上海的月亮: CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 犹太人正在掠夺世界——第四部分 — 掠夺以排他 — Jews are Plundering the World – Part 4

译者：Pearl

Soldiers burning paintings (from the series of watercolors Russian revolution), 1917. Artist Vladimirov, Ivan Alexeyevich (1869-1947).1917年，士兵们正在焚烧画作（选自《俄国革命》系列水彩画）。艺术家为弗拉基米罗夫·伊万·阿列克谢耶维奇（1869-1947）。来源/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.

作为一个有效的假设，让我们假设掠夺阶层的真正动机并非积累额外的财富（他们对此已不再需要），而是积极阻止他人拥有大量财富（即排斥）。我们可以寻找这种动机可能产生的可观察迹象，同时应牢记，这一切都是针对所有西方国家中下层阶级发起的同一场阶级战争的一部分。

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.

首先，掠夺是一种零‑和议程，这是积累与排斥之间的区别。‑如果目标仅仅是积累，那么我们会预期掠夺者会追求效率最大化：掠夺足够的财富以增加财富，但同时也要给东道国人口留下足够的财富以维持生产能力（就像农民不会屠宰奶牛一样）。‑然而，如果目标是排斥，即确保只有他们自己有钱，那么理性策略就会发生变化。掠夺者对东道国的崩溃漠不关心，因为目标不是拥有更多，而是剥夺其他所有人。这与地位、名声或影响力的竞争不同。这是贪婪与剥夺之间的区别。

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.

排他性的另一个表现是，即使掠夺者的边际收益微乎其微（例如，从印度穷人身上榨取微薄收入），掠夺行为仍会持续。纯粹的积累者会在掠夺成本超过收益时停止掠夺。而受排他性驱使的掠夺者则会继续掠夺，因为剥夺他人、让对方一无所有本身就是其目的。排他性理论的一个有力佐证是，某些政策故意为大多数人制造稀缺，却不为精英阶层带来任何利益。一个例子是，公共医疗或教育资金不足，这并非为了节税，而是因为受过教育、身体健康的人群会制造麻烦，并要求分享财富。关闭食品银行和将救助穷人定为犯罪，也是排他性的表现。

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.

另一个迹象是，他们显然痴迷于将债务作为一种控制机制。如果你想确保别人没有钱，最有效的工具就是永久债务。债务将债务人的未来收入和资产转移给债权人。如果目标只是最大化利息收入，那么你会将利率设定在一个允许还款的水平，这样你就可以再次放贷。排斥逻辑则预测了相反的情况：利率如此之高，以至于债务人永远无法逃脱，债务成为他们永久的收入来源，并确保他们永远无法积累自己的资本。

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.

其中一些明显的迹象是，学生贷款的利率高达18%，且在破产时仍然有效。这些并非贷款，而是一生的契约。另一个迹象是犹太人最近采用的所谓“发薪日贷款”的做法，这是一种非常短期的“薪水到薪水”的贷款，利率高达400%。这并非一种“服务”，而是一个掠夺性的债务陷阱，也是犹太人擅长的领域。另一个迹象是，即使回收成本超过面值，也拒绝注销不良债务。这样做是因为重点不在于收回债务，而在于让债务人处于一种被征服的状态。我在此要补充一点，这与“债务人监狱”这一古老概念并无二致，这是犹太放贷者发起的另一种做法，如今以债务奴役的形式重新出现；这是一种永久或准永久的契约。

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.

另一类是对非货币财富的持续攻击。现金并非唯一的“资产”或财富形式。如果目标是确保其他人没有一分钱，那么一个精明的掠夺者若一心想要排他，也会摧毁可能替代货币的其他价值形式。这包括社会福利、医疗补助、医疗保险、社区支持系统、食品银行以及各种公共产品。这些让穷人能够在没有现金的情况下生存。受排他性驱使的精英阶层会系统性地废除这些制度，而我们在多种情况下都看到了这一点。一些观察到的迹象包括供水私有化，如玻利维亚的安然事件，迫使人们为从天而降的东西付费。另一个迹象是如今普遍存在的对非正规售卖行为的刑事化，使得不参与银行控制的现金经济就无法生存成为非法行为。

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.

