by John Hamer
I do not include within this category, small local charities, run by and for victims of various kinds of suffering or injustice, but all those world-wide and nationwide, household-name type charities, whose names with whom we are all so familiar.
We should also consider the more basic issue of why these grand-scale charities are needed in our supposed enlightened times, anyway. Are we not supposed to be civilised beings? Or are we so un-civilised that we cannot or will not adequately feed and otherwise generally care for every under-privileged member of our species? Have you even ever asked yourself the question as to why this may be the case? If the mega-rich really wanted poverty and hardship to end, they could do so almost overnight by expending a small amount of the daily interest from their enormous fortunes. The very fact that they do not, speaks volumes to me. Put another way, why should we, those of us who are strictly speaking just above the poverty line, contribute from our meagre disposable incomes, whilst the rich sit back and happily allow this state of affairs to continue? The answer is, because they can.
Then there is the question of the patronage of charities. The patron of a charity is usually a high-profile personality, whose names are highly sought-after for patronage in the full knowledge that as this is a so-called ‘well-respected’ person, ensuring that the charities will be more high-profile and thus attract even more of the public’s money. For example, the Queen of England is patron to over 600 charities. Yes, that is correct – over 600! Do you really believe that this woman, head of the most ruthless family on the planet and personally responsible, directly and indirectly (along with the rest of her genocidal brood) for millions of deaths worldwide in her own lifetime, actually cares a damn about starving children or victims of the wars that her and her ilk are responsible for causing in the first place? I think not somehow.
Indeed some charities have been with us for centuries and so it is blatantly obvious to me that the reasons for the charity’s founding in the first place have not been solved. So realistically speaking, that charity has failed in its objectives to exacerbate or end the problems it was set-up to counteract. If a charity did succeed in solving the problems it was created to fight, then it would in effect be responsible for its own demise, logically, would it not? Of course this is a paradox that will never be reconciled whilst charities continue to so successfully deprive the masses of their hard-earned funds.
Here are some examples from many instances.
Live Aid / Live8
Whenever funds need to be raised to feed the starving millions, to bring clean water to those without, to build homes and habitats for those in need and to help rescue the victims of natural disasters or famine, one person always seems to be prominent – none other than ‘Sir’ Robert Geldof himself, the original 1970s ‘teenage rebel’.
“I think Band Aid was diabolical... Bob Geldof is a nauseating character. Many people find that very unsettling, but I'll say it as loud as anyone wants me to. In the first instance, the record itself was absolutely tuneless. One can have great concern for the people of Ethiopia, but it's another thing to inflict daily torture on the people of England. It was an awful record considering the mass of talent involved. And it wasn't done shyly; it was the most self-righteous platform ever in the history of popular music.” Morrissey of the British band ‘The Smiths’, referring to the hit song, ‘Do They Know its Christmas’
Since then, Geldof and others such as Bono of the rock band U2 have almost made new careers of being figureheads of poverty relief whilst reaping the benefits these events provide them, that is name and face recognition. For instance, in November 2008, Geldof was paid $100,000 in Australia for a brief speech addressing Third World poverty whilst Bono was recently implicated in a scandal relating to his own charity and its total lack of actual monetary contributions to the causes it is said to support, despite its £12m per annum turnover.
Brian Johnson, lead singer of AC/DC, said that people like Geldof and Bono should dip into their own bank accounts, as do the members of AC/DC and give without publicity, rather than being ‘pop impresarios of poverty’.
Michael Chussodovsky scathingly dissected Geldof's role in this financial charade, thus…
“Most casual observers might assume that the money generated by corporate sponsors, DVD sales, performance royalties and direct contributions would be funnelled into various charitable organizations aiding the poorest people of developing nations around the world. They would be wrong.”
Instead, as Chussodovsky illustrates, the money raised in almost every instance, is used to pay off the corporate creditors of indebted countries. In effect, the entire focus of the money generated by Live8 was to provide direct funds to corporations that were ‘owed money’ by these impoverished nations.
As if that were not sufficiently outrageous, the reality is actually much worse than that. Those same monetary amounts contributed by Live8 to these private corporations to provide more relief to them for the money they had lent to these impoverished nations was then deducted from the direct aid packages and social service programmes formerly contributed by the G8 to these countries.
As Chussodovsky also clearly states, “For each dollar of 'debt cancellation' to the international financial institutions, the G8 will reduce the flow of foreign aid to these countries. In other words, the foreign aid earmarked to finance much needed social programs will now go directly into the coffers of the IMF and the World Bank.”
Moreover, the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank and The African Development Bank never write-off their debts. So what was being promoted and touted around the world as a way to help some of the poorest countries on the planet was actually a covert exercise in paying off international financial institutions for aid they had previously lent these nations, whilst guaranteeing the reduction of the same amount in future funding for these very programmes.
