上海的月亮: EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Jews are Plundering the World – Part 4

Soldiers burning paintings (from the series of watercolors Russian revolution), 1917. Artist Vladimirov, Ivan Alexeyevich (1869-1947). Source

As a working hypothesis, let us assume that the true motivation of the plundering class is not the Accumulation of additional wealth (which they no longer need) but the active prevention of anyone else having any significant money (Exclusion). We can look for observable signs that would follow from such a motivation, and we should keep in mind that this is all part of the same class war being waged against the lower and middle classes of all Western countries.

First, the plunder is a zero‑sum agenda, and this is the distinction between Accumulation and Exclusion. If the goal were merely accumulation, we would expect plunderers to maximise efficiency: take enough to grow wealth, but leave enough in the host population to sustain productive capacity (like a farmer does not slaughter the dairy cow). However, if the goal is exclusion, ensuring that only they have money, then the rational strategy changes. The plunderer becomes indifferent to the host’s collapse, because the objective is not to have more, but the deprivation of everyone else. This isn’t the same as competition for status or fame or influence. It is the difference between greed and deprivation.

Another sign of Exclusion is that extraction continues even when marginal returns to the plunderer are negligible (e.g., squeezing pennies from the Indian poor). A pure accumulator would stop when the cost of extraction exceeds the gain. An exclusion-driven plunderer continues because the act of depriving, leaving the other with nothing, is itself the objective. A strong indicator of the thesis of Exclusion is policies that deliberately create scarcity for the majority while producing no benefit for the elite. An example would be the underfunding of public healthcare or education not because it saves taxes, but because an educated, healthy population will be troublesome and demand a share of the wealth. Closing down food banks and criminalising feeding the poor, are also Exclusion.

Another sign is the apparent obsession with debt as a control mechanism. If you want to ensure that others have no money, the most efficient tool is perpetual debt. Debt transfers future income and assets from the debtor to the creditor. If the goal were simply to maximise interest income, you would set rates at a level that allows repayment, so you can lend again. Exclusion logic predicts the opposite: rates so high that the debtor can never escape, turning them into a permanent revenue stream and ensuring they will never accumulate capital of their own.

Some of the obvious observed signs of this would be student loans at 18% that survive bankruptcy. These are not loans, but a lifetime indenture. Another is the recent Jewish practice of what is termed “payday lending”, which consists of very short-term paycheck-to-paycheck loans with interest as high as 400%. This is not a “service” but a predatory debt trap, and an area in which Jews specialise. Another sign is the refusal to write off distressed debt even when recovery costs exceed the face value. This is done because the point is not recovery of debt, but keeping the debtor in a state of subjugation. I would add here that this is not different than the old concept of “debtor’s prisons”, another practice initiated by Jewish lenders and re-surfacing now as debt enslavement; a permanent or quasi-permanent indenture.

Another category is the persistent attack on non-monetary wealth. Cash is not the only “asset” or form of wealth. If the goal is to ensure that no one else has any money, a shrewd plunderer bent on Exclusion would also destroy alternative forms of value that might substitute for money. This would include social welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, communal support systems, food banks, and various public goods. These allow the poor to survive without cash. An exclusion-driven elite would systematically dismantle them, and we are seeing this in multiple circumstances. Some observed signs would include the privatisation of water supplies, as with Enron in Bolivia, forcing people to pay for something that fell free from the sky. Another is the now-common criminalisation of informal vending, making it illegal to survive without participating in the cash economy controlled by banks.

An important point is that so-called “intellectual property” now has laws extended to items like seeds and natural medicines, and even some basic software. This prevents the poor from using, sharing, or distributing what was once common heritage. One example is the flu medication Tamiflu. This medication has been part of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for centuries, if not for millennia, the drug extracted from star aniseed which grows only in China. But the “official narrative” tells us that the Jewish pharma company, Gilead Sciences, “invented” the drug which was then licensed to Hoffmann-La Roche (another Jewish pharma company) for marketing. [1] You can understand that the Chinese were not pleased to have a foreign company steal one of their traditional medicines, patent it, then forbid them to use it without paying heavy royalties. [2] The Internet appears to have been fully sanitised about this story; I could find no mention anywhere of either China, or aniseed. The situation of GM seed is similar, where Jewish multi-national agri-giants have patented common seeds and, using this lever, can squeeze to death subsistence farmers everywhere.