一个重要的问题是，所谓的“知识产权”法律现在已扩展到种子、天然药物，甚至一些基本软件等领域。这使得穷人无法使用、分享或分发曾经是共同遗产的东西。一个例子是流感药物达菲。这种药物从八角中提取，八角仅在中国生长，几个世纪以来，甚至几千年以来，它一直是传统中医（TCM）的一部分。但“官方叙事”告诉我们，犹太制药公司吉利德科学“发明”了这种药物，然后将其授权给霍夫曼-罗氏（另一家犹太制药公司）进行营销。[1]你可以理解，中国人对于一家外国公司窃取他们的传统药物，为其申请专利，然后禁止他们使用，除非支付高额专利费，感到非常不满。[2]互联网上似乎已经完全删除了关于这个故事的任何内容；我找不到任何提及中国或八角的地方。转基因种子的状况与此类似，犹太跨国农业巨头为普通种子申请了专利，并利用这一杠杆，可以挤压世界各地的自给自足的农民至死。

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.

另一个领域是明显偏好倒退而非稳定。注重积累的人更倾向于稳定、可预测的开采环境。以排斥为驱动的掠夺者则更偏好有管理的混乱，因为混乱会破坏穷人的储蓄（通货膨胀、货币贬值、资产没收），同时让精英阶层的离岸资产保持完好。排斥的理想环境是大多数人不断挣扎求生，没有机会积累储蓄。有许多可观察到的迹象表明了这一点。其中之一是政府支持制造高度波动的政策，如放松对金融市场的监管、取消资本管制、反对食品和燃料等必需品的价格稳定。

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.

另一个问题是，养老金、失业保险和伤残保险等社会保险项目长期资金不足。这并非因为成本问题；而是蓄意排斥，尤其令人愤慨的是，这是国家政府合谋剥夺本国公民财富的行为。我在此不赘述细节，但一个明显的例子是美国政府的通胀统计数据，这些数据在国外被普遍视为纯属虚构。我在一篇题为《美国经济统计数据的欺诈矩阵》的文章中对此进行了论述。[3]许多专业经济学家表示，“如果今天用20世纪80年代之前使用的相同统计方法来计算美国的通胀率，那么真实通胀率将比美国政府今天公布的数字高出近10%。”这是正确的，但这种对消费者价格指数（CPI）的严重误算在多个层面上都是欺诈行为。

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

“联邦政府每年因欺诈损失一万亿美元！”明尼苏达州爆炸性证词震惊参议院。来源/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.

这些虚假的通货膨胀统计数据涉及一场大规模的金融欺诈，即美国政府从美国人民手中窃取了数万亿美元。原因在于，所有社会保障金、福利和食品补助金以及其他项目都与通货膨胀率挂钩，并且法律规定每年都要增加，以弥补生活成本的实际增长。但由于美国政府故意将通货膨胀率低估约10%，所有社会保障福利金都因此被低估并少支付了这一数额，且每年都在累积，因此社会保障金、许多养老金和其他福利金应比目前高出约70%。这不仅仅是政府掠夺本国公民的行为；政府本可以通过税收来掠夺（而且确实如此）。这清楚地表明，一个被俘虏的政府正在有意识地将其人民推入下层阶级——这是排斥的明显迹象。

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.

企业界的另一个迹象是，固定收益养老金被固定缴款计划所取代，后者将市场风险转嫁给了员工。‑这一政策变化将所有责任和风险都转移给了员工，确保任何市场崩盘都会抹去他们的退休储蓄，而大众对此即便有所了解，也并不透彻。在不久的过去，企业养老金通常是“固定收益”的，这意味着当你65岁退休时，你的养老金（通常）是你最佳5年收入平均值的75%。这一制度已被一种新制度所取代，即公司每年为每位员工记入固定金额，通常将这笔钱投入股市。所有的稳定性都消失了。不再有任何保障；如果退休时恰逢股市不景气，那么一名工作了40年的员工就会陷入贫困。

毁灭的历史目录 — An Historical Catalogue of Destruction

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

“什么是乌克兰大饥荒？美国人很快就能亲身体验了”。来源/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).

或许，对“排斥”的最终考验在于是否愿意破坏价值以剥夺他人的价值。排斥动机最明确的迹象是破坏可用物品，而不是让穷人拥有它们。历史上，这种情况经常发生：大萧条时期，当人们挨饿时，有人却把庄稼犁入土中；把牛奶倒入河中。如果这一论点成立，那么我们应当看到当代的类似行为：房东让房屋空置，而不是降低租金（已有记录）；制药公司销毁过剩疫苗，而不是捐赠它们（发生在2021-2022年）；零售商销毁退回的商品，而不是打折出售（亚马逊、沃尔玛的做法）。

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.

