The Red Cross, along with all other charities, have always been agents of the Cabal.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus came out with his book Essay on the Principle of Population. Within it he makes a economic argument for depopulation. He makes the claim that because we have gotten so good at producing food and medicine (in 1798 lol) that we will inevitably prevent Nature from killing off the bad human stock that should otherwise be culled, thus we need to employ active depopulation. It sounds not all that great given my short description, but it's actually pretty well thought out and logical.

Despite his sound reasoning and good argument, it has no supporting evidence in what actually happened (suggesting faulty premises). Nevertheless it has still been a source of doom and gloom and indeed, almost all policy decisions world wide for over two centuries.

Relevant to the Red Cross, within his book he talks about the evils of charity; how that agency of "social good will" subverts Nature's attempt to kill off bad human stock by lifting up those who shouldn't survive.

Fast forward to today (and indeed, all of the time between then and now), all philanthropists and their charities (including the American Red Cross, owned by Rockefeller) also happen to be the same people and groups that fund all the depopulation efforts.

If you are a Malthusian proponent, you know that there are going to be charities that will interfere with depopulation efforts, especially of the "bad people," thus you must control the charities, to ensure they don't do any of that "evil" work of saving people that need to die.

All of these agencies have a design purpose opposite of what they claim in the brochure. (That statement doesn't apply only to charities/philanthropies.)

As a side effect, because charities have much looser rules regarding moving money and goods across country borders, they also happen to be fantastic pathways for smuggling and political payoffs. The primary purpose however, is to Control the Opposition (in this case the "opposition" to the Malthus Plan, i.e. those people who would help other people when they need it).

The Red Cross, along with all other charities, have always been agents of the Cabal.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus came out with his book Essay on the Principle of Population. Within it he makes a economic argument for depopulation. He makes the claim that because we have gotten so good at producing food and medicine (in 1798 lol) that we will inevitably prevent Nature from killing off the bad human stock that should otherwise be culled, thus we need to employ active depopulation. It sounds not all that great given my short description, but it's actually pretty well thought out and logical.

As it turns out, it has no supporting evidence in what actually happened. Nevertheless it has still been a source of doom and gloom and indeed, almost all policy decisions world wide for over two centuries.

Relevant to the Red Cross, within his book he talks about the evils of charity; how that agency of "social good will" subverts Nature's attempt to kill off bad human stock by lifting up those who shouldn't survive.

Fast forward to today (and indeed, all of the time between then and now), all philanthropists and their charities (including the American Red Cross, owned by Rockefeller) also happen to be the same people and groups that fund all the depopulation efforts.

If you are a Malthusian proponent, you know that there are going to be charities that will interfere with depopulation efforts, especially of the "bad people," thus you must control the charities, to ensure they don't do any of that "evil" work of saving people that need to die.

All of these agencies have a design purpose opposite of what they claim in the brochure. (That statement doesn't apply only to charities/philanthropies.)

As a side effect, because charities have much looser rules regarding moving money and goods across country borders, they also happen to be fantastic pathways for smuggling and political payoffs. The primary purpose however, is to Control the Opposition (in this case the "opposition" to the Malthus Plan, i.e. those people who would help other people when they need it).

The Red Cross, along with all other charities, have always been agents of the Cabal.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus came out with his book Essay on the Principle of Population. Within it he makes a economic argument for depopulation. He makes the claim that because we have gotten so good at producing food and medicine (in 1798 lol) that we will inevitably prevent Nature from killing off the bad human stock that should otherwise be culled, thus we need to employ active depopulation. It sounds not all that great given my short description, but it's actually pretty well thought out and logical.

As it turns out, it has no supporting evidence in what actually happened. Nevertheless it has still been a source of doom and gloom and indeed, almost all policy decisions world wide for over two centuries.

Relevant to the Red Cross, within his book he talks about the evils of charity; how that agency of "social good will" subverts Nature's attempt to kill off bad human stock by lifting up those who shouldn't survive.

Fast forward to today (and indeed, all of the time between then and now), all philanthropists and their charities (including the American Red Cross, owned by Rockefeller) also happen to be the same people and groups that fund all the depopulation efforts.

If you are a Malthusian proponent, you know that there are going to be charities that will interfere with depopulation efforts, especially of the "bad people," thus you must control the charities, to ensure they don't do any of that "evil" work of saving people that need to die.

