>>8881182

It strikes me that the revelation that many have been "acting" will need to come all at once (at least implicitly).

Obviously that is not the way it has happened for Anons, who have progressively worked some of this stuff out over time, with great effort. But I suspect that revelations for normies are going to come fast, perhaps sparked by some trigger event that anons will need to interpret.

Obviously the POTUS immigration move is a big "tell" for Anons who "trusted Sessions" as Q suggested. But I presume we are closing in on some moment when everything will start to cascade very quickly. Alas, I do not know exactly what that is….

>>8881422

A few points anon…

first, that proposal would be suspending payments for many landlords as well. A landlord may well owe a mortgage payment on a property that is being rented, and that will be suspended, as well as some other payments (taxes…).

Next, and more significantly I think, how exactly would landlords not let their tenants stay. Will they call on their personal police forces to evict said tenants?

This really goes to the basic error of the so-called "cabal".. these jokers supposedly "own" vast amounts of "wealth". But they can PHYSICALLY CONTROL FAR FAR FAR less than what they "legally own". They rely on legal systems (and ESPECIALLY the legal system of the United States) and on the enforcement of legal judgments by the police (or in some cases the military).

Most anons on this board could literally beat the pictured jackass to death with their bare hands. If he doesn't have "laws n shit" on his side, to ensure that officially sanctioned "force" is on his side, he is nothing but the loser you see in the picture.

These people are FAR FAR weaker than they would like you to believe.

>>8881562

I suppose I should add another point…

I wouldn't even know how to make an estimate of the percentages, but I suspect that the VAST proportion of the wealth of the "cabal" is "paper wealth" that has no immediate connection to physical reality at all… ownership in this or that abstract entity. Stuff like ownership of the "right to collect debt". It is no better than Monopoly money… it matters if you are playing the game (and it does… I like the game).. but if people decide the game is over then it is ludicrous to talk about such things.

>>8881622

I don't know your individual details here, but lets consider two different options:

Case 1: you are providing services on an ongoing basis to your tenants… maintaining property and such. Explain to them that if they want such services to continue, they will need to pay, as you need to eat too. I think this is entirely legitimate, as some people may wish to maintain properties and some may wish to pass this on to others. But they can't expect you to fix their toilet if they don't pay you.

Case 2 (opposite extreme): you (or anyone) provides NO service, but expects to get paid because you are an OWNER. In that case, you are foisting your costs on all Americans, since you expect the legal system to enforce your "rights". But what if the world says it doesn't give a shit? Why should all Americans PAY to enforce "ownership rights" of paper owners who provide NOTHING in return? If you are relying on paper "ownership" of "properties" as your sole means of survival then you are clueless. If someone inherits multiple properties with tenants do they "deserve" to have the full force of government go to bat for them, when this costs ACTUAL MONEY?

Landlords who provide SERVICES are acting honorably, in my view, and tenants should respect that. Landlords who expect the rest of society to PAY REAL MONEY to enforce their "ownership rights" are going to face a rude awakening.

tl;dr: Landlording as a service industry is good and serves a useful function. Landlording as passive rent-seeking deserves to get fucked.

>>8881646

Had to look that up (NESARA)… Wikipedia makes it sound like some crazy "cult" shit but the basics don't sound that bad…

If you had currency tied to some fixed standard of value, it is not clear why these problems would exist.

Farmers do work to produce real food (or proto-food).

Those who produce fuel do real work to extract and refine the fuel.

Those who do maintenance are putting in their time and employing their years of learning to fix stuff.

It isn't clear why they would all be unable to pay each other if the currency were tied to some reasonably stable holder of value.

It seems to me that those who would get fucked are those who "buy' the "right" to tell the judge that the police must go seize some random person's property because "you bought their debt".

>>8881746

If you provide no service to your tenant then your tenant owes you:

JACK SHIT

And the rest of America owes you jack shit.

Use your working legs to move your broken back over to your tenant's abode, and collect your "rent" yourself.

The basic idea of ownership is predicated on the idea that "owners" will be trusted to do their best to employ what they "own" in some useful way. They may err, but that's how it goes. But if they completely abdicate their responsibility to try, then they can get fucked.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

>>8881888

No, I think genuinely think Bernie is CLUELESS.

Why would you go work your neighbor's field (in the absence of some agreement or extreme circumstances)?

If you have already produced more services than others, then I hope you GOT PAID for those services. Really,,, in which case you'll have the money (which, as I've said, I'd hope is tied to some fixed holder of value).

Private property IS a good thing I think… but how do such things as "land patent systems" apply to international financiers buying supposed debt of distant individuals? Why should ALL AMERICANS be paying for the supposed "property rights" of those who "buy" such things?