Another area is the visible preference for regression over stability. A person focused on Accumulation prefers stable, predictable extraction environments. An exclusion-driven predator will prefer managed chaos, because chaos destroys the savings of the poor (inflation, currency devaluation, asset seizures) while leaving the elite’s offshore holdings intact. The ideal environment for exclusion is one where the majority are constantly struggling to stay afloat, with no opportunity to build reserves. There are many observable signs of this. One is government support for policies that create high volatility, like the deregulation of financial markets, elimination of capital controls, opposition to price stability for essentials like food and fuel.

Another is the persistent underfunding of social insurance programs like old age pensions and unemployment and disability coverage. This isn’t because of the cost; it is deliberate exclusion, and is especially reprehensible because this is a national government conspiring to impoverish its own citizens. I won’t go into much detail here, but one stark example is the US government’s inflation statistics which are widely seen outside the country as pure fiction. I covered this in an article titled “The Fraudulent Matrix of US Economic Statistics“. [3] Many professional economists have stated that “If inflation in America were calculated today by the same statistical methods used prior to the 1980s, the true rate would be almost 10% higher than that stated by the US government today.” And that’s correct, but this serious mis-calculation of the CPI is fraudulent on more than one level.

‘Federal govt LOSES A TRILLION DOLLARS yearly in fraud!’ Explosive Minnesota testimony rocks Senate. Source

These false inflation statistics involve a massive financial fraud, the theft of trillions of dollars from the American people by their own government. The reason is that all Social Security payments, welfare and food support, and other items are linked to the rate of inflation and are legislated to increase each year to cover the actual increases in the cost of living. But since the US government deliberately understates the inflation rate by approximately 10%, all Social Security benefits have been underestimated and underpaid by this amount, compounded annually, and so Social Security, many pensions, and other payments should be about 70% higher than they are today. This is not simply a government plundering its own citizens; it could do that (and does) with taxes. This is a clear sign of a captive government consciously pushing its own people down into the Lower Class – a clear sign of Exclusion.

Another sign from the corporate realm is the replacement of defined‑benefit pensions with defined‑contribution plans that transfer market risk onto workers. This single policy change, poorly-understood if at all by the masses, transfers all liability and risk to employees, ensuring that any market crash wipes out their retirement savings. In the recent past, corporate pensions were typically “defined-benefit”, meaning that when you retired at age 65 your pension would be (typically) 75% of the average of your best 5 years’ income. This has been replaced by a system where the company simply credits a fixed amount each year for each employee, and typically puts the money in the stock market. All stability is gone. There are no longer any guarantees; retirement at an unfortunate date coinciding with a poor stock market, sentences a 40-year employee to poverty.

An Historical Catalogue of Destruction

What Was the Holodomor? Americans Could Soon Find Out Firsthand”. Source

Perhaps the ultimate test of Exclusion is the willingness to destroy value to deny it to others. The most unambiguous sign of Exclusion motivation is the destruction of usable goods rather than allowing the poor to have them. Historically, this has occurred often: plowing under crops during the Great Depression while people starved; pouring milk into rivers. If the thesis holds, we should see contemporary equivalents: landlords leaving units vacant rather than lowering rent (already documented); pharmaceutical companies destroying surplus vaccines rather than donating them (occurred in 2021-2022); retailers destroying returned goods rather than selling them at discount (Amazon, Walmart practice).

There exists a pattern of value destruction that cannot be explained by profit maximisation. If a firm could sell a product at marginal cost to the poor and still make a tiny profit (or even break-even) but chooses to destroy it instead, the motive can only be Exclusion, preventing the poor from having anything.

