上海的月亮: CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 犹太人正在掠夺世界——第11部分 — 慈善机构 — Jews are Plundering the World – Part 11

犹太人正在掠夺世界——第11部分 — Jews are Plundering the World – Part 11

慈善机构 — Charities

By Larry Romanoff

作者：拉里·罗曼诺夫

译者：Pearl

CHINESE ENGLISH ESTONIAN

介绍 — Introduction

简短案例研究：CARE国际组织 — A Brief Case Study: CARE International

“项目活动”——资金实际流向何处 — “Program Activities” – Where the Money Actually Goes

系统 — The System

提取论题——更深层次的规律 — The Extraction Thesis – The Deeper Pattern

消失的犹太人 — The Disappearing Jew

更深层次的问题 — The Deeper Question

政府资助规模 — The Scale of Government Funding

犹太赞助网络 — A Jewish Patronage Network

中国以不同的方式行事 — China Does it Differently

介绍 — Introduction

It is an axiom that, at least in the English-speaking countries, the two best ways to live a high, all-expenses-paid life, are to start either a religion or a charity. Both produce a constant flow of cash, with the disposition of that cash either not monitored or documented in only the most general terms. And wherever we find a flow of cash and little to no oversight, we will find Jews. Jews don’t create religions but they do indeed create and/or take ownership of charities, leading to many astonishing tales of looting, obfuscating, and greed. It is because of the Jewish influence that charities have become financialised, focusing primarily or only on the flow of money, with the supposed beneficiaries relegated to last place. This is the identical process that has occurred – for the same reasons and by the same proponents – in corporations, non-profits, schools, hospitals, and universities. This financialisation and looting applies equally to small local or national charities and the large international bodies, even those that are UN-sponsored.

至少在英语国家，一个公认的公理是，过上奢华、全包式生活的两种最佳方式，要么是创立一个宗教，要么是创办一个慈善机构。两者都能带来源源不断的现金流，而这些现金流的流向要么不受监控，要么仅以最笼统的方式记录。而无论我们在哪里发现现金流且几乎不受监督，我们总能找到犹太人的身影。犹太人并不创造宗教，但他们确实创办和/或拥有慈善机构，从而引发了许多令人震惊的掠夺、混淆视听和贪婪的故事。正是由于犹太人的影响，慈善机构变得金融化，主要或仅关注资金流动，而所谓的受益者则被置于最后的位置。这一过程在企业、非营利组织、学校、医院和大学中同样发生——出于同样的原因，且由同样的支持者推动。这种金融化和掠夺同样适用于小型地方或国家慈善机构以及大型国际机构，甚至是联合国赞助的机构。

In 1999 when Serbia was being pulverized by US and NATO bombs, CARE Canada sent out an urgent request for donations to help relieve the human misery in the Balkans. I sent them $100, which I assumed would be delivered to les misérables in Yugoslavia. Not so. For 12 months after my donation, I received every month a promotion package from CARE, asking for more money. Those packages were large, heavy, and printed on fine-quality paper. I calculated that the advertising materials – plus the postage – would have cost about $100 over that year. CARE didn’t send my money to Yugoslavia. Instead, they spent it on advertising – directed at me – in attempts to extract more money.

1999年，当塞尔维亚正遭受美国和北约轰炸的摧残时，加拿大援外社（CARE Canada）发出紧急捐款请求，以帮助缓解巴尔干地区的人间苦难。我向他们捐了100美元，本以为这些钱会送到南斯拉夫的穷人手中。但事实并非如此。在我捐款后的12个月里，我每个月都会收到援外社寄来的促销包裹，要求我捐更多的钱。那些包裹又大又重，是用优质纸张印刷的。我计算了一下，那些广告材料——加上邮费——在那一年里大概要花费100美元。援外社并没有把我的钱寄到南斯拉夫。相反，他们把钱花在了广告上——针对我——试图榨取更多的钱。

This experience, and many others, confirm that today’s large charities are precisely traditional Ponzi schemes. CARE and all other large charities have carried this to a ridiculous extreme. The truth of charities today is that they have become so financialised they will spend $99 of public donations on advertising, if that will bring in $100 in further donations. Western charities are no longer about “charity”; they are entirely about money. Their financialisation creates a dynamic where they are trapped in an escalating cycle of spending donor money to find more donors. Little of the money (sometimes none) actually goes to the intended beneficiaries for whom the donations are made.这一经历以及其他许多经历都证实，当今的大型慈善机构正是传统的庞氏骗局。CARE（美国援外合作署）和其他所有大型慈善机构都将这一做法推向了荒谬的极端。当今慈善机构的真相是，它们已经变得如此金融化，以至于如果花99美元的公众捐款做广告能带来100美元的更多捐款，它们就会这么做。西方慈善机构不再关注“慈善”；它们完全是为了钱。它们的金融化创造了一种动态，使它们陷入了一个不断升级的循环：花捐款人的钱来寻找更多的捐款人。实际上，很少有（有时甚至没有）捐款真正流向了捐款所针对的受益人。

Their financial model is important and worthy of understanding: something that, in economics, we call “diminishing marginal returns”. This means that as we continue to spend money on fundraising promotions, we receive increasingly smaller donations. As an example, a small local charity spends $100 on fundraising and obtains $5,000 in donations. But the next $100 spent will recover perhaps only $4,000, and the next only $3,000. Soon, the new donations are only in the hundreds of dollars. And, at the end, our last $100 spent on fundraising will recover only another $100 in new donations. Our “marginal return” has now diminished to zero, and we stop only when reaching this point.

他们的财务模式很重要，值得我们去理解：在经济学中，我们称之为“边际收益递减”。这意味着，随着我们继续在筹款宣传上投入资金，我们收到的捐款会越来越少。举个例子，一家小型地方慈善机构在筹款上花费100美元，获得了5000美元的捐款。但是，再花费100美元可能只能收回4000美元，再花费100美元可能只能收回3000美元。很快，新的捐款就只有几百美元了。最后，我们在筹款上花费的最后100美元只能再收回100美元的新捐款。我们的“边际收益”现在已经递减到零，只有达到这一点我们才会停止。

Inherent in this is the fact that, of new donations received, the first “disbursement” is to pay the salaries and expenses of the management and the overhead of the organisation. Most of the remainder is allocated to further fund-raising. Disbursements to the poor and needy – the actual initial purpose of the charity – are last. This is how the large charities operate. They have become very much like American universities today – financial institutions following a model of revenue maximisation. The focus is now almost entirely on the money; helping the poor and needy is relegated to near irrelevance.

Most of us tend to think of these charities in simple and naïve terms as we might consider a food bank: we donate food to the bank and their staff give the food directly to those in need. A two-step process. But the large charities don’t work like that. The executives and staff of CARE do not go into the slums and personally hand out your cash donation to the poor. Instead, your donations enter a “distribution chain” which can include multiple related organisations, each with its own overhead. None of this is recorded in the charity’s financial statements. And, in fact, cash is never distributed to the needy. Instead, the money is used for nebulous aid and development “programs”, which terms can mean anything. The “development projects” in particular mean that none of the charity’s cash receipts (donations from the public) are ever distributed to anyone. In real life, most of the money is retained by the charity and associated organisations or NGOs, and used for expenses and program overhead.