存在一种价值破坏模式，无法用利润最大化来解释。如果一家公司能够以边际成本向穷人出售产品，并且仍然能获得微薄利润（甚至达到盈亏平衡），但却选择销毁产品，那么其动机只能是排斥，即阻止穷人拥有任何东西。

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.

在破坏方面，证据不胜枚举。其中最恶劣的例子之一是1933年的美国。在人们记忆中最严重的经济大萧条期间，美国政府付钱给农民，让他们故意毁坏农作物和牲畜。根据1933年的《农业调整法》，数百万英亩的农作物和棉花被犁入土中，葡萄、桃子、樱桃等大量水果被任由在田地和果园中腐烂。数千万蒲式耳的谷物被直接犁入地下，而政府却付钱给农民让他们什么都不种——而这一切都发生在人们正在挨饿的大萧条时期。[4][5]超过600万头猪被屠宰并丢弃。不仅如此，屠宰和丢弃这些猪显然花费了超过3000万美元。[6][7]此外，无数吨牛奶被倒入密西西比河，而不是分发给穷人。

Wisconsin’s Milk Wars Of 1933.

1933年威斯康星州的牛奶战争。 来源/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]

这是通过摧毁穷人的生存手段来控制精英阶层高昂价格的精心策划之举。在大萧条时期的巴西，为了支撑犹太种植园主所要求的高昂价格，数百万吨咖啡被当作燃料烧掉。 [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.

2025年，加麻大销毁了超过1000万升牛奶。[10]我仍然记得几年前，加麻大政府宁愿销毁数千吨黄油，也不愿免费赠送给贫穷国家。这些政策都是为了支持少数有影响力的人获得高价，而不是降低数千万消费者的成本。在这些案例以及许多其他案例中，当面临选择是赠送多余食物还是销毁它们时，精英驱动的体制不可避免地选择了销毁。

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

“我倒了3万升”：加麻大农民展示为维持价格而浪费了多少牛奶。来源/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.

现代加麻大令人震惊的食物浪费现象并非发生在经济危机期间，而是在正常条件下经常发生。加麻大实行一套严格控制乳制品生产的体系，以维持价格稳定（对生产者而言，而非消费者）。根据2025年的一份报告，仅在2012年至2021年期间，加麻大就倾倒和销毁了超过70亿升牛奶（是的，真的是70亿升）——其明确目的是为了保持市场价格高企，以保护少数分销商的利益。[11] 这里需要指出一点：政府和媒体告诉我们，销毁这些食物是为了保护农民的收入，这是一个弥天大谎。各地的农民无论生产什么，都只能获得微薄的收入。钱不在农业上，而在分销体系中。如果你对此表示怀疑，不妨开车去任何农村地区，问问农民从“体系”中能获得多少一打鸡蛋的收益。对于一打售价6美元的鸡蛋，农民能获得的不到0.25美元，而且往往要少得多。美国农业局估计，农民在食品支出中仅获得约3%的收入，而这极小的一部分是扣除开支前的总收入，意味着农民的实际利润微乎其微。剩下的97%是运输、批发和零售的利润加成。

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.

这种模式甚至延伸到了现代消费品领域。对于过时或淡‑季产品，法律本身鼓励销毁而非捐赠。‑所有这些案例都指向了一种冷酷而刻意的维持现状的策略。‑从大萧条时期的农作物焚烧，到加麻大（Canada）的制度化乳制品废弃，再到巴西的咖啡焚烧，其驱动力都是相同的：维持价格和利润率。‑当一个社会宁愿销毁过剩的食品、药品或其他生活必需品，也不愿用它们来拯救生命和改善人类福祉时，这个社会的主要目标就不再是人民的福祉。在利润这只“看不见的手”的驱使下，基本的人类生存需求被视为商品——可以被定价、交易，甚至在必要时被消灭。

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”.

然而，有许多“学术”论文告诉我们，剩余食物的再分配并非解决粮食贫困问题的良方。[12]这些论文首先提出一个问题：用剩余食物来喂饱饥饿的人是否合适？他们的回答是明确的“不”！在他们看来，用剩余食物来喂饱穷人只是“对更深层次的贫困问题的一种短期权宜之计”。他们声称，将食物分给穷人会被视为“把残羹剩饭分给落后者”，这显然是我们不能接受的。因此，每年有数百万吨食物被销毁，因为我们不想让穷人觉得自己被“抛弃”了。他们进一步指出，“利用食物浪费来喂饱人们的益处主要归功于食品行业，同时免除了政府解决粮食贫困问题的责任”。

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.

