From The #Pizzagate Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Relation with #Pizzagate

EveryChild and connections to Clinton Foundation

Cheryl Saban is a member of the board of directors to the Clinton Foundation [1] and known member of EveryChild []. According to a now deleted account on Voat, she is on the board of directors to EveryChild.[2] EveryChild is, according to their website, "A non-profit women's charity dedicated toward alleviating suffering of local children, due to disease, disability, abuse, neglect or poverty." [] Other notable members of EveryChild's board of directors include the CEO of Rand Corporation, a famous subsidiary of the Tavistock Institute.

According to this deleted user EveryChild and its relative organizations have a hidden function:

These "children's" organizations are used for corruption, money laundering, medical testing on babies and children, child trafficking, and often sex trafficking, all with women and kids working in the cruelest conditions. They do it by keeping an arm’s distance by getting the transnational, brutal mafias to do the dirty work, yet these are the SAME mafias that were funded and put into power by incredibly powerful American and European organizations... who also run these charities. It's one giant circle. Politicians have ties to these mafia groups even today, and they left clear and obvious tracks that I’m going to talk about.

It is notable that the jailed Romanian hacker Guccifer had the following to tell about Hillary Clinton in a letter: “Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton is one of the high priests, a goddess of this ocult, (sic) satanic, shadow group. One must see their evil and profoundly corrupt motive to understand what I am talking about.” - Backup:

Connection to George Soros

According to a deleted Voat user:[3]

More specifically, the shadow government consisting of Soros and his many entities then created the Romanian mafia to create/distribute child porn networks, and the Albanian mafia to traffick kids everywhere in the world using an "open borders" system that facilitated in the business's expansion to parts all over the world. The Albanian mafia has since merged in part with the Italian mafia to make arguably the word's biggest crime network that presently accounts for a quarter of the world's child trafficking.

All the while, these “charities” get funded on the tax payer dime, coupled with heaps of international aid. The charity operates by hiring known criminals who will track, hand over, and monetize the kids for export. As there is with corporations and the government, the charity world is a revolving door between themselves and aid organizations like UNICEF, the EU Commission, USAID DFiD, etc. Because these organizations are filled with judges, politicians, and power brokers, they rarely, if ever, get prosecuted unless it's for political gain to the establishment. The same is true with many stings, busts and clampdowns.

The slave trade didn’t disappear; it just went underground. The world’s elite used every tool of globalization as a way to usurp this incredibly lucrative market (like they do for all of the earth’s resources). Since trafficking activity can’t be don’t out in the open anymore, however, they’re using children’s charities, like EveryChild and so many others to do it. These operations are meticulously tracked, measured, and studied by knowing (and unassuming) academics in order to run with efficiency rivaling a Fortune 500 company.

- Uncover UNICEF links to child-sex/espionage ring [4]from EIR Volume 14, Number 27, July 3, 1987

Yet to be categorized/edited

Part I: Background of the Trust To start, the charity EveryChild has had three separate names over the decades: The Romanian Orphanage Trust (1990-1997), The European Children’s Trust (1997-2001), and EveryChild (2001-Present).

There’s also a company that runs in parallel to the Trust: “The Object for Which the Company is established is to carry on any trade or business…that can be carried on in connection with or ancillary to the charitable work of the Romanian Orphanage Trust.” In the articles of incorporation it claims this is for investment activities but I think the company name itself is more indicative of its actual purpose: “EveryChild Trading Ltd.” For fun, look at the creepy street art outside the London office building, filled with the huddled naked kid with a single eye on her shoulder, kids with cubes placed over their heads... good stuff.

Anyway, so let’s start this story with a guy named Donald McCready: he began the Trust’s company. It’s nearly impossible to find out who this guy is (trust me, I’ve looked), but he is a member of the European-Atlantic Group.

If you’ve never heard of this group, as most people haven’t, these are the people who run the world--no joke.

The EA-G exists so that all of these power brokers can get together, share info among each other, collaborate with the politicians, and then profit mightily (at everyone else’s expense). If this sounds like an exaggeration, it’s not. From its Wikipedia page:

The European-Atlantic Group was founded in London in 1954 by Michael John Layton, 2nd Baron Layton (1912–1989) (then a Vice-President of the Council of Europe), together with other members of both Houses of Parliament, Industrialists, Bankers, Economists, and Journalists and Elma Dangerfield. Its main object was to promote closer relations between the European and Atlantic countries by providing a regular forum in Britain for informed discussion of their problems and possibilities for better economic and political co-operation.