我们大多数人倾向于用简单而天真的眼光看待这些慈善机构，就像我们看待食品银行一样：我们把食物捐给银行，然后银行的工作人员直接把食物分发给需要的人。这是一个两步的过程。但大型慈善机构并不是这样运作的。CARE的高管和员工不会亲自走进贫民窟，将你捐赠的现金直接分发给穷人。相反，你的捐赠会进入一个“分配链”，其中可能包括多个相关组织，每个组织都有自己的管理费用。这些都不会记录在慈善机构的财务报表中。而且，事实上，现金从未分配给需要帮助的人。相反，这些钱被用于模糊不清的援助和发展“项目”，这些术语可能意味着任何事情。特别是“发展项目”意味着，慈善机构收到的现金（来自公众的捐赠）从未分配给任何人。在现实生活中，大部分资金都被慈善机构和相关组织或非政府组织保留，用于支付费用和项目开销。

We are told (and propagandised) to believe that large registered charities like CARE International actually distribute 80% or 90% of their revenues to the intended beneficiaries, often as food but perhaps even in cash. That belief is ill-placed. Many, perhaps even most, large international charities spend as much as 80% of their total revenue on administration expenses and advertising. The money goes on large salaries, lovely offices, first-class travel, expensive cars and high living. The industry metric that donors are advised to watch for is that fundraising costs alone should not exceed 35% of related contributions – which means the industry itself has set a surprisingly high bar for acceptable overhead.

我们被告知（并被宣传）相信，像CARE International这样的大型注册慈善机构实际上会将80%或90%的收入分配给目标受益人，通常是作为食物，但也可能以现金形式。这种看法并不准确。许多，甚至可能是大多数，大型国际慈善机构将高达80%的总收入用于管理费用和广告宣传。这些资金被用于支付高额工资、装修精美的办公室、头等舱旅行、昂贵的汽车和高档生活。该行业建议捐赠者关注的一个指标是，筹款成本本身不应超过相关捐款的35%——这意味着该行业本身为可接受的日常开支设定了一个高得惊人的标准。

简短案例研究：CARE国际组织 — A Brief Case Study: CARE International

Looking through the published financial reports of CARE international does not leave a reader materially enlightened. [1] CARE claims it spends “89% of all funds raised on programs to benefit the world’s poorest communities”, but this statement hides more than it reveals. CARE further divides its distributions roughly 50-50 between “development program activities” and “humanitarian program activities”, but this claim also hides more than it reveals. No definitions are offered of these terms, and all public information is so general and deliberately nebulous as to be useless.

浏览美国援外合作署（CARE International）发布的财务报告，读者并不会获得实质性的信息。[1]美国援外合作署声称其“将筹集资金的89%用于造福世界上最贫困社区的项目”，但这一声明所掩盖的远多于其所揭示的。美国援外合作署进一步将其资金分配大致分为“发展项目活动”和“人道主义项目活动”各占一半，但这一说法同样有所隐瞒。这些术语没有给出定义，所有公开信息都过于笼统且故意模糊，毫无用处。

The financial statements of these charities (using CARE as an example) do not separate expenses in a clear form. They list “development program activities” and “humanitarian program activities” as expense categories. But each of these have administration and other expenses included (buried) in them and not identified. Further, they then often list “fundraising” as a separate item, leading us to believe this is the total advertising and promotion expense in all its forms, but it is no such thing. The “program activities” have their own fundraising and promotion expenses, but these are never identified.这些慈善机构（以CARE为例）的财务报表并未以清晰的形式区分各项支出。它们将“发展项目活动”和“人道主义项目活动”列为支出类别。但这两类活动均包含（被隐藏）行政和其他支出，且未单独列出。此外，它们通常还会将“筹款”作为单独一项列出，使我们误以为这是所有形式的广告和推广支出的总和，但事实并非如此。“项目活动”有其自身的筹款和推广支出，但这些支出从未被单独列出。

There is no indication that any charitable donations are distributed in cash (or even kind) to the needy. CARE’s financial statements cleverly and obtusely say around 40% is spent on “development program activities” and another 40% on “humanitarian program activities”. This is not distribution of funds to the poor. The revenue received is disbursed into unidentified “program activities”. From the financial statements, most expenses are buried within the definition of these unidentified “activities”.

没有迹象表明有任何慈善捐款以现金（或实物）形式发放给贫困人群。援外社国际协会（CARE）的财务报表巧妙而含糊地表示，约40%的资金用于“发展项目活动”，另有40%用于“人道主义项目活动”。这并非向贫困人群发放资金。所收到的收入被分配到未明确说明的“项目活动”中。从财务报表来看，大部分支出都隐藏在这些未明确说明的“活动”的定义之中。

“项目活动”——资金实际流向何处 — “Program Activities” – Where the Money Actually Goes

CARE USA: (left to right) Helene Gayle, president and CEO of CARE, Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS, Ambassador Donald Steinberg, deputy administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development, and Abigail Disney, executive producer of the PBS mini-series “Women, War & Peace” answer questions during the panel discussion after the screening of “Pray the Devil Back to Hell” during the CARE Conference & International Women’s Day Celebration on March 7, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Photos by ©Amanda Lucidon/CARE).

美国援外合作署：（从左至右）美国援外合作署总裁兼首席执行官海伦·盖尔、美国公共广播公司总裁兼首席执行官保拉·克格、美国国际开发署副署长唐纳德·斯坦伯格大使，以及美国公共广播公司迷你系列节目《女人、战争与和平》的执行制片人阿比盖尔·迪士尼，在2012年3月7日于华盛顿特区举行的美国援外合作署会议暨国际妇女节庆祝活动上，放映了《祈祷魔鬼下地狱》后，在小组讨论中回答问题。（照片由©Amanda Lucidon/美国援外合作署提供）。

Consider again – more carefully this time – CARE’s claim that it “spends 89% of all funds raised on programs to benefit the world’s poorest communities”. In 2024, CARE received well over $1 billion in revenue from all sources. Does this mean that $890 million was distributed in cash or kind to the needy and miserable? Not at all. In fact, it is entirely possible that little or nothing was distributed, and that the money was spent internally on various undefined “program activities”.

再次仔细考虑——这次要更仔细——CARE声称其“将筹集到的所有资金的89%用于造福世界上最贫困社区的项目”。2024年，CARE从所有消息来源获得了远超10亿美元的收入。这是否意味着有8.9亿美元以现金或实物形式分配给了贫困和悲惨的人们？根本不是。事实上，完全有可能几乎没有或根本没有分配给任何人，这些钱只是在内部用于各种未定义的“项目活动”。

A close reading of a charity’s financial statements reveals more disingenuous public relations than finance or fact. Again, CARE International claimed that in 2024 it spent “89% of all funds raised on programs”, but these programs are a black box. In examining the detailed financial statements for CARE USA, the statements show total receipts of $840 million. From this total were paid expenses of $780 million for “Program activities”. And how was this $780 million disbursed? Look at the numbers below. $670 million was spent on salaries, perquisites and other staff benefits, expense accounts, and funds passed on to other departments in the chain. Of the remaining $110 million, $90 million was spent on advertising.

仔细阅读一家慈善机构的财务报表，会发现其公关之虚伪甚于财务或事实。同样，援外社国际协会（CARE International）声称，2024年其“89%的筹集资金用于项目”，但这些项目却如同一个黑箱。在审查美国援外社（CARE USA）的详细财务报表时，报表显示总收入为8.4亿美元。其中7.8亿美元用于“项目活动”支出。而这7.8亿美元是如何支出的呢？请看以下数字。6.7亿美元用于工资、津贴和其他员工福利、费用账户以及转给链条中其他部门的资金。在剩余的1.1亿美元中，9000万美元用于广告。

Personnel costs: $235 million

人事成本：2.35亿美元

Materials & Services $216 million

材料与服务: 2.16亿美元

Subgrants $219 million

次级赠款 $2.19亿

Total $670 million

总计 6.7亿美元

Now, when CARE claim to spend only perhaps 10% on fundraising and overhead, the real expenses are buried in the “program activities”. What this means is that these “activities” contain expenses which include salaries for CARE employees, travel, office occupancy, equipment, and professional services. It includes grants to other related NGOs, which then spend the money on their own overhead. The money flows through a chain of intermediaries and overhead is extracted at each link. From this alone, we can see that at least 75% of the $1.1 billion in total revenue was spent internally, and perhaps much more.