当面临将剩余食物分发出去或销毁的选择时，该体系基于三个关键论点选择了销毁。（1）免费分发会破坏消费市场，导致价格暴跌，进而摧毁整个行业。（2）物流、运输和储存成本使得免费分发比销毁更加昂贵。“专家”认为，这一成本使得免费分发在财务上不可行。（3）“最富同情心的行为”是拯救食品行业（通过让最弱小的企业淘汰），而这只能通过销毁剩余食物来实现。这种说法并非残忍，而是冷酷、精打细算的必要之举。你信服吗？我也不信。他们的论点完全是胡说八道。但政府却接受了这种荒谬的论调。

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.

认为销毁剩余食物与排斥而非积累有关这一论点，得到了这种行为普遍程度的强有力支持。仅英国每年就会销毁超过一千万吨食物。这完美地解释了这些经济理由，它们被用作一种意识形态的合理化：必须剥夺最贫穷者的基本必需品，以便剥夺体系本身能够存续。

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.

识别和揭露这种排斥动机的最佳方式是追踪金钱流向，同时也要追踪破坏行为。我们可以找到一些案例，掠夺者为了阻止他人进入而付出代价（例如，支付安保费用以阻止人们进入废弃建筑；起诉穷人偿还他们无法偿还的债务，在法律费用上的支出超过债务本身的价值）。我们经常被告知，要确定任何事件背后的真实政治动机，我们必须问“Cui bono?”——谁受益？但就我们的目的而言，同样重要的是要问“Qui prohibetur ne prosit”——谁被阻止受益？对富人减税却削减对穷人的服务可能是模棱两可的，但一项只伤害穷人而对其他人没有任何好处的政策则是一个更清晰的信号。例如，唐纳德·川普削减医疗补助和医疗保险的资金，以及儿童日托的资金。另一个例子是频繁取消免费学校午餐。这样的行为只会有一个结果：中产阶级和下层阶级进一步贫困化。

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.

审视精英机构的言论——世界银行、国际货币基金组织（IMF）和各国央行经常以“别无选择”为理由来为紧缩政策辩护。但当他们甚至反对具有巨大社会回报的低‑成本干预措施时，这一理由便不攻自破。‑其未明示的前提始终是人类贫困化。‑另一种方法是寻找幸灾乐祸的表现；‑不是在官方声明中，而是在泄露的通讯记录、私人演讲和匿名采访中。当掠夺者对穷人或中产阶级的不幸（丧失抵押品赎回权、破产、裁员）表示满意，或至少缺乏真诚的同情时，你就有了确凿的证据，证明他们有排斥动机。

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.

我们还可以比较不同情境下的行为。例如，如果一家公司在再分配程度较高的国家（如支付更高工资、提供更好的安全和工作条件）的行为与在再分配程度较低的国家不同，那么它在母国的行为就不是一种必须，而是一种选择。‑这种选择性地利用有利环境的行为证明，决定行为的是约束条件，而非道德偏好。‑一旦去除约束条件，排他动机就会显现出来。

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.

认为真正动机并非积累财富，而是确保他人无钱可用的观点，无法通过直接证据来证明，因为动机是内在的。但可以收集到有力的间接证据。 The signs are: Extraction beyond the point of rational return. Creation of perpetual debt traps.这些迹象包括：‑超出合理回报点的榨取行为、‑制造永久的债务陷阱、‑破坏非货币替代品、‑偏好不稳定而非可预测性、‑对贫困的蔑视性道德框架、‑在经济上破坏可用价值以剥夺他人‑。‑ Economic destruction of usable value to deny it to others.这些行为都是可观察的，且与排他动机相一致。仅凭贪婪无法解释为何愿意付出代价去剥夺他人。这需要一种零‑和心理学，在这种心理学中，财富不是一种慰藉，而是一种相对地位。‑而相对地位，顾名思义，要求他人拥有更少。

耻辱的架构 —

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.

这是我发现的另一个令人不快和不安的方面，一种反社会和精神病态的表现——排斥的普遍标准“心理特征”，即对“他人”的蔑视——在这种情况下，几乎是对所有人的蔑视。在所有涉及排斥动机的案例中，我们都能找到“指责受害者”的证据，这是一种蔑视的形式。我不得不说，这种倾向几乎百分之百是犹太人的特征。据我所知，没有其他种族的人会从事这种应受谴责的行为，而这种行为随处可见。当动机是排斥时，掠夺者不仅对受害者（即那些没有多少钱的人）表现出漠不关心，还表现出积极的蔑视。他们将贫穷归咎于道德上的失败，这意味着穷人理应处于这种境地，因此让他们保持贫穷是正义的，而不是残忍的。

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.