In terms of destruction, there is quite a large catalogue of evidence. One of the worst displays was the US in 1933. In the middle of the worst depression in living memory, the US government paid farmers to deliberately destroy crops and livestock. Under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, millions of acres of crops, and millions of acres of cotton, were plowed under, much fruit like grapes, peaches, cherries, were left to rot in the fields and orchards. Tens of millions of bushels of grain were simply plowed into the ground, while the government paid farmers to not grow anything – this during the depression when people were starving. [4] [5] More than 6 million pigs were slaughtered and discarded. Not only that, but it apparently cost more than $30 million to slaughter and discard the pigs. [6] [7] Further, countless tons of milk were dumped into the Mississippi River rather than give it to the poor.

Wisconsin’s Milk Wars Of 1933. Source

This was a calculated effort to control the high prices for elites by destroying the means of survival for the poor. In Brazil during the depression, millions of tons of coffee were burned as fuel, to support the high prices demanded by the Jewish plantation owners. [8] [9]

In 2025 in Canada, more than 10 million liters of milk were destroyed. [10] I still recall some years back when Canada’s government destroyed thousands of tons of butter rather than give it away free to poor countries. These were all policies designed to support high prices for a few influential persons, rather than lower costs for tens of millions of consumers. In these cases, and in so many others, when faced with a choice between giving away surplus food or destroying it, the elite-driven system inevitably chooses destruction.

“I dumped 30K litres”: Canadian farmer shows how much milk is wasted to keep prices up. Source

Modern Canada’s shocking food waste does not occur during economic crises but is a regular occurrence under normal conditions. Canada operates a system which strictly controls dairy production to maintain stable prices (for the producer, not for the consumer). According to a 2025 report, between 2012 and 2021 alone, more than 7 billion liters of milk were dumped and destroyed in Canada (Yes, really, 7 billion liters) – for the explicit purpose of keeping market prices high in order to protect the interests of a small number of distributors. [11] An important note is in order here: the governments and the media tell us this food is destroyed to protect the income of farmers, and that is a huge lie. Farmers everywhere receive only a pittance for whatever they produce. The money is not in farming; it is in the distribution system. If you disbelieve this, take a drive into any rural area and ask a farmer how much he receives from “the system” for a dozen eggs. For a $6.00 dozen of eggs, the farmer receives less than $0.25, and often very much less. The American Farm Bureau estimates that farmers receive only about 3% of every dollar spent on food, and this tiny fraction is the gross income before expenses, meaning the farmer’s actual profit is microscopic. The remaining 97% is transportation, and wholesale and retail profit markups.

This pattern even extends to modern consumer goods. For obsolete or off‑season products, the laws themselves encourage destruction over donation. All of these cases point to a cold, deliberate strategy of maintaining the status quo. From the plowing under of crops during the Great Depression, to the institutionalised dairy waste in Canada, to Brazil’s coffee burning, the driving force is identical: maintaining price and profit margins. When a society would rather destroy surplus food, medicine, or other necessities of life than use them to save lives and improve human welfare, that society’s primary goal is no longer the well‑being of its people. Under the driver of the “invisible hand” of profit, basic human survival needs are treated as commodities – something to be priced, traded, and, if necessary, extinguished.

Yet there are many “academic” treatises to tell us that a redistribution of surplus food is NOT the solution to food poverty. [12] They begin by asking: Is it appropriate to use surplus food to feed people in hunger? Their answer is a clear NO! According to them, feeding the poor with surplus food is merely a “Short-term Band-Aid to more deep-rooted problems of poverty”. They claim that to give this food to the poor, would be viewed as serving “leftover food to left behind people” And of course, we can’t have that. So, each year millions of tons of food are destroyed because we don’t want the poor to feel they are being “left behind”. They further argue that “The benefits of using food waste to feed people accrue primarily to the food industry whilst absolving responsibility of the government to addressing food poverty”.