现在，当CARE声称其筹款和管理费用可能仅占10%时，实际开支却隐藏在“项目活动”中。这意味着这些“活动”包含的开支包括CARE员工的工资、差旅费、办公场所占用费、设备费和专业服务费。还包括向其他相关非政府组织提供的赠款，而这些赠款又会用于这些组织自身的开支。资金通过一系列中介机构流动，每个环节都会产生管理费用。仅从这一点，我们就可以看出，在11亿美元的总收入中，至少有75%用于内部支出，实际比例可能更高。

Program spending is not cash distribution. It is “materials and services”, “personnel costs” (i.e., salaries, benefits and expense accounts for the management and staff), “travel and transportation”, “occupancy”, and “subgrants”. Each of these categories represents spending within the institutional apparatus, not a transfer to beneficiaries. The poor, the hungry, the displaced, are the stated purpose of the organisation, but they are not the primary destination of its funds.

项目支出并非现金分配，而是包括“材料与服务”、“人员成本”（即管理层和员工的工资、福利和费用账户）、“差旅与交通”、“办公场所”和“次级赠款”。这些类别中的每一项都代表机构内部的支出，而非向受益人的转移支付。该组织声称其目的是帮助穷人、饥饿者和流离失所者，但他们并非其资金的主要流向。

Consider the “CARE Package” feature on CARE’s website, where donors are invited to select specific items: for example, a $77 donation to “cultivate a leader”. But CARE admits in fine print that “the items and activities you place in a CARE package are [only] symbolic examples of CARE’s work … Your donation supports CARE’s global mission and activities, rather than providing a particular initiative or item”. This is deception by fine print. The donor believes she is buying a specific item for a specific person. She is not. CARE are clearly stating their intention to apply a donor’s funds in whatever manner and to whatever end they choose. This is pure dishonest advertising, an attempt to solicit donations with no tangible, real world corollary or demonstrable effects. It isn’t only conspiracy theorists who are cynical and skeptical about how large charities present themselves and distribute their funds.

考虑一下CARE网站上的“CARE包裹”功能，该功能邀请捐赠者选择特定物品：例如，捐赠77美元用于“培养领导者”。但CARE在细则中承认，“您放入CARE包裹中的物品和活动[仅]是CARE工作的象征性示例……您的捐赠支持CARE的全球使命和活动，而非提供特定的倡议或物品”。这是通过细则进行的欺骗。捐赠者认为她是在为特定的人购买特定的物品。事实并非如此。CARE明确表示，他们打算以自己选择的任何方式、出于自己选择的任何目的来使用捐赠者的资金。这纯粹是不诚实的广告，试图在没有切实、现实世界后果或可证明效果的情况下招揽捐赠。不仅阴谋论者对大型慈善机构如何展示自己和分配资金持怀疑和怀疑态度。

In fairness, the financial statements do not show zero impact. In 2024, CARE Canada’s programs included the distribution of 3,000 hygiene kits, 860 bed sets, and 240 sets of winter clothes in Gaza; financial literacy training for 1,376 women in Morocco; health care access for some women in Haiti. These are real activities that provide real benefit to real people, but they are not the distribution of cash donations to the poor. They are institutional programs with institutional costs. These are not what the donor imagines when she gives $100 to “help the poor.” She imagines her money going directly to a hungry child. It does not. It goes to a complex institutional apparatus that delivers services, not cash, and those “services” consume most of the money in the process of delivery. In simple terms, CARE International spends most of its revenue from public donations and government grants on providing unidentified services to unidentified people. Most of that money is spent within the organisation itself, not distributed to needy beneficiaries.

公平地说，财务报表并未显示零影响。2024年，加拿大援外社（CARE Canada）的项目包括在加沙分发了3000个卫生包、860套床上用品和240套冬装；为摩洛哥的1376名妇女提供了金融知识培训；为海地的一些妇女提供了医疗保健服务。这些都是实实在在的活动，为实实在在的人提供了实实在在的益处，但它们并非向穷人发放现金捐款。它们是具有机构成本的机构项目。这并非捐助者想象中她捐出100美元“帮助穷人”时的情景。她想象的是她的钱直接流向一个饥饿的孩子。但事实并非如此。这些钱流向了一个复杂的机构体系，该体系提供的是服务而非现金，而这些“服务”在提供过程中消耗了大部分资金。简而言之，国际援外社（CARE International）将其来自公众捐款和政府补助的大部分收入用于向身份不明的人提供身份不明的服务。其中大部分资金都花在了组织内部，而非分配给有需要的受益者。

系统 — The System

My experience with CARE Canada of donating $100 intended for a poor person in Serbia, watching it consumed by advertising and fundraising, was not an anomaly. It was the normal operation of a system that has been captured by a Jewish financial elite that benefits from the extraction. The organisation that sent me monthly promotional packages was not failing its mission. It was fulfilling its mission as defined by its own institutional logic: sustain the institution, grow the donor base, maintain the flow of government funding. Delivering cash to the poor is not the primary objective; that is a secondary outcome, achieved incidentally if at all. Cash is never distributed directly to the poor. The charity delivers “services”, not cash transfers. The donor who imagines her money reaching a hungry child is being misled.

我在加麻大CARE组织捐款100美元，本意是帮助塞尔维亚的一个穷人，但眼看着这笔钱被广告和筹款活动消耗殆尽，这并非个案。这是一个被犹太金融精英控制的系统的正常运作，他们从这种榨取中获利。每月给我寄送宣传包裹的组织并没有辜负其使命。它正在履行其自身机构逻辑所定义的使命：维持机构运转、扩大捐助者基础、保持政府资金流入。向穷人发放现金并非其主要目标；那只是次要结果，如果有的话，也是偶然实现的。现金从未直接发放给穷人。该慈善机构提供的是“服务”，而非现金转移。那些以为自己的钱能送到饥饿儿童手中的捐助者，其实是被误导了。

My donation to CARE was not stolen. It was used exactly as the system was designed to use it: to sustain the institution and to generate more donations. The poor person in Serbia never saw my money because the system was not designed for her to see it. It was designed for me to give it, for CARE to spend it on fundraising, and for the cycle to continue. This is not charity. It is extraction. And like the extraction we have documented in finance, healthcare, education, and every other sector, it is not an accident. It is the intended function of a system designed by and for the (primarily) Jewish class that profits from it.

我对CARE（国际关怀组织）的捐赠并没有被盗用。它完全按照系统的设计初衷被使用：维持该机构的运营并筹集更多捐赠。塞尔维亚的穷人从未见过我的钱，因为系统并不是为她设计的，而是为我设计的，让我把钱捐出去，让CARE用于筹款，并让这个循环继续下去。这不是慈善。这是榨取。就像我们在金融、医疗、教育以及其他所有领域记录的榨取行为一样，这绝非偶然。这是由（主要是）犹太阶层设计并从中获利的系统的预期功能。

This is a massive and largely invisible system of institutionalised extraction. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the large international charities are not vehicles for transferring wealth from donors to the poor. They are a third sector of the economy – a “non-profit industrial complex” – that has captured state funding, professionalised its management, and now operates primarily to enrich and sustain itself.