无论我们往哪里看，都能看到这种倾向的大量迹象：“无家可归者都是精神错乱的瘾君子”，他们罪有应得。失业者是“没有生产力”、“懒惰”、“愤愤不平”的穷人，缺乏“毅力”或“创业精神”。任何领取社会援助金（福利）的人都是懒惰贪婪的寄生虫，不愿工作。政府在这种定义中串通一气的证据是，福利计划往往似乎旨在尽可能地羞辱人，仿佛其目的不是减少贫困，而是惩罚穷人的存在。

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.

支持“排斥论”与“积累论”之争的一个证据是，炫耀性地展示极端财富（超级游艇、太空旅游）并非为了享乐，而是作为社会地位差异的公开宣示。这是一种廉价的表达方式：“看看你得不到的东西”。同样，YouTube和抖音上有数百个视频，记录了美国人因负债累累、无法维持生计而流下的眼泪和绝望。但这些平台上也有类似的视频（几乎可以肯定是假的），视频中的人炫耀“我如何在一个月内仅通过优步外卖（Uber Eats）就赚了10万美元”（像中国的美团一样送外卖）。或者，“我如何通过照顾别人的猫赚了25万美元，然后退休去了意大利”。这些视频的明显意图是让所有挣扎中的人感到内疚，让他们觉得自己所处的境况是因为自己的道德失败，而任何“正常”人几乎可以从任何事情中赚取巨额收入。这种在自己贫困时“戳人痛处”的卑鄙行为有很多例子，这绝对是一种心理上的洗脑，出于明显令人不快的动机。

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]

近日，泰国社交媒体上流传着一句新口号：“เงินอยู่ในอากาศ”，意为“钱就在空中”。[13]这是网民们热切分享的帖子，炫耀他们如何将社交媒体内容转化为巨额的快速现金。一些人炫耀他们的收入截图，另一些人则展示真实或人工智能生成的奢侈生活方式照片，而这些生活方式根本不存在。对于普通观众来说，似乎只需发挥一点想象力，就能一夜之间改变你的生活。同样，TikTok上的“网红”们也提供各种快速致富的方案。[14]从某种程度上说，这些帖子满足了任何人都能在网上发大财的梦想，但它们最终都被证明是垃圾。《滚石》杂志发表了一篇题为《TikTok网红承诺让你致富，但数学不会说话》的文章。[15]当然，数学永远不会“说话”。而且，这不仅仅是钱的问题。有些人专门用令人信服的胡言乱语来让你痛苦，告诉你没有男朋友的原因。 [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.

这是维护排斥体系的关键机制。排斥精英阶层不仅满足于财富，还必须将穷人的困境归咎于他们。这是将系统性失败转化为个人耻辱的意识形态武器。我描述的视频是这一武器库的重要组成部分。虚假成功的生态系统完全是心理上的洗脑操作。

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.

YouTube、TikTok和Instagram等平台上的快速致富内容并非仅仅是天真的建议；它是一个完整的生态系统，旨在增加人们的绝望和绝望感。对于随意浏览的观众来说，似乎你只需要拥有正确的心态就能在一夜之间改变你的生活，但在所有这些情况下，都存在着一个由幻觉和心理操纵构成的黑暗矩阵。在我研究的每一个案例中，网络上的“财富大师”都在兜售一种幻想。这一切都是虚构的“富人剧场”。有一次，这些网络上的“一夜暴富”网红之一被曝光，在所谓的豪华购物之旅后，悄悄地将所有物品退还给商店。在现实生活中，兜售轻松赚钱的梦想要比真正赚到钱容易得多。

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.

“蹭吃蹭喝”于贫困之中，是一种双‑刃剑式的心理操作，能揭开痛苦的情感伤疤。‑它利用你的苦难为网红制造嫉妒（和利润），同时引发观众一种心理上的自我鞭笞。‑于是，不幸和弱势群体从嫉妒转向自责和自我厌恶。‑看似源源不断的虚构财富灌输，扭曲了对现实的认知，产生了焦虑、痛苦和长期的不适感。‑可以毫不夸张地说，由于这些诈骗案的犹太肇事者缺乏同情心，且将非犹太人的苦难非人化，因此其中明显带有幸灾乐祸的成分，即从他人的不幸中获得乐趣。

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.