When faced with a choice between giving away surplus food or destroying it, the system chooses destruction based on three key arguments. (1) Free distribution would destroy the consumer market, leading to a price collapse that would destroy the entire industry. (2) Logistics, the cost of transport and storage makes free distribution more expensive than destruction. “Experts” argue this cost makes free distribution financially impossible. (3) “The most compassionate act” is to save the food industry (by letting the weakest die off), and this can be done only by destroying food surpluses. This is presented not as cruelty, but as a cold, calculated necessity. Are you convinced? No, me neither. Their arguments are complete rubbish. But the governments have bought into this nonsense rhetoric.

The thesis that surplus food destruction is about Exclusion, not Accumulation, is strongly supported by the sheer extent of this behavior. The UK alone destroys more than ten million tons of food every year. It perfectly explains these economic justifications as a rationalisation for an ideology: the poorest must be denied a basic necessity so that the system of denial itself can survive.

The best way to identify and expose this motivation of Exclusion is to follow the money, but also to follow the destruction. We can find cases where plunderers incur costs to deny others access (e.g., paying for security to keep people out of abandoned buildings; suing poor people for debts they cannot pay, spending more on legal fees than a debt is worth). We are often told that to determine the real politics behind any event, we must ask “Cui bono?” – who benefits? But for our purposes it is also important to ask “Qui prohibetur ne prosit” – who is prevented from benefiting? A tax cut for the rich that also cuts services for the poor may be ambiguous, but a policy that hurts only the poor with no benefit to anyone else is a cleaner signal. Examples are Donald Trump cutting funds for Medicaid and Medicare, and day care for children. Another is the frequent elimination of free school lunches. Acts like these can have only one result: the further impoverishment of the Middle and Lower Classes.

Examine the rhetoric of elite institutions — The World Bank, IMF, and central banks often justify austerity by saying “there is no alternative.” But when they oppose even low‑cost interventions that have massive social returns, the rationale collapses. The unstated premise is always human impoverishment. Another method is to look for the expression of schadenfreude; not in official statements, but in leaked communications, private speeches, and anonymous interviews. When plunderers express satisfaction, or at least a lack of sincere empathy at the misfortunes of the poor or the middle class (foreclosures, bankruptcies, layoffs), you have firm evidence of Exclusion motivation.

We can also compare behavior across contexts. For example, if a corporation behaves differently in countries with strong redistribution (e.g., paying higher wages, offering better safety and working conditions) than in weak ones, its home‑country behavior is not a necessity but a choice. The choice to exploit where it can, is evidence that the constraint, not the moral preference, determines behavior. Remove the constraint, and the Exclusion motivation becomes visible.

The thesis that the real motivation is not accumulation but ensuring that no one else has money, is not provable by direct evidence, because motivations are internal. But powerful circumstantial evidence can be assembled. The signs are: Extraction beyond the point of rational return. Creation of perpetual debt traps. Destruction of non‑monetary alternatives. Preference for instability over predictability. Contemptuous moral framing of poverty. Economic destruction of usable value to deny it to others. These behaviors are observable and are consistent with an Exclusion motive. Greed alone does not explain the willingness to incur costs to deny others. That requires a zero‑sum psychology where wealth is not a comfort, but a comparative status. And comparative status, by definition, requires that others have less.

The Architecture of Shame

This is another aspect I find unpleasant and disturbing, something sociopathic and psychopathic – the standard and ubiquitous “psychological signature” of Exclusion, which is contempt for the “other” – in this case, almost everyone. In every case where the Exclusion motive is operative, we can find evidence of “blaming the victim”, a form of contempt. And I have to say this tendency is almost 100% a Jewish signature. I know of no other race of people who engage in this reprehensible practice, and we can see it everywhere. When the motive is Exclusion, the plunderers display not just indifference but active contempt toward their victims, those with little money. They frame poverty as a moral failing, and this means the poor deserve their condition, so keeping them poor is justice, not cruelty.

We can observe a multitude of signs of this tendency everywhere we look: “Homeless people are all mentally-crazed drug addicts” who deserve what they get. The unemployed are “unproductive”, “lazy,” “resentful” poor who lack “grit” or “entrepreneurial spirit”. Anyone receiving social assistance payments (welfare) are lazy and greedy parasites, unwilling to work. Evidence of government collusion in this definition is that welfare programs often seem designed to be as humiliating as possible, as if the goal were not to reduce poverty but to punish the poor for existing.

