Real estate and immigration market: a consortium of Church, political parties, insurance companies and banks?

And even gays and singles have an involuntary part?

If we ask ourselves who is favoured by the growth in prices on the real estate market, the obvious answer falls on the owners but it is equally obvious that the citizens, taken individually, have an almost non-existent influence on the politics and economy of a State. But when you think that the current political classes are composed of people who often have personal interests to enter politics, then the subject changes. The majority of people today were born and raised in a world of subliminal advertising, idiocy, fashions and ideological propaganda, and new "culture", so it is difficult to perceive reality for what it is; Moreover, even when this perception is there, it is difficult to focus and realize that our choices may be the simple consequence of political or economic manipulation and it is even more difficult to perceive when these manipulations are well helped by external factors that casually or not help these hidden policies. Is it possible to hypothesize that the real estate market is one of the reasons for supporting illegal immigration? and that the expansion of gay culture and the destruction of family and procreational culture have the same purpose? Of course, gay is often born as such and being single is a choice but the "modern culture" contributes greatly and to give a boost to these trends ... Why? Of course, it would take a mind like that of Niccolò Machiavelli to develop such a subtle plan, capable of influencing the real estate market thanks to demographic changes of the population but if we think that in many states of the earth the political class often acts only to favour itself, the thing can not be excluded. In recent years we have discovered that the lack of contrast to illegal immigration has motivations that are often very different from humanitarian ones, and we must "thank" a series of politicians who have direct interests, or through their relatives and friends, in the management of that traffic of beings human. More and more we see that mass media, like some television channels, have basically become megaphones of gay propaganda and this is evident when extremely high percentages of their programs (perhaps 80%) contain homosexual issues, when the gay population in Western countries it exceeds approximately 2.5% (but according to other studies on 6%), with the exception of the USA where the percentage is higher. What is all this for? well, always Machiavellically speaking, we can hypothesize that increasing the number of homosexuals favours the society of speculation, because it is better to have a large number of people who, not having a family that, in the traditional sense, produces children to look after, subjects remain potentially more productive from a working point of view and therefore can ... work six times more than their parents and grandparents, to achieve the same things: home, car, holidays, etc. Everything seems normal but is it? Even the contemporary culture of single heterosexuals can obviously be aggregated to this discourse to help the destruction of family culture; in this case there are pornography (about 30% of internet traffic), the "easy" sexual habits helped by the widespread use of drugs and the mass media that snub family values. In essence, the new culture, or political strategy that is, has the result of getting more people who do not have children, so they can work more. According to ISTAT between 2006 and 2016 in Italy "the number of weddings has decreased by 17.4% in a decade" (Sky TG24, 04/03/2018). Of course, from a confined point of view, it is difficult to think that there may be someone who manipulates the culture and dynamics of a society up to this point but anyway all these factors contribute to the decrease of the population. All this would explain why in many countries of the world, housing is assigned to foreign residents, given that they have more children, and not to eligible citizens, thus forcing citizens already included in the social stratum, to work harder and therefore unwittingly to maintain the real estate market as stable as possible and possibly continue to inflate it. It matters little if the citizens who built that nation find themselves sleeping on the streets ... What matters is that citizens already part of the society, remain under tension and continue to work "as slaves", to continue to pay mortgages, debts and instalments for things that are on the market at a much higher price than what should be the their real value. For example, in Australia, a house built in 1974 and purchased for $27,000 today is on the market at $1,300,000. By calculating the annual inflation of 4.80%, $100 of 1974 is worth the current $825 (2019), so that house should be on the market for $222.875.09 if it were new ... but this is 45 years old, so it should cost less ... but taking into account that it is new, the value of the property is still 5.83 times that of 1974 ... Today the prices in general, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, are 725% compared to 1974’s prices. Can the whole be attributed to the law of supply and demand? Of course not. Things are not different elsewhere: in Italy according to some studies it is estimated that "the trend of house prices and that of the underlying land from 1927 to 2012, net of inflation, in the period under review, house prices are more than tripled, while in the big cities they quintupled. The increase is largely higher than that of construction costs, which in real terms have slightly more than doubled. Over two thirds of the increase in house prices between 1950 and 2012 is attributable to the change in the price of building land" ("I prezzi delle abitazioni in Italia, 1927-2012"). In essence, the citizens of the majority of Western Countries pay for their home, whether rented or owned, much more than they should, up to six times if not more than