In effect, Live Aid and Live8 were nothing more or less than gigantic propaganda pieces and financial con tricks to repay private institutions and their criminal friends at the IMF and World Bank. Live8 acted as a direct reimbursement process for the creditors of the poorest countries on the planet, while further binding these countries, their industries and exports, to the future predations of the World Bank and IMF.
This allowed them to impose even more social control on their political processes by insisting on ‘democratic reforms’ commensurate with the same sort the West has imposed on Iraq, Afghanistan and now Egypt and Libya, thereby allowing Western governments to control the election process and the officials who will come to power in these countries while insisting on ‘free market reforms’, all of which does nothing more than to diminish their sovereignty while transferring ever more overt socio-political control to nations outside these countries and the corporate predators that lurk there ever-ready to exploit new markets. This arrangement also makes it impossible for these countries to default on their debt, perpetually keeping them in the cycle of debt-repayment and financial servitude.
Frauds like Geldof have promoted this Elite, globalist charade, enjoying the fame and royalty income which their appearance on world-wide television provides, whilst at the same time turning a cynically blind eye to the financial sleight of hand going on behind the scenes which does nothing more than to keep these countries and peoples steeped in poverty whilst reducing the social services these countries so desperately need.
Geldof supposedly organised all of the Live8 concerts (the 20th anniversary of Live Aid) in 2005, on his mobile phone. This is a very interesting concept considering the fact that he is supposed to be ‘Mr. Anti-establishment’ and a ‘champion of the poor and hungry’. If that is indeed the case then the question needs to be asked as to how he managed to get several governments to co-operate with him and endorse his plans so easily? Why did these governments not just tell him politely to ‘go away’ or indeed any other two-word phrase with the same implication? Actually, I can almost guarantee that if Bob Geldof really was assisting starving A
fricans to the detriment of the money-interests in the ways popularly described, then he would almost certainly have ended the same way as John Lennon, JFK, RFK and MLK and others whose motivations were against the best interests of the Elite, let alone being fêted as a saintly figure.
Ever wondered why ‘Sir’ Bob was given an honorary knighthood (as an Irishman he is not entitled to a ‘regular’ knighthood)? Was it for helping the world’s poor and oppressed perchance? Or was it more likely to be for his contribution to the financial bottom-lines of the World Bank, the IMF and the Bank of International Settlements – all run and owned by our Royal and Elite masters? Geldof was used by them as the ‘good guy’ to promote their greed as a charitable event and good old Bob, for his part was only too willing to comply. Did he do it knowingly or unknowingly? Was he paid for his services or did he give all his free time willingly and without thought of remuneration? I know where my vote would be cast on that particular issue.
The picture below tells us all we need to know about ‘Sir’ Bob’s real affiliations…
The sheeple, as usual were fooled yet again because they had already been indoctrinated and conditioned into accepting that Geldof possesses saintly qualities and that Live8 was another blow for the poor against their heartless oppressors. There is only one way to prevent a repetition of this scam, for scam is exactly what it is and that is to make sure that we never, ever contribute a penny to these ‘charities’ as doing so I am afraid, will only exacerbate the situation and further contribute to the utter misery being deliberately inflicted on the helpless peoples of the Third World.
The Red Cross
The International Red Cross, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, is an Elite-controlled front organisation whose true purpose is the complete opposite from their stated purpose.
The IMF tells the world that they are there to ‘help’ countries recover from economic difficulties (which incidentally the IMF and World Bank blatantly created in the first place) but in reality, the IMF breaks countries and ruins their economies. The same could be said of the Red Cross.
The moment a 'natural' disaster such as for example Hurricane Katrina, the Haitian earthquake or the Japanese Tsunami occurs; radio and TV ads flood the airwaves seeking monetary donations to be sent to the Red Cross. With music full of pathos playing in the background, the announcer tells us that the Red Cross is ‘always there in time of need’ and now that the poor victims are suffering terribly with this appalling tragedy, ‘won't you please open your heart’ and make a ‘generous donation’ to this ‘worthy cause’?
These people, who in my humble estimation are thoroughly beneath contempt, have totally mastered the science of extracting money from the unthinking masses. For example, the dust from the World Trade Centre collapses had not even settled (literally) before the Red Cross were appealing to us all to give blood and money to help the victims and the families of the 'terrorist' attack. Thousands of people gave blood and even more gave millions upon millions of pounds to the Red Cross. It would maybe have been pertinent to ask ‘blood for whom’? Everyone was dead (there were few injuries, relatively speaking) so why was the Red Cross asking for blood donations day and night for a week or longer?
The answer is reflective of the true purpose of the Red Cross. Sad to say the Red Cross is a disaster ‘racket’ which is in the business of making money from people’s misery, especially with totally engineered disasters such as 9/11. They sell the blood on, of course, but they apparently also use the blood for other things to which the public is generally not privy and one could legitimately ask where does all the money go and to whom? For the most part, they keep it for themselves as do the vast majority of major, household-name charities. The families of the victims of 9/11 had to badger, harrass and threaten the Red Cross in an attempt to obtain $11 million that they would not release to the families, as long as one year after the event – and that is just what we were told in the media, so my guess would be that it will be a pretty safe bet that the actual figure was much, much higher than this.