这是一个庞大且基本上隐形的制度化榨取体系。大量证据充分支持以下结论：大型国际慈善机构并非将财富从捐赠者转移给穷人的工具。它们是经济的第三部门——“非营利产业综合体”——它们获取国家资金，实现管理专业化，现在主要目的是充实和维持自身。

The system is a self-perpetuating closed loop. Government money flows to the charity. The charity spends money on fundraising to attract public donations. Public donations provide the moral cover that justifies continued government funding. The (primarily) Jewish managers extract their compensation at every stage. The damage to society extends beyond the financial. The charity sector has become a mechanism for self-enrichment, not for poverty alleviation. It has captured state resources, financialised compassion, and created a class of well-compensated executives whose primary loyalty is to their institution, not to the beneficiaries they claim to serve.该体系是一个自我延续的闭环。政府资金流向慈善机构。慈善机构将资金用于筹款以吸引公众捐款。公众捐款为政府持续提供资金提供了道德上的支持。这些（主要是）犹太管理者在每个阶段都会提取报酬。对社会造成的损害不仅限于经济层面。慈善部门已成为一种自我致富的机制，而非扶贫机制。它侵占了国家资源，将同情心金融化，并创造了一个高薪高管阶层，他们的主要忠诚对象是所在机构，而非他们声称服务的受益者。

My analogy to a Ponzi scheme was not hyperbole; it is supported by the financial structure. A Ponzi scheme uses new investor money to pay returns to earlier investors, creating an illusion of profitability while the operator extracts value. The large charities use new donor money and new government grants to sustain their own operations, creating an illusion of impact while the (again, primarily) Jewish executives extract salaries, benefits, and prestige.

我将之比作庞氏骗局并非夸大其词；其财务结构确实如此。庞氏骗局利用新投资者的资金来支付给早期投资者的回报，在创造盈利假象的同时，操盘者从中榨取价值。大型慈善机构利用新的捐款和政府补助来维持其运营，在制造影响力的假象的同时，其（同样主要是）犹太裔高管从中获取薪水、福利和声望。

提取论题——更深层的模式 — The Extraction Thesis – The Deeper Pattern

The charity sector exhibits the same structural characteristics as the other sectors we have examined in this series of articles:

慈善领域展现出了与我们在本系列文章中探讨的其他领域相同的结构性特征：

(1) The Finance sector uses predatory lending, fake accounts, hidden fees, extracting money from borrowers and depositors.

（1）金融行业采用掠夺性贷款、虚假账户、隐性收费等手段，从借款人和存款人手中榨取钱财。

(2) The Healthcare sector uses privatisation, medical debt, and pharmaceutical pricing to extract money from patients

（2）医疗保健行业通过私有化、医疗债务和药品定价来向患者榨取钱财

(3) The Education sector uses student debt, administrative bloat, and endowment capture to extract money from students and taxpayers.

（3）教育部门利用学生债务、行政机构臃肿和捐赠基金侵占来向学生和纳税人榨取钱财。

(4) The Charities sector uses government funding capture, overhead opacity, and executive compensation to extract money from donors and beneficiaries.

（4）慈善部门利用政府资金截留、管理费用不透明以及高管薪酬等手段，从捐赠者和受益者手中榨取资金。

In each case, a professional-managerial class (almost entirely Jewish) has positioned itself between the source of value (donors, taxpayers, patients, students) and the intended recipient (the poor, the sick, the educated). In each case, this professional class extracts value from the flow, and the extraction is hidden behind a legitimising narrative (charity, healing, education). In each case, the system is designed to enrich the management and perpetuate itself, not to serve its stated purpose.

在每种情况下，一个专业管理阶层（几乎全部为犹太人）都把自己置于价值来源（捐赠者、纳税人、患者、学生）和预期接受者（穷人、病人、受教育者）之间。在每种情况下，这个专业阶层都会从流动中提取价值，而这种提取行为则隐藏在一种合法化的叙事（慈善、治疗、教育）背后。在每种情况下，该系统的设计都是为了使管理层致富并使自身永久存在，而不是为了实现其宣称的目的。

These “professional managers” are not people who personally hand cash to the poor. They are executives who manage a billion-dollar enterprise, who travel first class, who attend Davos, who sit on multiple boards, and whose compensation reflects their status as leaders of a major international institution. The extraction is not limited to overhead. It includes the capture of the organisation itself by a professional-managerial class that has more in common with corporate executives than with the beneficiaries their organisations claim to serve.

这些“职业经理人”并非亲自将现金交给穷人的人。他们是管理着数十亿美元企业的高管，他们乘坐头等舱旅行，出席达沃斯论坛，在多个董事会任职，他们的薪酬反映了他们作为大型国际机构领导者的地位。这种榨取并不局限于管理费用。它还包括职业管理层对组织本身的掌控，这些管理层与组织声称服务的受益者相比，与公司高管更为相似。

消失的犹太人 — The Disappearing Jew

The pattern of Jewish over‑representation in charitable leadership is consistent with the broader phenomenon of Jewish concentration in professional networks. My extraction thesis predicts that Jewish over‑representation in charitable leadership would serve Jewish personal and tribal interests rather than the stated mission of the organisations. The evidence provides support for this prediction, but the identification of Jewish ethnicity from names is complicated. Jews frequently change their names to avoid identification as Jews, and to ease their “professional” advancement. Nevertheless, the thesis that Jews are over‑represented as executives of large charities is confirmed by available evidence.

犹太人在慈善领导层中占比过‑高的现象，与犹太人在职业网络中集中的更广泛现象相一致。‑我的抽样理论预测，犹太人在慈善领导层中的占比过高，更多是为了犹太人的个人和部落利益，而非组织所宣称的使命。证据支持这一预测，但从姓名中识别犹太族裔颇为复杂。犹太人经常改名以避免被识别为犹太人，并便于其“职业”发展。尽管如此，现有证据证实了犹太人在大型慈善机构高管中占比过高的论点。

The pattern is consistent with the concentration of Jewish influence in finance, media, and law, and it reflects the same institutional logic: dense social networks, high levels of intra‑ethnic trust, an attraction to anything financial, and a deplorable shared interest in social engineering.

这一模式与犹太人在金融、媒体和法律领域的影响力集中相一致，并反映了相同的制度逻辑：密集的社交网络、高度的族内‑信任、对金融相关事物的青睐，以及对社会工程的共同可悲兴趣。

Even a quick search produces individuals with identifiably Jewish surnames: Rothschild, Azrieli, Oppenheim, Newberger, Sperber, Carmel‑Brown, Kestenbaum, Leigh, Ereira, Joseph, Anticoni, involved in charities. The Chairman of the Board of CARE International is Arielle de Rothschild. The Secretary General is Sofía Sprechmann Sineiro. Abby Maxman is the president and CEO of Oxfam America. All are Jews.即使只是简单搜索一下，也能找到许多具有明显犹太姓氏的人士参与慈善活动，如罗斯柴尔德、阿兹里利、奥本海姆、纽伯格、斯珀伯、卡梅尔‑布朗、凯斯滕鲍姆、利、埃雷拉、约瑟夫、安蒂科尼等。国际援外合作署（CARE International）的董事会主席是阿里埃勒·德·罗斯柴尔德，秘书长是索菲娅·施普雷希曼·西内罗。美国乐施会的总裁兼首席执行官是艾比·马克斯曼。他们都是犹太人。

Arielle De Rothschild, CEO CARE International.

Arielle De Rothschild，CARE国际组织首席执行官。来源： Source:

I would note that search results rely on names and biographical details. Without explicit self-identification or organisational affiliation, an individual’s background remains opaque in standard web searches. Some names are obviously Jewish, but others are not.