in the past and without a sustainable real reason. We know that "in Italy, in 2012, 72.3% of homes are owned and 27.7% rented" (Eurostat) but anyway, to buy a house you have to get there, usually through a bank, then borrow for many years with a mortgage, obviously with the risk of losing everything if you do not pay. And "owned" does not mean only the property of individuals ... But why do we have to pay more than the generations that have preceded us, often with great difficulty? The answer could be simple: because the political parties of many nations, organizations of various kinds, and in some cases individuals, are owners of huge amounts of real estate and land and do not want their assets to loose value. So, in what should be an inadmissible conflict of interest for any civilized nation, politics provides a helping hand: not building too many houses to maintain high demand and high supply. So, where the population is declining, here are the "stopgap", that is the immigrants, that help not to decrease the population in numbers and therefore contribute to keeping the prices of houses and building land high, and… taking public housing from the citizens . Governments argue that the population must not decrease to maintain the economy but the opposite is true, because if there was a significant decrease, lifestyle of citizens would be much better, because there would be a drop in prices starting from that of the houses, followed immediately by that of food, and it would result in a general greater purchasing power. Silvio Berlusconi, when he was prime minister of Italy, said clearly during an election campaign: "we can not build too many houses, otherwise homeowners would have difficulty renting them". And the earthquake victims what do they think? Better to leave them in a precarious state in order to push them to migrate to other cities to increase the demand where needed and let the cities hit by cataclysm die? The speech may be slightly different depending on the country but the substance does not vary. Obviously the political parties if examined as a single category would not justify my theory but they are not to be underestimated, in fact we know that in Italy "political parties, their territorial organizations, clubs, directly and indirectly controlled real estate companies hold today 3,805 buildings spread throughout Italy and 928 land." (Franco Bechis "Elenco immobili di Bersani: ne ha per un miliardo di euro" Libero, 09/02/2012) and "among these there are certainly sections of the old PCI, which is still owned by the land register of 178 buildings and 15 land." (Franco Bechis "Elenco immobili di Bersani: ne ha per un miliardo di euro" Libero, 09/02/2012). Then we have the Vatican that "is one of the biggest Italian real estate owners, with a patrimony of at least 115 thousand units that equates to 20% of the entire Italian real estate" (Carlo Sala "Journey through the real estate of the Church: a billions a year "Today, 26/03/2016). It’s the same story in other countries, for example the value of properties owned by the Catholic Church in Australia amounts to 28 billion dollars to which must be added that of the land. And the banks? In 2010 in Piazza De Angeli in Milan I noticed a disproportion: 43 windows of banks and only 41 of shops ... Everywhere in the world you turn and it’s full of banks ... In 2014 "Morgan Stanley calculated an overall exposure (credits plus guarantees) of Italian banks on the internal market of 99 billion euro" (Matteo Cavallito "Banche, il segreto dei 99 miliardi in immobili a bilancio sta per venire a galla" il Fatto quotidiano, 14/02/2014). For Americans (USA), maybe the story is a bit different, since while their governments are dealing with selling weapons around the world, with the hope that some other war is triggered to sell even more, there are 1.56 millions of citizens (0.5% of the population - Data referring to 2008/2009) find themselves sleeping on the streets ... "The American dream"? ... Meanwhile, the building nightmare for all the other Westerners remains to be governed by politicians who theoretically, in a clear conflict of interest, favour social dynamics that could be defined as slavery (and here we could also talk about planned obsolescence, which should be prohibited, which favours another form of economic slavery, as well as pollution). And if it is not clear enough, all this would explain why in the great sham of immigrant importation, in the majority of Western countries, illegal immigrants are preferred to real refugees: the first ones are almost all men and for this reason they will have little chance to find a woman, create a family and have offspring, and those who find a job, preferably underpaid according to the logic of these low-profile politicians, will always work with a view to maintaining the "five times" standard. While the few who will be able to marry and who will have children, will have the house assigned before the rightful citizens, because they have more children and more quickly. Otherwise, true refugees, that is the refugees who don’t leave behind the family, who’ll find it much more difficult to have the opportunity to be useful for this perverse game, because struggling to fit into society, will be less productive and probably the wife will not work, relying on social wages, resulting in a loss for the economy of a State. Basically a single immigrant is more interesting for these dynamics, because potentially it is immediately productive, while the immigrant family means a productive person every two or more than two. Thinking on the age of the republics, it is easy to see that it did not ideally follow the splendour era of nineteenth-century monarchies, when noble and upper middle class families, who were in power at the time, following the example of royal families, used their personal assets to build hospitals, libraries, retirement homes and much more, including ... homes for the poor.

Matteo Cornelius Sullivan

Source by Matteo Cornelius Sullivan