8.29.2016

Cathedral in Action

Tens of millions of dollars disguised as ‘consumer relief’ are going to liberal political groups.
The administration’s multiyear campaign against the banking industry has quietly steered money to organizations and politicians who are working to ensure liberal policy and political victories at every level of government. The conduit for this funding is the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a coalition of federal and state regulators and prosecutors created in 2012 to “identify, investigate, and prosecute instances of wrongdoing” in the residential mortgage-backed securities market. In conjunction with the Justice Department, the RMBS Working Group has reached multibillion-dollar settlements with essentially every major bank in America.

The most recent came in April when the Justice Department announced a $5.1 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs. In February Morgan Stanley agreed to a $3.2 billion settlement. Previous targets were Citigroup ($7 billion), J.P. Morgan Chase ($13 billion), and Bank of America, which in 2014 reached the largest civil settlement in American history at $16.65 billion. Smaller deals with other banks have also been announced.

Combined, the banks must divert well over $11 billion into “consumer relief,” which is supposed to benefit homeowners harmed during the Great Recession. Yet it is unknown how much, if any, of the banks’ settlement money will find its way to individual homeowners. Instead, a substantial portion is allocated to private, nonprofit organizations drawn from a federally approved list. Some groups on the list—Catholic Charities, for instance—are relatively nonpolitical. Others—La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and more—are anything but.
One of the most amusing things is the anti-bank comments from the progressives. They don't want to stop the banks at all. They want money.

The greatest threat to progressives is anti-central bank policy. Destroy the central bank and Wall Street/banks go down, the U.S. loses reserve currency status, the U.S. treasury can no longer fund deficit spending. Inflated stock prices can no longer support valueless companies like Twitter. Power would shift to industries that create and export: manufacturing, farmers, oil drillers. Progressive unemployment would soar, the media would be screaming like you have never seen.

H/T: Countenance Blog.

Globalization Destroys Fertility, Robot Babies Increase It

The empty crib
More than anything else, people blame financial pressures and the cost of housing for having fewer children than they think desirable. Greece is not the only country where economic turmoil has put people off having children. The fertility rate in America, Australia and most of Europe has dropped since 2009. In many countries the financial crisis has been especially hard on young people, delaying the independence that many think necessary for starting a family. José Luis Marin of porCausa, a journalism and research outfit in Madrid, points out that the average Spanish man now leaves home and sets up his own household at the age of 30.
One goal of globalization is the creation of a global market. In order to achieve this, wages must go up in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and come down in developed world. This causes a decline in fertility and also economic growth. This is solved with immigration to raise headline GDP. In addition to global wage pressure, immigration further drives down local wages where natives have an edge (construction, landscaping etc.) and drives up home prices. The result is an all-out assault on family formation.

Even if you completely dismiss the idea of white genocide or any racial component to establishment policy, the globalists are destroying native fertility.

Or to be more sinister for the conspiracy theorists, the globalists want you to think you can't afford more children. They want you to choose money over children. They want you to run calculation on "can we afford another kid?" because they've loaded the dice against you.


The conditioning isn't hard to break.

Even Robot Babies Can’t Scare Teens Into Abstinence
Robot baby simulators that are supposed to prevent teenage pregnancies aren’t any more effective than regular, robot-free health classes, according to a new study. In fact, the robots may actually increase the likelihood of teenage pregnancies and abortions.

A study published in The Lancet, which it says is the first long-term look at the efficacy of robot baby pregnancy prevention, followed thousands of teenage girls in Australia. About half were enrolled in a standard health class and half were enrolled in a “Virtual Infant Parenting” (VIP) program, which gave them robot babies to care for. The robot babies are programmed to be just as annoying and difficult to deal with as real human babies can be. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the VIP teens were given the robots for a weekend, took classes, and watched a documentary where teenage mothers talked about what it was like to raise a child so young.

This was all supposed to discourage teens from becoming pregnant, but the study, which followed the girls until they turned 20 years old, showed that the girls in the VIP program were actually twice as likely to become pregnant — 8 percent of the VIP girls versus 4 percent of the girls who took the standard class. And 9 percent of the VIP group girls had had an abortion versus 6 percent of the control group.
It requires a great deal of social conditioning and economic distress to lower fertility. Reversing it tends to happen naturally. The other day I overheard a conversation between two grandmothers, one asked the other if a second grandchild was coming. She responded, "All her friends are having their second child, so probably not long."

Trump Back to Amnesty

As far as I can tell, the claim of "not amnesty" rests on "no citizenship," but people working in the U.S. illegally care more about working than citizenship. As long as they aren't deported, they have defacto amnesty. Since Democrats will give citizenship the first chance they get, allowing them to stay will result in citizenship.

I supported Trump because of immigration. His economic and foreign policies are better than Clinton's, but with enough new Democrat voters looking for handouts, it's only a matter of time before the globalists offer more handouts and reverse any changes to key policies. Without reversing immigration, every victory is temporary.

There's no change possible at the ballot box because the Cathedral manufactures consent and it also manufactures dissent, the Outer Party. Being against demographic replacement is unacceptable dissent. No amount of voting will change that.

Synthesis

Political

Potpourri

Blog Archive