics, if they have the paper they will demand repayment.

>>10398625

you don't understand still

we owe them

they take the paper

we don't owe them anymore.

they can't default.

we just say 'here is what we owe you now, we've subtracted what you reneggedon years ago. Here is your new ballance.

and it will be a much much lower number.

no gold ever changes hands.

>>10398667

hahaha

you intentionally totally read me in reverse

ahahah is how you should say it.

don't waste my time.

>>10398734

we have paper from the 1930s

they have paper from 1990s and later.

they give us theirs, we give them our and , whalla, all the debt is cancelled. underwriters and bond writers and all go out of business.

and we don't owe them what the bonds that they hold say now. We write those off against the 1930's issued paper, redeeming it at the various financial world banks, and that's it. China doesn't get any of the money back on all the bonds that they supposedly bought from the US treasury. The issues will be cancelled.

now pretend you don't understand one more time and use a slur word cause you knwo you want to. (that is me mocking you for gaslighting this)