我要指出的是，搜索结果依赖于姓名和生平细节。如果没有明确的自我认同或组织隶属关系，在标准的网络搜索中，个人的背景仍然是不透明的。有些名字明显是犹太人的，但有些则不是。

The Internet is definitely being trolled and scoured of the identification of people as Jews. As one proof, I have Wikipedia pages that I saved from 15 years ago, where individuals were freely identified as Jews and with full details provided of their Jewish background and heritage. But when I visit those pages today, I discover they have all been edited to the extent that every reference to those individuals being Jews, has been deleted. Further, with many individuals whom I know to be Jews, and where confirmation of that identification was easily found on the internet 10 or 15 years ago, the information is now totally suppressed.

互联网上关于犹太人身份的识别信息无疑正遭受恶意攻击和清除。一个证据就是，我保存了15年前的维基百科页面，其中一些人被明确标注为犹太人，并提供了他们犹太背景和血统的详细信息。但当我今天访问这些页面时，我发现它们都被编辑得面目全非，所有提及这些人是犹太人的内容都被删除了。此外，对于许多我认识且10年或15年前在互联网上很容易就能找到其犹太身份确认信息的人，现在这些信息都被完全压制了。

This is on a large enough scale that it cannot be coincidence. Someone is executing an agenda of eliminating all evidence of individuals as Jews, and doing it worldwide.This agenda is executed in so many directions and contexts that it is clearly organised at a central source. There is no other possibility. My saved Wikipedia pages from 15 years ago are not anomalies; they are archival evidence of a transformation that has since been completed. The ADL would tell you this is done to avoid “anti-Semitism”, but that is a nonsense claim.

这件事的规模之大，绝非巧合。有人正在执行一项议程，旨在消除所有作为犹太人的个人证据，而且是在全球范围内执行。这项议程的执行方向和背景如此之多，显然是由一个中心机构组织的。除此之外别无他法。我15年前保存的维基百科页面并非异常；它们是自那以后已完成转变的档案证据。美国反诽谤联盟（ADL）会告诉你，这样做是为了避免“反犹太主义”，但这纯属无稽之谈。

My observation about Wikipedia(a Jewish construct) is corroborated by documented analysis. The phenomenon of “the disappearing Jew” on Wikipedia has been studied: ** “The Jewish people of Europe have disappeared from Wikipedia entries about the nations where they lived. Wikipedia have whitewashed that history.” The results show that “where Wikipedia entries about European countries once mentioned the existence of Jewish communities in those nations for centuries, the entries have been stripped of this inconvenient truth. The only place one learns that the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe were Khazars are on non-Wikipedia sites.” This is not an accident. It is a coordinated, ongoing effort to erase Jewish ethnicity from the public record. If you want further proof, the entire record of the studies and documentation of “Wikipedia’s disappearing Jews”, has been deleted from the Internet. In other cases, Google, Bing or DuckDuckGo (also all Jewish) simply refuse to produce the documents.

我对维基百科（一个犹太人创建的网站）的观察得到了有记录的分析的佐证。维基百科上“消失的犹太人”现象已被研究过：“欧洲犹太人已从关于他们所居住国家的维基百科条目中消失。维基百科粉饰了那段历史。”研究结果显示，“在维基百科关于欧洲国家的条目中，曾经提到这些国家存在犹太社区长达数世纪，但这些条目已被删除了这一令人不安的事实。唯一能了解到东欧德系犹太人的祖先是可萨人的地方，是在非维基百科网站上。”这并非偶然。这是一场有组织、持续不断的努力，旨在从公共记录中抹去犹太人的种族身份。如果你想要进一步的证据，关于“维基百科消失的犹太人”的研究和记录的全部内容已从互联网上删除。在其他情况下，谷歌、必应或 DuckDuckGo（同样都是犹太人创建的）干脆拒绝提供这些文件。

** These documents have also been deleted from the Internet.** 这些文件也已从互联网上删除。

The system of extraction operates through such individuals. They are the human infrastructure of the plunder. And their ability to operate depends on the erasure of their ethnic identification: on the Wikipedia pages being scrubbed, on the Anglicised names, on the concealment of dual citizenship, and on the willingness of the (Jewish-owned) media to look the other way. This a small piece of a very large puzzle. The pattern is visible only to those who know where to look, and what you see is not an illusion.

剥削体系正是通过这些人来运作的。他们是掠夺行为中的人力基础设施。而他们之所以能够运作，是因为他们的民族身份被抹去了：维基百科页面被洗白，名字被英国化，双重国籍被隐瞒，以及（犹太人拥有的）媒体选择视而不见。这只是庞大谜团中的一小部分。只有那些知道该去哪里寻找的人才能看到这种模式，而你所看到的并非幻觉。

My axiom that “starting a charity is a path to a high life” is reflected in the data. The Jewish financialisation of Western charity has created a class of well-compensated executives whose interests are not always aligned with donor intent. High salaries, expensive offices, first-class travel, and sophisticated marketing campaigns have become normalised as the cost of “doing business” in philanthropy. The donor who gives $100 expecting that money to feed hungry children is most often unknowingly paying for a direct mail campaign, a CEO’s salary, a new Mercedes, office rent, and a first-class plane ticket.

我的观点——“创办慈善机构是通往高品质生活的途径”——在数据中得到了体现。犹太人对西方慈善事业的金融化，催生了一批收入丰厚的高管，而他们的利益并不总是与捐赠者的初衷相一致。高薪、高档办公室、头等舱旅行以及复杂的营销活动，已成为慈善事业“经营成本”的正常组成部分。捐赠者捐出100美元，希望这些钱能喂饱饥饿的孩子，却往往在不知不觉中为直邮活动、首席执行官的薪水、一辆新奔驰、办公室租金和头等舱机票买单。

The moral and social implications are many. The Jews’ involvement in Western charities creates fundamental moral hazards. For one thing, the focus is on money not charity. Secondly, they create charitable institutions for which – by purpose and definition – survival becomes more important than the mission. A charity that spends heavily on fundraising can continue to exist indefinitely, even if its charitable impact is marginal or negligible. The staff are paid. The executives are comfortable. The mission becomes a brand – like CARE, OXFAM, UNICEF. This is the predictable outcome of any system where institutions are rewarded for their own survival rather than for their impact.

这会产生诸多道德和社会影响。犹太人参与西方慈善事业会带来根本性的道德风险。首先，关注的焦点是金钱而非慈善。其次，他们创建的慈善机构，从目的和定义上来说，生存变得比使命更重要。一个在筹款上花费巨资的慈善机构可以无限期地存在下去，即使其慈善影响微乎其微或可以忽略不计。员工有工资，高管们生活舒适。使命变成了一个品牌——就像CARE、乐施会、联合国儿童基金会一样。这是任何一种机构因其自身生存而非其影响而获得奖励的制度的可预测结果。

更深层次的问题 — The Deeper Question

Free PDF/免费pdf

If a society’s charitable giving requires professional management, expensive offices, and high-priced executives to function, what does that say about that society’s capacity for mutual aid? The Western charity model is less a solution to need than a symptom of the erosion of community ties, the breakdown of neighborly obligation, and the replacement of social capital with institutional capital.

如果一个社会的慈善捐赠需要专业管理、昂贵的办公场所和高薪高管来运作，那么这能说明该社会互助能力的什么？西方慈善模式与其说是需求的解决方案，不如说是社区纽带侵蚀、邻里义务破裂以及社会资本被机构资本取代的征兆。

My assessment of Western charity overhead is validated by the data. While some organisations operate efficiently, the sector as a whole permits predatory and parasitic levels of overhead. The existence of many charities that spend 40% or 50% of every dollar on administration justifies the suspicion that the sector has become, for many, precisely what I have described: a path to a comfortable life, not a vehicle for helping others.