The Founders stated that their purpose was to disseminate authoritative information concerning the work of International Organizations such as the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Western European Union, the European Coal and Steel Community, Euratom, the European Economic Community, as well as the European Free Trade Association, the Association for General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, and the Economic Commission for Europe.

Each of these committees have their own sub-committees that, in total, affect citizens at the local and global level.

So yeah. The founder of this organization, McCready, is buddies with all of these guys.

In the early 90s, he attended a few meetings that gave important briefings about the state of Europe. In 98, he attended one called “Overseas Development Aid.” It was filled with ambassadors, public policy advisors, law makers, judges, journalists, marketers, and transportation execs (think on that one for a sec).

In 99, he went to another gathering called “US Policy and International Security.” It’s curious he attended this meeting when he went under the banner head of being from a Children’s Trust, but this makes sense in Part IV.

In 2000, he went to another event called “Security Problems of Central and Eastern Europe.”

I point out McCready’s connections so y’all can keep in mind that this guy knows exactly what’s coming down the pipeline, how to exploit it, and who to work with to make it happen.

The other people on the board of the Trust circa 1990-2000 are also major powerhouses, who I'll be referencing later as well. Here's an overview -Major General Jeapes, former commander of the 22 SAS (Vice Chairman) -Lord Viscount Younger of Leckie (Chairman): House of Lords, also Director of many educational trusts and banks, including Royal Bank of Scotland. -Donald Hood Brydon: business tycoon who oversaw privatization of the post office, top guy at Barclay's, CEO of AXA Investment managers, Director for London Metal Exchange, etc. -David John Peryer: Chair for Mind: National Association of Mental Health and the Retreat: York -John Margarson (Company Officer): Involved in real estate, Investec Bank (which grossed 1.7 billion in 2015), and was secretary of Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

Now that we're briefly acquainted with the people of the organization, I'll go over the origin of the Trust, the regions in which they work, and the economic conditions at the time. I don't care how boring you find this section, you gotta read it anyway to understand exactly how this went down. Also notice the parallels between the shit that's happening in this country, with the student protests, immigration push, etc.

Romania The advent of the Romanian Orphanage Children’s Trust coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. By 1990, the country’s communist government was given the boot thanks to a violent civil uprising. This bloody overthrow--ending in the execution of the president--was very likely due to George Soros using his many think tanks, media connections and “pro-democracy” organization to foment dissent… all coupled with funding from USAID. It’s also likely the US was supplying the arms and acting as the covert military wing of the operation (as it so often does).

Having studied lots of uprisings at this point, what I've noticed is that "pro Democracy" think tanks funded by Soros (such as Podesta's) shape the political climate to foment dissent, the US provides the brute force, and Europe provides the rebuilding aid. US/EU share in intelligence and arms. Everyone splits in the proceeds, but the US generally gets the drugs…and Europe? They get the humans, if the conflict happens in their borders.

Once the communist supporters were ousted from Romania and its president was executed in public, the International Monetary Fund (a subsidiary of the UN) then played its usual role of thwacking the economy in the knees. The International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s prescribed “shock therapy” crippled the economy and made for a desperate, weakened population… and this in turn made for golden opportunities among multinationals to swoop in and loot the country for its valuable goods and services. The country then had to sign off on these privatization measures in order to receive bailout packages from the same consortium of institutions that authorized the hit job in the first place.

(Side note: if you want to learn more about this pattern, then read “Shock Doctrine” or “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”).

This was the European-Atlantic Group's way of telling Romania to bend over and pull down their pants. From the book, “Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery:”

First, the IMF mandated fiscal austerity measures [in Romania], such as cutting government expenditures on health care, education, unemployment benefits, and other social services. The logic was to promote efficiency, though the net result was to worsen the destitution of those who depended on such government programs. Second, the IMF advocated that the prices of products, services, and commodities should be dictated by market forces rather than a central authority, as had occurred under socialism... third, the IMF pushed for rapid market liberalization, opening local markets to foreign commercial and financial interests."