这个虚假成功视频的生态系统是排斥体系的重要组成部分。其机制十分明确：这些人通过在社交媒体上大量发布虚假的奢侈和轻松致富的视频，利用弱势群体的心理弱点，迫使社会比较产生焦虑和不足感。他们资助智库发布破坏性的意识形态信息。这完全是犹太人的精神虐待。犹太人威尔克斯兄弟（为耶稣的犹太人）[17]（通过他们虚构的PragerU）宣扬“公正世界假设”，将贫困归咎于道德失败，而非结构性结果。他们的观点，以及犹太人的普遍观点，满足了我们对世界公平的深层次心理需求。有了这个无可辩驳的锚点，唯一的结论就是，如果你正在受苦，那是你应得的。例如，他们关于住房的一个视频声称，“这不是住房问题，而是人的问题”，从而完全将责任归咎于受害者，并免除了制度（以及他们自己和贝莱德）的任何责任。

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.

最终的结果是，民众开始自我对立。挣扎中的个体越来越不可能去指责剥削他们的体制，而更有可能因为自己的道德软弱而感到孤立、羞愧和愤怒。这是排斥议程在心理上的终极胜利：让受害者严苛地评判自己，却对造成他们苦难的真正原因一无所知。这种心理攻击并非自然产生。它建立在意识形态色彩浓厚的叙事基础之上，这些叙事被一个资金充足的右翼智库和媒体组织犹太网络放大并赋予了重要性。

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).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成34种语言，他的文章被发布在30多个国家的150多个外文新闻和政治网站上，以及100多个英文平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫（Larry Romanoff）是一位退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职务，并拥有一家国际进出口企业。他曾任上海复旦大学客座教授，为高级EMBA课程讲授国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生现居上海，目前正在撰写一系列共十本书，总体上涉及中国与西方的话题。他是辛西娅·麦金尼（Cynthia McKinney）新选集《当中国打喷嚏》（When China Sneezes）的特约作者之一（第2章——与恶魔打交道）。

His full archive can be seen at

他的全部档案可以在以下网址查看：

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

He can be contacted at: 2186604556

他的联系方式是：2186604556

NOTES – Part 4

注释——第四部分

[1] Understanding Who Invented Tamiflu: The Story of Gilead and Roche
https://medxdrg.com/understanding-who-invented-tamiflu-the-story-of-gilead-and-roche
[1] 了解谁发明了达菲：吉利德与罗氏的故事
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
[2] 罗氏授予达菲在中国的生产权
https://www.biospace.com/roche-grants-tamiflu-production-rights-in-china
[3] The Fraudulent Matrix of US Economic Statistics

[3] 美国经济统计数据的欺诈矩阵

[4] The U.S. government paid farmers not to grow crops.

The U.S. government paid farmers not to grow crops.

[4] 美国政府曾付钱给农民，让他们不要种植作物。

The U.S. 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
[5] 《被埋没：新政时期美国的食品政策抗议与表现》
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
[6] 屠杀无辜的猪只
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/
[7] 棉花下耕作与杀猪
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
[8] 巴西毁掉更多咖啡豆 – 《纽约时报》
https://www.nytimes.com/1936/09/09/archives/brazil-destroys-more-coffee.html
[9] 90 Years Ago, Brazil Burned Billions of Pounds of Coffee

[9] 90年前，巴西烧毁了数十亿磅咖啡

[10] Canada chooses to dump milk rather than lower prices

Canada chooses to dump milk rather than lower prices

[10] 加麻大选择倾销牛奶而非降低价格

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
[11] 研究发现，加麻大正在倾倒数十亿升牛奶
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
[12] 剩余食物的再分配并非解决粮食贫困的方案
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

Money in the Air: The Mirage of the Get-Rich-Quick Online Culture in Thailand

[13] 空中金钱：泰国快速致富网络文化的幻象 | FULCRUM

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
[14] TikTok上的“快速致富”房产网红因BBC Radio 4的调查而受到关注
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/
[15] TikTok网红承诺让你暴富，但数学并不支持
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
[16]“无男友”造假事件揭示Instagram网红如何对弱势群体投下“邪恶之眼”
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
[17] 威尔克斯兄弟：犹太人为耶稣
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.

本作者的其他作品