我对西方慈善机构管理费用的评估得到了数据的验证。虽然一些组织运营效率较高，但整个行业的管理费用却达到了掠夺性和寄生性的水平。许多慈善机构将每一美元的40%或50%用于行政管理，这让人有理由怀疑，对于许多人来说，该行业恰恰变成了我所描述的那样：一条通往舒适生活的道路，而非帮助他人的工具。

On the question of Jewish financialisation of charities, a Jewish acquaintance suggested Jews have been forced to financialise charities because social capital has declined and institutional mechanisms are required to coordinate giving. I disagree 100% with this position because the cause and effect are backwards. The charities were not in any way “forced” to financialise. They did it because there was no other way to extract a high living from a charity. I would argue that the social capital in the West has declined precisely because of these so-called “institutional mechanisms”. The financialisation and capture of Western charities was not a response to declining social capital. It was a driver of it.

关于犹太人对慈善机构进行金融化的问题，一位犹太熟人认为，犹太人被迫对慈善机构进行金融化，因为社会资本已经减少，需要制度机制来协调捐赠。我完全不同意这一观点，因为因果关系颠倒了。慈善机构并非以任何方式“被迫”进行金融化。他们之所以这样做，是因为没有其他方法可以从慈善机构中获取高额生活费。我认为，正是这些所谓的“制度机制”导致了西方社会资本的减少。西方慈善机构的金融化和被俘获并非是对社会资本减少的回应，而是社会资本减少的驱动因素。

There is much evidence that financialisation preceded social capital decline. The rise of the professional nonprofit sector in the United States began in the 1960s and 1970s, driven by the expansion of federal grant funding, the growth of foundation philanthropy, and the emergence of nonprofit management as a distinct career path. The term “nonprofit industrial complex” was coined precisely to describe this phenomenon. Social capital decline as measured by Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone [2] indicators, accelerated during the same period, but the causal arrow points from financialisation to social capital erosion, not the reverse.

众多证据表明，金融化先于社会资本的衰落。美国专业非营利部门的兴起始于20世纪60年代和70年代，其推动因素包括联邦拨款资金的扩张、基金会慈善事业的发展，以及非营利管理作为一条独特职业道路的兴起。“非营利产业综合体”一词正是为了描述这一现象而创造的。以罗伯特·普特南的《独自打保龄》[2]指标衡量的社会资本衰落，在同一时期加速，但因果箭头指向的是金融化导致社会资本侵蚀，而非相反。

It is a sad fact that the creation of the large Western charities as a kind of “institutional mediation”, was in itself one of the mechanisms for the destruction of social capital in the Western countries. When charity becomes professionalised, it transforms the act of giving from a direct social relationship into an impersonal financial transaction. The donor writes a check to a distant organization. The recipient receives aid from a paid caseworker. The neighbor-to-neighbor connection is severed. Over time, this institutionalised mediation atrophies the very skills and dispositions that constitute social capital:trust, reciprocity, mutual obligation, and the willingness to help a stranger without an intermediary.

令人遗憾的是，西方大型慈善机构的创建本应作为一种“制度性调解”，却反而成为了西方国家社会资本破坏的机制之一。当慈善事业走向专业化时，捐赠行为便从直接的社会关系转变为非个人的金融交易。捐赠者向一个遥远的组织开出支票，而受助者则从一名领薪水的社会工作者那里获得援助。邻里之间的联系被割裂。随着时间的推移，这种制度化的调解削弱了构成社会资本的技能和品质：信任、互惠、相互义务以及无需中介直接帮助陌生人的意愿。

The Jewish capture and re-direction of charities emerged from the same logic of financialisation, institutional capture, and self-enrichment that we have traced across universities, healthcare, media, and finance. Charities were converted to financial organisations and then “professionalised’, because it was profitable for those running them to do so. Large salaries, expensive offices, first-class travel, and sophisticated marketing campaigns are not costs imposed by necessity; they are benefits extracted by those who control the institutions.

犹太人对慈善机构的掌控和重新定向，源于我们在大学、医疗保健、媒体和金融领域所追踪到的同样的金融化、机构掌控和自我致富的逻辑。慈善机构被转变为金融机构，然后“专业化”，因为这样做对运营机构的人来说是有利可图的。高薪、昂贵的办公室、头等舱旅行和复杂的营销活动，并非出于必要而产生的成本；而是由机构控制者所榨取的利益。

政府资助规模 — The Scale of Government Funding

Public donations are only a small part of the revenue of these charities. With CARE international as one example, about 75% on average of all revenue is from government grants in all the countries in which CARE operates and, in some countries like Canada, it’s around 85%. This number hides the truth that the “owners” and promoters of these so-called charities have captured various ministries of around 100 national governments and are plundering the governments (i.e., the taxpayer-citizens) as well as the donors. Government funding for most large charities provides the base. This money comes from taxes, a compulsory extraction from the population. It requires no donor consent, no charitable impulse.And precious little oversight. It is state money, and it flows to organisations that are, in effect, government contractors. Public donations are the public face of an operation that is primarily state-funded.

公众捐款仅占这些慈善机构收入的一小部分。以国际关怀组织（CARE International）为例，其平均约75%的收入来自其运营所在国家的政府拨款，而在加拿大等一些国家，这一比例甚至高达85%。这一数字掩盖了一个事实：这些所谓慈善机构的“所有者”和推动者已经控制了约100个国家政府的各个部门，不仅掠夺了政府（即纳税人——公民），还掠夺了捐助者。大多数大型慈善机构的资金基础来自政府拨款。这些资金来自税收，是强制从民众中抽取的。它不需要捐助者的同意，也不需要慈善的动机。而且几乎不受监督。这是国家资金，流向实际上是政府承包商的组织。公众捐款是主要由国家资助的运营活动的公开面孔。

This is not a partnership between government and civil society. It is a parasitic extraction pipeline in which the state has become the primary financier of organisations that present themselves to the public as independent charities. The implications are profound. When a charity receives 75% of its revenue from the state, its primary accountability is to the state, not to donors and not to beneficiaries. The donor who gives $100 believing she is helping the poor is, in fact, subsidising a government contractor. Her donation is marginal; a rounding error on the government’s millions.

这并非政府与民间社会之间的合作关系。而是一条寄生性的榨取管道，国家已成为那些向公众自诩为独立慈善机构的组织的主要资助者。其影响深远。当一个慈善机构的75%收入来自国家时，其主要责任对象是国家，而非捐助者或受益者。捐助者以为自己是在帮助穷人，但实际上，她是在资助政府承包商。她的捐款微不足道，对政府数百万美元的收入而言，只是零头。

Governments are not merely donors to charitable organisations; they are the single largest pillar of financial support for the entire sector. This system-wide dependence, which began with a major policy shift in the 1960s and 1970s, has fundamentally reshaped civil society organizations, turning many into extensions of state policy. Data from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) confirms this. Across Canada, government funding is the primary revenue source for charities, accounting for 70% of all revenue in 2023. [3] This dependence is highly visible at CARE Canada, where its 2023-24 financials show total government funding of over 76% of its total revenue.

政府不仅仅是慈善组织的捐助者；它们是整个行业财政支持的最大支柱。这种全系统的依赖始于20世纪60年代和70年代的一次重大政策转变，它从根本上重塑了公民社会组织，使许多组织成为国家政策的延伸。加拿大税务局（CRA）的数据证实了这一点。在加拿大各地，政府资金是慈善机构的主要收入来源，占2023年总收入的70%。[3]这种依赖在加拿大援外社（CARE Canada）尤为明显，其2023-24年的财务数据显示，政府资金占总收益的76%以上。

The United States government funnels a substantial amount of money into the nonprofit sector, and it has done so for decades. This multi-faceted financial relationship has created a structural dependency that is strikingly similar to the Canadian system and that in Europe also. This is a well-documented reality of the political economy. At a minimum, the US government provides over 100,000 privately-owned non-profit organizations with more than $300 billion annually through grants alone. [4] And this figure does not include other forms of government support, such as contracts or cooperative agreements, which are also substantial revenue sources for many organizations. It isn’t widely recognised, but the “nonprofit industrial complex” is a major part of the US economy, employing over 12 million people – about 10% of the nation’s workforce.

