Question: Who were using these red glowing eyes prior to this Joe Biden post for years?
Answer: The Anons.
Question: Who told you "The fun begins right after the Superbowl?
Answer: The Q-Drops.
Question: Who told you the White House was empty?
Answer: The Judges.
Question: Who told you there
(twitter.com)
MORE 🍿 WE NEED MORE 🍿
So it's all about either agreeing (with a treaty) to what someone else claims or face war?
For your Town theory to work via treaties, all would need to be in agreement. What if some are not in agreement and are not interested in a treaty? Are they then subjected to war by the others? What if they just want to live in peace with their God given rights?
If I make a fishing pole from wood I took from property that someone else had laid a claim to, can I still call that mine?
I don't need an answer, it's just rhetorical.
Not exactly. It's about understanding what those words mean. What I am describing is what we already do. We just don't realize it because our actions are hidden by a fiction laid in front of Reality (law, corporations, etc.).
Then they aren't allowed to come into the town. It is identical to (exactly identical to) entering someone's home. If someone doesn't agree to live by your rules within your home, you don't let them into your home. I think you are making this more complicated than it is.
You can lay claim to anything, including the property of someone else. In the case of laying claim to someone else's property, that is an act of war. You are still thinking in terms of law. I am trying to show you how "law" is used to obfuscate what is really going on.
Obviously answers exist. Stating it was "rhetorical" suggests your words were intended to justify a belief against my argument, but imo it suggests your misunderstanding.