Fwd: deleted by user | pizzagate
Continued from here:https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1467866https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1467870
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.https://aeon.co/essays/romanian-orphans-a-human-tragedy-a-scientific-opportunityhttp://archive.is/5CXaq 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.http://archive.is/FGTGI
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.https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1451709
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.”
http://archive.is/bAcaehttp://archive.is/P7vNEhttp://archive.is/5392p
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."
http://www.stiridecluj.ro/social/cum-arata-acum-ioan-stoica-fostul-patron-al-caritas-a-vrut-sa-faca-o-banca-din-fostul-joc-piramidal-foto http://archive.is/NulNdhttp://archive.is/etn3