美国政府向非营利部门投入了大量资金，且这一做法已持续数十年。这种多方面的财务关系形成了一种结构性依赖，与加麻大的体系以及欧洲的体系惊人地相似。这是政治经济学中一个有据可查的现实。至少，美国政府仅通过赠款每年就向超过10万家私营非营利组织提供了超过3000亿美元。[4]而且，这一数字还不包括其他形式的政府支持，如合同或合作协议，这些也是许多组织的重要收入来源。虽然这一点并未得到广泛认可，但“非营利产业综合体”是美国经济的重要组成部分，雇佣了超过1200万人，约占全国劳动力的10%。

This system did not emerge organically. It was a deliberate product of the Cold War and the “Great Society” era in the US. This was the establishment of new federal health, education, and welfare programs that created a monumental incentive structure. Private Jewish organisations began contracting with the government, to implement these programs. This transformed charities from independent actors into government subcontractors. The intended consequence was that this influx of federal funds created a powerful financial incentive for charities to financialise so as to navigate the application requirements tied to these new grants. This process eroded the traditional, volunteer-driven model of charity.

这一体系并非自然形成。它是冷战时期和美国“伟大社会”时代的刻意产物。当时，美国建立了新的联邦卫生、教育和福利项目，从而形成了一个巨大的激励结构。犹太私人组织开始与政府签订合同，以实施这些项目。这使得慈善机构从独立行动者转变为政府的分包商。其预期结果是，联邦资金的涌入为慈善机构创造了强大的财务激励，促使它们进行金融化，以满足与这些新拨款相关的申请要求。这一过程侵蚀了传统的、由志愿者驱动的慈善模式。

These charities do not merely receive government funding; the persons behind them actively shape the policy decisions that determine those funding flows. The historical roots of this transition – the architecture of elite-dominated, government-funded charities – did not emerge by accident. It was deliberately constructed during the 1960s through the programs of then-US President Lyndon Johnson. It was Johnson’s “Great Society” initiative that created the “Nonprofit Industrial Complex”. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” dramatically changed the charity landscape forever. Rather than fund state and city governments to provide public assistance directly, the US government gave grants to nonprofits to provide “services”. This fundamentally restructured the entire charity environment by creating a “privatised exclusion”. In effect, the concept of charity was first “nationalised” by the US government, then “privatised” by turning it over to various members of the Jewish elite who had already effected what we term “regulatory capture”.

这些慈善机构不仅接受政府资助；其幕后推手还积极影响决定资金流向的政策决策。这一转变的历史根源——精英主导、政府资助的慈善机构架构——并非偶然形成。它是20世纪60年代通过时任美国总统林登·约翰逊（Lyndon Johnson）的计划而有意构建的。正是约翰逊的“伟大社会”倡议创造了“非营利产业综合体”。约翰逊的“向贫困宣战”计划永久性地改变了慈善格局。美国政府不再直接资助州和市政府提供公共援助，而是向非营利组织提供赠款，由其提供“服务”。这从根本上重构了整个慈善环境，创造了“私有化的排斥”。实际上，慈善的概念首先被美国政府“国有化”，然后通过将其转交给已经实现了我们所谓的“监管俘获”的犹太精英中的各种成员而“私有化”。

犹太赞助网络 — A Jewish Patronage Network

The looting is real. The architects have names. And the system will continue to produce this outcome for as long as the public believes that “charity” means helping others, rather than enriching the already-rich.

掠夺是真实存在的。那些建筑师们都有名字。只要公众认为“慈善”意味着帮助他人，而不是让本已富有的人变得更富有，这个体系就会继续产生这样的结果。

Those who form and control most of the large charities (and a great many of the small ones) are part of the Exclusionary elite who influence governments to support them. The result is effectively a looting of the public purse. The picture that emerges from the evidence is of a convergence of interests among Jewish participants that has produced a system of institutionalised extraction. The charity and NGO sectors have been transformed into a kind of Jewish patronage network in which government funding flows to their organisations, all of it legitimised by the rhetoric of “philanthropy.” The professionalisation of charities has transformed what was once a domain of volunteerism into a well-paid career path for a newly-distinct professional managerial class.

那些组建并控制着大多数大型慈善机构（以及大量小型慈善机构）的人，是影响政府支持他们的排他性精英阶层的一部分。其结果实际上是掠夺公共资金。证据所揭示的画面是，犹太参与者之间的利益趋同，形成了一种制度化的榨取体系。慈善机构和非政府组织部门已经转变为一种犹太赞助网络，政府资金流向这些组织，所有这些都通过“慈善”的言辞被合法化。慈善机构的专业化已经将曾经志愿服务领域转变为一个新兴独特的专业管理阶层的高薪职业道路。

The emphasis on using privately-owned nonprofits as distributors in the charity chain, produced a model based on process rather than outcome. This is what we see today in large charities like CARE, OXFAM, and UNICEF, who function like massive bureaucracies, with most funding absorbed internally and the supposed beneficiaries receiving only “services”. This produced a paradoxical outcome in which government funding enhanced the power of privately-owned nonprofits at the expense of the communities they were ostensibly serving.

在慈善链中，强调使用私有非营利组织作为分销商，形成了一种基于过程而非结果的模型。这就是我们今天在CARE、OXFAM和UNICEF等大型慈善机构中看到的情形，它们运作起来就像庞大的官僚机构，大部分资金都在内部消化，而所谓的受益者只获得“服务”。这产生了一个自相矛盾的结果：政府资金以牺牲它们表面上所服务的社区为代价，增强了私有非营利组织的权力。

The transformation of charity from grassroots mutual aid to professionalised, state-funded bureaucracy was a social disaster. Civil society was co-opted and replaced by a “nonprofit industrial complex” that functions as a mechanism for elite capture. Charities become transmission belts for government and public funds that do little more than provide well-compensated employment for the Jewish professional class that manages them. The data clearly support the assertion that these charities were created with the specific intention of looting governments. In support of this, I would remind readers of the thesis that predictable outcomes imply deliberate intent. When we review the process of government capture and the privatisation of social welfare, the looting of governments was the only predictable outcome.

慈善事业从草根互助转变为专业化、由国家资助的官僚机构，这是一场社会灾难。公民社会被“非营利工业综合体”所吸纳和取代，成为精英俘获的机制。慈善机构成为政府和公共资金的传输带，除了为管理这些机构的犹太专业阶层提供报酬丰厚的就业机会外，别无他用。数据清楚地支持了这些慈善机构是专门为掠夺政府而创建的这一论断。为了支持这一点，我想提醒读者注意这样一个论点：可预测的结果意味着存在蓄意行为。当我们回顾政府俘获和社会福利私有化的过程时，掠夺政府是唯一可预测的结果。

The question of whether this system was intentionally designed or emerged from the convergence of Jewish interests is, in practical terms, irrelevant. The outcome is the same: a small, tribal class of people has positioned itself to extract value from the flow of public money that passes through the charitable sector, all under the legitimising banners of “philanthropy” and “civil society”. The system produces a flow of public money to the professional class that manages the charitable sector, while the intended beneficiaries – the poor, the environment, the sick – are relegated to secondary consideration.