The CEO of the Red Cross and other senior administrators receive obscene salaries and other massive perks, all of which are paid directly from the man/woman in the street’s direct contributions to these supposed ‘good causes’. At the time of writing, the salary of the current president, Marsha Evans is $651,957 per annum and the total revenue of the Red Cross is well in excess of $3bn per annum (three billion dollars!).
“As the aftermath of hurricane Katrina continues to wreak mayhem and havoc amid reports of mass looting, shooting at rescue helicopters, rapes and murders, establishment media organs are promoting the Red Cross as a worthy organization to give donations to. The biggest website in the world, Yahoo.com, displays a Red Cross donation link prominently on its front page. Every time there is a major catastrophe the Red Cross and similar organizations like United Way are given all the media attention while other charities are left in the shadows. This is not to say that the vast majority of Red Cross workers are not decent people who simply want to help those in need”. Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones, 1st September 2005
In fact, the Red Cross has been caught ‘red-handed’ many times in withholding money in the wake of terrible disasters that require immediate release of funds. In the name of the ‘Liberty Fund’ for 9/11 family relief, the Red Cross collected $564 million in donations from around the world and yet only actually distributed around $150 million. Its explanation for keeping the majority of the money was that it would be used to help 'fight the war on terror'. In other words, this means that the money was spent bombing third world countries like Afghanistan and setting up surveillance cameras and expanding the police state in US cities and not put towards helping the families of victims to rebuild their shattered lives.
The then Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy arrogantly responded when accused of withholding of funds by stating, “The Liberty Fund is a war fund. It has evolved into a war fund. We must have blood readiness. We must have the ability to help our troops if we go into a ground war. We must have the ability to help the victims of tomorrow.”
At whose behest or say-so may I humbly enquire? Does the official mandate of the Red Cross now extend to collecting donations under false pretences and in lieu of possible future wars instigated by the Elite? Evidently it does, with nary a word of condemnation from those who either contribute their hard-earned cash or those who are supposedly its intended recipients, let alone government, in whose best interests this sorry state of affairs appears to be perpetuated.
However, the scandalous activities of the Red Cross extend way back, long before 9/11 in fact. Following the disastrous San Francisco earthquake in 1989, the Red Cross donated only $10 million of the $50 million that had been raised, and kept the rest. Similarly, following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the Red River flooding in 1997 many donations were also withheld. In fact the Red Cross has a long, long sordid history of stealing cash donations intended for disaster relief. Even as far back as the Korean War the Red Cross was plundering soldiers' relief packages, the famous ‘Red Cross Parcels’ from home. The Red Cross is very adept at stealing money and looting mail and has been exposed in this respect many times but it has been allowed to escape sanctions, punishment or exposure because the organisation is so closely allied with and indeed is inextricably linked with the Elite establishment. It is without doubt an organisation run by Elite insiders whose purpose is to gather intelligence and steal from the poor, underprivileged and needy to further line the pockets of the rich.
And these are just a few examples of its ongoing highly deceptive and fraudulent activity. Several minor charities that were involved with the 2004 Tsunami relief project expressed outrage in public to say that large charities like Red Cross and Oxfam were engaged in secret negotiations that resulted in a large amount of the public-donated money being withheld from those most affected by the disaster.
It is abundantly clear that the Red Cross and o
ther large so-called charities are in actual fact merely fronts for collecting funds on behalf of the Elite military-industrial complex. Some respected historians have even alleged that the Red Cross was used as a Skull and Bones cover to overthrow the Russian royals and pave the way for the rise of the Communism and to be frank my research would tend to lead me to believe that to be the truth.
The message here should be clear to all. Under no circumstances donate money to major charitable organisations unless you would like your money to go to benefit the Elite’s expansion of their empires and the fast-developing police state in your own backyards. Find smaller independent charitable organisations that you know to be reliable and make your donations to them.
“Charities swung into action after the September 11 terrorist attacks, raising more than $1 billion. But questions are being raised about where and how and how much of that money is being distributed. Bearing the brunt Tuesday during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel was outgoing Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy. The Red Cross has raised more than $564 million for the Liberty Fund, which was set up in response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. While the agency states on its Web site that it is spending more than any other relief agency responding to the terrorist attacks, it has distributed only $154 million. Healy was hammered by one New York official for the Red Cross' decision to put aside nearly half of the money raised for future needs that may include terrorist attacks. ‘I see the Red Cross, which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars that was intended by the donating public to be used for the victims of September 11 -- I see those funds being sequestered into long-term plans for an organization’, testified New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.” CNN, 3rd January 2005