All of these agencies have a design purpose opposite of what they claim in the brochure. (That statement doesn't apply only to charities/philanthropies.)

As a side effect, because charities have much looser rules regarding moving money and goods across country borders, they also happen to be fantastic pathways for smuggling and political payoffs. The primary purpose however, is to Control the Opposition (in this case the "opposition" to the Malthus Plan).

The Red Cross, along with all other charities, have always been agents of the Cabal.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus came out with his book Essay on the Principle of Population. Within it he makes a economic argument for depopulation. He makes the claim that because we have gotten so good at producing food and medicine (in 1798 lol) that we will inevitably prevent Nature from killing off the bad human stock that should otherwise be culled, thus we need to employ active depopulation. It sounds not all that great given my short description, but it's actually pretty well thought out and logical.

As it turns out, it has no supporting evidence in what actually happened. Nevertheless it has still been a source of doom and gloom and indeed, almost all policy decisions world wide for over two centuries.

Relevant to the Red Cross, within his book he talks about the evils of charity; how that agency of "social good will" subverts Nature's attempt to kill off bad human stock by lifting up those who shouldn't survive.

Fast forward to today (and indeed, all of the time between then and now), all philanthropists and their charities (including the American Red Cross, owned by Rockefeller) also happen to be the same people and groups that fund all the depopulation efforts.

If you are a Malthusian proponent, you know that there are going to be charities that will interfere with depopulation efforts, especially of the "bad people," thus you must control the charities, to ensure they don't do any of that "evil" work of saving people that need to die.

All of these agencies have a design purpose opposite of what they claim in the brochure. (That statement doesn't apply only to charities/philanthropies.)

As a side effect, because charities have much looser rules regarding moving money and goods across country borders, they also happen to be fantastic pathways for smuggling and political payoffs.

The Red Cross, along with all other charities, have always been agents of the Cabal.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus came out with his book Essay on the Principle of Population. Within it he makes a economic argument for depopulation. He makes the claim that because we have gotten so good at producing food and medicine (in 1798 lol) that we will inevitably prevent Nature from killing off the bad human stock that should otherwise be culled, thus we need to employ active depopulation. It sounds not all that great given my short description, but it's actually pretty well thought out and logical.

As it turns out, it has no supporting evidence in what actually happened. Nevertheless it has still been a source of doom and gloom and indeed, almost all policy decisions world wide for over two centuries.

Relevant to the Red Cross, within his book he talks about the evils of charity; how that agency of "social good will" subverts Nature's attempt to kill off bad human stock by lifting up those who shouldn't survive.

Fast forward to today (and indeed, all of the time between then and now), all philanthropists and their charities (including the American Red Cross, owned by Rockefeller) also happen to be the same people and groups that fund all the depopulation efforts.

If you are a Malthusian proponent, you know that there are going to be charities that will interfere with depopulation efforts, especially of the "bad people," thus you must control the charities, to ensure they don't do any of that "evil" work of saving people that need to die.

All of these agencies have a design purpose opposite of what they claim in the brochure. (That statement doesn't apply only to charities/philanthropies.)

The Red Cross, along with all other charities, have always been agents of the Cabal.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus came out with his book Essay on the Principle of Population. Within it he makes a economic argument for depopulation. He makes the claim that because we have gotten so good at producing food and medicine etc. (in 1798 lol) that we will inevitably prevent Nature from killing off the bad human stock that should otherwise be culled, thus we need to employ active depopulation. It sounds not all that great given my short description, but it's actually pretty well thought out and logical.

As it turns out, it has no supporting evidence in what actually happened. Nevertheless it has still been a source of doom and gloom and indeed, almost all policy decisions world wide for over two centuries.

Relevant to the Red Cross, within his book he talks about the evils of charity; how that agency of "social good will" subverts Nature's attempt to kill off bad human stock by lifting up those who shouldn't survive.

Fast forward to today (and indeed, all of the time between then and now), all philanthropists and their charities (including the American Red Cross, owned by Rockefeller) also happen to be the same people and groups that fund all the depopulation efforts.

If you are a Malthusian proponent, you know that there are going to be charities that will interfere with depopulation efforts, especially of the "bad people," thus you must control the charities, to ensure they don't do any of that "evil" work of saving people that need to die.

All of these agencies have a design purpose opposite of what they claim in the brochure. (That statement doesn't apply only to charities/philanthropies.)