One sign of evidence that supports the Exclusion vs Accumulation thesis, is the spectacle of extreme wealth displayed ostentatiously (superyachts, space tourism) not for pleasure but as a public assertion of differential status. This is a cheap way of saying “Look at what you cannot have”. In similar tone, there are hundreds of videos on YouTube and Douyin of Americans in tears and despair because they are falling deeper into debt and cannot live as humans. But there are also simultaneous videos (almost assuredly false) on these same platforms of a person boasting “how I earned $100,000 in only one month on Uber Eats” (delivering food, like with Meituan in China). Or, “how I made $250,000 baby-sitting people’s cats, and retired to Italy”. The obvious intent of these videos is to instill guilt in all those who are struggling, making them feel their condition is from their own moral failing, that any “normal” person could earn a huge income from almost anything. There are many examples of this despicable practice of “rubbing people’s noses” in their own poverty, and are definitely a form of psychological gaslighting, prompted by decidedly unpleasant motives.

There is a new mantra floating around on the Thai social media feeds these days: เงินอยู่ในอากาศ, or “money is in the air”. [13] This is by netizens eagerly sharing posts that boast about how they have turned their social media content into huge quick cash. Some flaunt screenshots of their earnings, others parade photos, real or AI-generated, of lavish lifestyles that are non-existent. To the casual viewer, it looks like all it takes is some imagination to transform your life overnight. Similarly, there are Tik-Tok “influencers” offering any manner of get-rich-quick schemes. [14] On one level, these posts feed the dream that anyone can strike gold online, but they all prove to be rubbish. Rolling Stone published an article “TikTok Influencers Promise They’ll Make You Rich. The Math Doesn’t Add Up”. [15] And of course, the math never does “add up”. And it isn’t only about money. There are some who specialize in distressing you with a convincing psycho-babble narrative about the reason you don’t have a boyfriend. [16]

This is a crucial mechanism in the maintenance of the Exclusion system. Not content to merely be wealthy, the Exclusion Elite must also blame the poor for their condition. This is the ideological weapon that turns systemic failure into personal shame. The videos I described are a key part of that arsenal. The ecosystem of fake success is 100% a psychological gaslighting operation.

The get‑rich‑quick content on platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram is not simply naive advice; it is an entire ecosystem engineered to increase feelings of despair and hopelessness. To a casual viewer, it seems all you need is the right attitude to transform your life overnight, but in all these cases there is a dark matrix of illusion and psychological manipulation. In every case I have been able to research, the online “wealth gurus” are selling a fantasy. It is all a fictional “Theater of the Rich”. On one occasion, one of these online “instantly-rich” influencers was exposed quietly returning all items to the stores after what was presented as a fabulous shopping trip. In real life, it is much easier to sell the dream of easy money than to make it.

The intent of “rubbing people’s noses” in their own poverty is a double‑edged psychological operation that can open painful emotional wounds. It uses your suffering to generate envy (and profit) for the influencer, while inducing a form of psychological self‑flagellation in the viewer. And thus, the unlucky and disadvantaged transit from envy to self-blame and self-loathing. The seemingly relentless feed of fictional wealth creates a distorted perception of reality, producing feelings of anxiety, misery, and a chronic sense of inadequacy. And it cannot be an exaggeration to assume that, since empathy is absent in the Jewish perpetrators of these frauds, and since Goyim suffering is dehumanised, there is a significant element of schadenfreude, of pleasure derived from another’s misfortune.

This ecosystem of fake success videos functions as a powerful component of the exclusion system. The mechanism is clear: These people flood feeds with videos of fake luxury and easy wealth, to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of the disadvantaged, forcing social comparison to create anxiety and feelings of inadequacy. They fund think tanks to deploy destructive ideological messaging. This is all Jewish psycho-abuse. The Jewish Wilks brothers (Jews for Jesus) [17] (through their fictitious PragerU) promote the “just world hypothesis”, that frames poverty as a moral failing rather than a structural outcome. Their presentation, and that of the Jews generally, feeds our deep psychological need to believe the world is fair. Given this irrefutable anchor, the only conclusion is that if you are suffering, you deserve it. As an example, one of their videos on housing states that it’s “not a housing problem, it’s a human problem”, thus entirely blaming the victim and absolving the system (and themselves, and Blackrock) of any responsibility.

