>>4504011

>How would China react if we bought back their 1 trillion dollars worth of

>

>US treasuries with worthless or soon to be

>

>worthless fiat??

depends heavily actually. it depends on what happens to china's debt….they also owe someone or something money. in fact they owe about 5.2 trillion (caveat: sauce below indicates that this is only federal level debt and suggests a multiplier of 3.25 to get the total debt). depending on who it is owed to, sounds to me like there would be a way to cancel these against each other…..in any case it seems that there are fucking options as long as a large portion of everyone's debt is owed to the cabal. what those might be in detail, no idea, but the current level of analysis is in no way definitive.

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/china

>>4504406

>First of all, can we now PLEASE drop the MONOLITHIC CABAL BORG RESISTANCE IS FUTILE mode of thinking about he enemy? It's beyond useless and childish. Everything, everyone is multifaceted. Until someone brings me a walking talking extraterestrial/Demon/spirit creature, I'm working with the apriori assumption that the human race is people, soylent green is people and the cabal is people.

>

>I also hold as apriori that there are factions to the ruling elite. They

there are a multitude of problems with this….wtf is it…..an argument…..an essay…an opinion. doesnt matter. whiever way i choose to read it, i come to the conclusion that it is just fucking wrong.

first, the greatest advancement in our cause (organizing to change whatever the fuck is fucking up our world) was learing to see it as an organized thing. not as individuals primarily but as an organization. when i am unable to redpill relatively intelligent people, it is almost invariably BECAUSE they think that all these actors for the cabal are people like themselves. and they cant imagine people like themselves doing a lot of the shit that is happening intentionally. so they see all the shit as accidental and unintended side effects. once you see the organizational aspects (and it is a fucking organized thing) redpilling almost always follows.

second, your use of a priori is exceedingly eccentric at best. when you say a priori you are using a technical term of art. and that term means that you hold your opinion without basing it on experience (no particular experience; obviously some experience or another is required to hold opinions at all). the ground of a priori opinion/belief/truth is reason. propositions of arithematic are examples often given. perhaps prima facia would be better if you insist on using latin terms of art, but i doubt it actually. it is just an assumption (and a bad one if you ask me). calling it a priori doesnt make it a priori and it also doesnt tend to lend any support to it at all.