This “remove from the government, privatize, and give to foreign commercial and financial interests” model was also applied to another lucrative industry: the baby market.

There’s the running joke that the difference between communism and capitalism is that in communism, humans are seen as the producer. In capitalism, the human is the consumer. This phrase, I’ve found, it literal. The same is true with the person who posted the Harvard lecturer who said, "we sacrifice our children on the altar of capitalism."

In Romania’s former communist government, women who didn’t want their babies did one of two things: they dropped them off in government-run institutions, or they sold them to people directly. The number of babies available for foreign adoptions was quite small: in 1990, for example, just 63 foreign parents finally received their babies that were otherwise caught up in red tape (Denechere, Scutaru 2010). Nicolae Ceausecu wanted to increase the population by 20 million--a threat to EU/NATO--so he banned contraceptives and abortions. He kept a very tight rein on adoptions. Bureaucrats also had job security if institutions were full. All in all, this led to a lot of unwanted, state-controlled babies that in a better planned economy, could lead to a decent military.

But hey, NATO/EU just overthrew the leader, so that problem went out the window. Even now, any materials related to child welfare and Romania will claim that Ceausescu was the devil incarnate. The asset of the country’s population was also theirs for the take now, too. Indeed, the open economy led to a renovated, new market… in babies. The thinking was this: take the taxpayer money that was going to the government to run the institutions (because hey, “foreign companies can do it better and cheaper”), and become the new middleman by being the one to sell the babies instead of the mothers.

Continued from here:

Aligning with the IMF diktats, the country would open “local markets to foreign commercial and financial interests.” Next step = profit! But of course… you can’t just set up baby-selling corporations. You can, however, set up “charities” that market, sell, commoditize, and offload the product to foreign markets willing to pay higher prices for cheap materials kids… all with the government’s buy-in. And that’s exactly what they did in this newly globalized market.

In 1990, Romania was a “wild wild west” of baby selling, especially to wealthy foreigners (possible Madeleine McCann connection here, guys). The country went from just shipping off 63 babies, to a staggering 10,000 in just 18 months.

According to Denechere and Scutaru:

After those grouped departures of Romanian children which, to some degree, put an end to the Ceauşescu era, Romanian borders are widely opened. Between January 1990 and July 1991, the UNICEF estimates that 10,000 Romanian children left abroad (Selman, 2008a). Orphanages open their door but the number of adoptable children proves insufficient in front of the exploding demand in rich countries. Many candidates to adoption “try their luck in Romania”. “Thus, the rules of a post-war paucity market set in: everything was for sale and everything could be bought” (Trillat, 1993, p.20).

Because the previous communist government institutionalized all unwanted babies, the market of available babies now for sale was massive, as there was an estimated 600 institutions that had kids filled to the brim (NYT link). David Livianu estimates in his book, “The Art of Adoption” that as many as 250k kids languished here. The open market allowed anyone who wanted to sell babies, and one could earn upwards of 15k per baby. Soon, average Joes from America, Canada and elsewhere came in buses to take their pick, working with questionable locals to do so (NYT). Bad press—mostly from Western European and American companies, of course—came pouring in, condemning the flow of unrestricted babies and later, international adoptions. And rightfully so: this was a bad solution.

But… for foreign groups wanting this monopoly, this type of free trade was “too” free. So how do you fix it? Get the politicians to work with your policy-making friends in Europe and write laws (UNICEF -link) most favorable to your enterprise. Duh. Petre Roman, the president (and total NATO stooge) formed a National Adoption Committee that, by 1992, was finally allowing lucrative adoptions from specific—generally foreign (UNICEF link)—organizations.

As to the handicapped, mentally challenged ones/the defective assets? In the beginning, those were left entirely to the state. There was mention of an anemic offering of “foster care” but otherwise, they were expected to be institutionalized on the local municipality’s dime. Organizations later started to “privatize” these centers but this trend came around 2000-ish.

Foreign nonprofits also stepped in when there was value to be had in using these children for medical experiments. Former EU Commissioner/whistleblower later lamented that these medical facilities were expensive and top notch, while the home itself languished under the watch of foreign NGOs.

In fact, thanks to research by the user, isthisreality, there's evidence that other Tavistock-related entities in the region were also doing medical testing on disabled kids. I have several other connections that this was happening, discussed later.