The eventual result is a population that turns against itself. The struggling individuals become increasingly less likely to blame the system that exploited them, and more likely to feel isolated, ashamed, and angry at themselves for their moral weakness. This is the ultimate psychological victory for the exclusion agenda: making their victims judge themselves harshly, with no understanding of the true cause of their misery. This psychological assault is not organic. It is based on weaponised narratives in a heavily ideological infrastructure that are amplified and given weight by a well‑funded Jewish network of right‑wing think tanks and media organisations.

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com

NOTES – Part 4

[1] Understanding Who Invented Tamiflu: The Story of Gilead and Roche
https://medxdrg.com/understanding-who-invented-tamiflu-the-story-of-gilead-and-roche

[2] Roche Grants Tamiflu Production Rights In China
https://www.biospace.com/roche-grants-tamiflu-production-rights-in-china

[3] The Fraudulent Matrix of US Economic Statistics
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/8446/

[4] The U.S. government paid farmers not to grow crops.
https://historyfacts.com/us-history/fact/government-paid-farmers-not-to-grow-crops/

[5] Plowed Under: Food Policy Protests and Performance in New Deal America
https://ucd.summon.serialssolutions.com/?formids=target&lang=eng&suite=def&s.fvf%5B%5D=ContentType%2CBook+Review%2Ct&reservedids=lang%2Csuite&submitmode=&submitname=&s.q=plowed+under&button=#!/search?pn=1&ho=t&include.ft.matches=f&fvf=ContentType,Book%20Review,t&l=en&q=plowed%20under

[6] The porcine slaughter of the innocents
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1999/the-porcine-slaughter-of-the-innocents

[7] Plowing Under Cotton and Killing Pigs
https://footnote.wordpress.ncsu.edu/2020/08/14/plowing-under-cotton-and-killing-pigs-8-14-2020/

[8] Brazil Destroys More Coffee – The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1936/09/09/archives/brazil-destroys-more-coffee.html

[9] 90 Years Ago, Brazil Burned Billions of Pounds of Coffee
https://dailycoffeenews.com/2021/09/22/90-years-ago-seeking-salvation-brazil-burned-billions-of-pounds-of-coffee/

[10] Canada chooses to dump milk rather than lower prices
https://theclarion.ca/politicslaw/canada-chooses-to-dump-milk-rather-than-lower-prices/

[11] Billions of litres of milk are being dumped in Canada, research finds
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/milk-wasted-report-canada

[12] Redistribution of surplus food is NOT the solution to food poverty
https://www.foodaidnetwork.org.uk/blog/redistribution-of-surplus-food-is-not-the-solution-to-food-poverty

[13] Money in the Air: The Mirage of the Get-Rich-Quick Online Culture in Thailand | FULCRUM
https://fulcrum.sg/money-in-the-air-the-mirage-of-the-get-rich-quick-online-culture-in-thailand/

[14] TikTok’s ‘get rich quick’ property influencers investigated for BBC Radio 4
https://www.publicnow.com/view/5A08C4A7939FA01DA6E5A7E11A837BD5B5110CA9?1744105700

[15] TikTok Influencers Promise They’ll Make You Rich. The Math Doesn’t Add Up
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/tiktok-influencer-wealth-broke-1234952545/

[16] ‘No boyfriends’ fakery shows how Instagram influencers put ‘evil eye’ on the vulnerable
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/no-boyfriends-fakery-shows-how-instagram-influencers-put-evil-eye-on-the-vulnerable-5402092

[17] The Wilks Brothers: Jews for Jesus
https://www.goodreturns.in/farris-wilks-net-worth-and-biography-blnr2125.html

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

Other Works by this Author