So during this time from 1990-1994, author David Livianu bemoaned that the Prime Minister was essentially committing cronyism by doling out lucrative baby-selling contracts to foreign NGOs without due process. Put more diplomatically, he writes, “Little or no explanations were given as to the qualifications and no requirements that foreign adoption agencies would have to fulfill in order to be authorized to work with the Romanian National Adoption Committee. This 1st Adoption Committee was under the direct subordination of the office of the Prime Minister…the criteria for selection were never made public.”

However the selection, it’s no coincidence that once certain foreign agencies were anointed as the “chosen ones,” McCready spearheaded the Romanian Orphanage Trading Company (the commercial wing of the trust). Almost immediately, the Company joined the ranks of other foreign organizations profiting from the display of “horrifically run” Communist orphanages. Media outlets took those medical brain studies of institutionalized children and published them far and wide, all condemning the concept of orphanages. (Does anyone else remember seeing gut-wrenching videos on the news, profiling neglected, emaciated orphans from Romania? I do!).

Here’s coverage of the BBC clip.

While these communist-run institutions may have been terrible, there are five things to keep in mind:

1) The Soros-controlled media specialized in pushing anti-Communist, pro-globalist sentiment and this is an example of that, especially as the timing coincided with rallying public sentiment for the fall of the Berlin Wall/Romanian Revolution. This media coverage was pushing a very specific agenda. 2) The footage displayed was often from 1989, which were terrible years economically for the country. The overcrowded homes and poor conditions, then, were emblematic of the conditions precipitated by the undercover coup taking place. 3) The pitiful, crippled orphans broadcasted were seldom the adopted ones and were, as mentioned, put in state care and not those of foreign NGOs. 4) The Romanian government actually had to step in and request the French media outlets to stop playing misleading footage that was several years old (and thus did not reflect present conditions). 5) Those medical studies on orphans showing how institutionalization damages kids didn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny: it turns out a child’s brain is incredibly resilient, and the author lamented that it was used so exhaustively to shape public policy. 6) Such clips made excellent money in donations, and justified the outpour of Western aid.

Oh, and the outpour of Western aid (which is taxpayer money) was huge. The European Commission, USAID, and other organizations were responsible for doling out millions of dollars in “aid money” (which is a fancy way of saying freeeee money).

This next part summarizes what an EU Commissioner, Roeli Post, described in her whistleblower book, “Romania: The Untold Story of Romania’s “Orphans””. She explains that from 1990 until 2000, her department alone gave out 100 million euros alone to foreign NGOs, all based on the premise that conditions were deplorable and in need of immediate remedy.

The author unfortunately redacted the actual names of many of the EU decision-makers, but an entire department resigned because of the corruption. In 1999, they wanted to “get rid of” files from the early 90s knowing the high level of grift.

Getting such aid money was also reminiscent of how lobbyists vie for certain contracts: the NGOs would put forth bids, and there would be politicians/lobbyists claiming in front of the EU parliament that the situation is worse than it was as a way of getting said aid money. They did so by claiming government cuts—which again, their friends at the IMF mandated—created an urgent situation requiring money.

In the end, many NGOs didn’t have much to show for it. The author cites SERA as being one of the worst offenders, which was an organization that later teamed up with the Romanian Orphanage Children’s Trust.

One of the worst, most terrifying offenders was CARITAS (or, "charity" in Latin). This group operates internationally to this very day in the same field of child welfare. This was a way for the government to profit tremendously from the aid flowing in internationally and from Romanians who deposited in the accounts. It was like a lottery in that select depositors could see an 8-fold return in their investment within 6 months if they won, all while "helping impoverished Romanians during the transition to capitalism." Between 1992-1994, the scheme attracted a staggering 1.5-5 billion USD. The National Romanian Bank estimates it held a whopping 33% of the country's deposits. The scheme ultimately fell apart because the money was siphoned off to select winners overtly in the "winnings" publication, and also covertly in the form of handing off mad fat stacks of cash. Winners--many who were politicians themselves--were friends to the organizer, Ion Stoica. The New York Times interviewed one citizen who said, "It's a scheme for Mr. Stoica and the people in the government to get rich."

See also

External links