这个体系是故意设计的，还是从犹太人利益的交汇中自然产生的，这个问题实际上并不重要。结果是一样的：一小撮部落阶级的人已经将自己定位为从通过慈善部门的公共资金流中提取价值，而这一切都是在“慈善”和“公民社会”的合法化旗帜下进行的。这个体系将公共资金流向管理慈善部门的专业阶层，而原本的受益者——穷人、环境和病人——则被降级为次要考虑因素。

The governing boards of major charities are populated by the same group that occupies corporate boardrooms and maintains access to government. This is a class network, not necessarily a conspiracy, but the effect is the same: the same people who advise governments also run the organisations that receive government money. The financialisation, privatisation, and professionalisation of charities has created a well-compensated career path for a new managerial class. Executive salaries in the $250,000–$350,000 range are the norm for the largest organisations.

大型慈善机构的理事会成员与占据企业董事会席位并保持与政府联系的人员是同一群人。这是一个阶层网络，不一定是阴谋，但效果是一样的：为政府提供建议的同一批人也在管理着接受政府资金的机构。慈善机构的金融化、私有化和专业化为新的管理层创造了一条报酬丰厚的职业道路。对于最大的机构而言，高管薪酬在25万至35万美元之间是常态

For the larger “charities”, the average executive pay in the US is nearly $400,000, with CEOs earning a median of around $600,000 annually. The CEO of Ducks Unlimited (classed as a charity) earns US$720,000 per year. At the very top, some executives earn millions. These are not isolated outliers. They represent a structural reality: the charitable sector has become a destination for elite careerists. This is part of a broader trend of “financialisation” where the professional-managerial class positions itself to extract value from the flow of public money, all under the legitimising banner of “philanthropy”.

对于规模较大的“慈善机构”而言，美国高管平均薪酬接近40万美元，首席执行官（CEO）的年薪中位数约为60万美元。野鸭无限制协会（被归类为慈善机构）的首席执行官年薪高达72万美元。在最高层，一些高管的年薪甚至高达数百万美元。这些并非孤立的异常值。它们代表了一种结构性现实：慈善领域已成为精英野心家的聚集地。这是更广泛的“金融化”趋势的一部分，在这一趋势中，专业管理阶层将自己定位为从公共资金流动中提取价值，而这一切都是在“慈善”这一合法化旗帜的掩护下进行的。

This is an accurate diagnosis of a system that has evolved to serve the interests of the professional-managerial elite at the expense of both the donating public and the intended beneficiaries. The architects of this system are not a secret cabal. They are the boards of directors of major charities, the executives who draw six-figure salaries, the government ministers who allocate contracts without tender, and the professional class that circulates among all three. Their names are public: Craig and Marc Kielburger of the WE Charity, Margaret Trudeau and Bill Morneau who benefited from WE, the executives of CARE Canada who sit on multiple foundation boards. These individuals are not villains twirling their moustaches. They are rational actors operating within a system that rewards them for behavior that, viewed from the outside, appears as self-dealing and institutional capture.

这是对一个体系的准确诊断，该体系已演变为以牺牲捐赠公众和预期受益者的利益为代价，来满足专业管理精英的利益。这一体系的缔造者并非什么秘密阴谋集团。他们是大型慈善机构的董事会成员、拿着六位数薪水的高管、不经招标就分配合同的政府部长，以及在这三者之间游走的职业阶层。他们的名字都是公开的：WE慈善机构的克雷格和马克·基尔伯格、从WE中受益的玛格丽特·特鲁多和比尔·莫尔诺、以及在多个基金会董事会任职的加拿大CARE组织的高管。这些人并非蓄意恶作剧的恶棍。他们是理性行为者，在一个体系中运作，该体系会奖励他们那些从外部看来似乎是自我交易和机构俘获的行为。

This trend extends well beyond CARE International. Government funding is the lifeblood for a wide spectrum of major organisations. The Red Cross, Oxfam, Cancer societies, Heart and Stroke Foundations, Doctors Without Borders, major hospitals and health research foundations, food banks, local shelters, community health centers, all rely heavily on government contracts and grants. Even national museums, arts councils, and environmental charities like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) are included in this. The “green movement” as well has turned into a small industry which is not serving the environment; it is serving the personal interests of the (primarily) Jews who created it. The heavy dependence on government funding has transformed Western non-profits from independent, grassroots mutual aid groups into large, professionalised entities whose priorities are shaped by private interests and state policy, not donor intent.

这一趋势远远超出了CARE International的范围。政府资金是众多大型组织的命脉。红十字会、乐施会、癌症协会、心脏和中风基金会、无国界医生组织、各大医院和健康研究基金会、食品银行、当地庇护所、社区卫生中心，都严重依赖政府合同和拨款。甚至国家博物馆、艺术委员会和世界自然基金会（WWF）等环保慈善机构也位列其中。“绿色运动”也已演变成一个小产业，它并非服务于环境，而是服务于（主要是）犹太人的个人利益，而这个产业正是他们所创立的。对政府资金的严重依赖已使西方非营利组织从独立的草根互助团体转变为大型的专业化实体，其优先事项由私人利益和国家政策决定，而非捐助者的意图。

The tragedy is not that the system is corrupt. The tragedy is that it is structurally designed to produce this corruption, and that the legitimising ideology of “charity” and “philanthropy” blinds the public to the thieving extraction happening in plain sight. The money that donors believe is feeding hungry children is, in substantial measure, sustaining a professional class whose primary loyalty is to itself. The looting is real. The architects have names. And the system will continue to produce this outcome for as long as the public believes that “charity” means helping others, rather than enriching the already-rich.

悲剧不在于这个体系腐败。悲剧在于，它从结构上就注定会产生这种腐败，而“慈善”和“公益”的正当化意识形态让公众对明目张胆的盗窃行为视而不见。捐赠者认为用于救助饥饿儿童的钱，在很大程度上是在维持一个主要效忠于自身的专业阶层。掠夺是真实存在的。策划者们有名字。只要公众认为“慈善”意味着帮助他人，而不是让本已富有的人变得更富有，这个体系就会继续产生这种结果。

The professionalisation of charity is a form of Accumulation and Exclusion. The charitable sector has become another arena in which wealth and income are concentrated; not at the level of the recipients, but at the level of the executives, consultants, and fundraising professionals who extract value from the flow of donations. The donors are excluded from direct relationship with those they help. The recipients are excluded from the dignity of receiving help from a neighbor rather than a caseworker. The community is excluded from the social capital that would otherwise be built through mutual aid. This is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome of a system that rewards self-enrichment over mission accomplishment and that treats charity as a market rather than a moral obligation.

慈善的专业化是一种积累与排斥的形式。慈善领域已成为财富和收入集中的另一个竞技场；财富和收入不是集中在受助者手中，而是集中在高管、顾问和筹款专业人士手中，他们从捐赠流中榨取价值。捐赠者被排除在与受助者直接建立关系之外。受助者被剥夺了从邻居而非社会工作者那里接受帮助的尊严。社区被排除在原本可以通过互助建立的社会资本之外。这并非偶然。这是一个系统的可预测结果，该系统奖励自我充实而非使命达成，并将慈善视为市场而非道德义务。

Western charities were not forced into this mold. The (primarily) Jewish founders designed it deliberately because they intended primarily to make charities personally profitable. The decline in social capital is not the cause but the consequence of this, and of the broader forces of Accumulation and Exclusion that I have documented throughout this series of articles.

西方慈善机构并非被迫陷入这种模式。其（主要）犹太创始人故意设计出这种模式，因为他们主要意图是让慈善机构为个人带来利润。社会资本的减少并非这一模式以及我在本系列文章中记录的更广泛的积累和排斥力量的原因，而是其后果。

中国方式与众不同 — China Does it Differently

China has almost no Jews, and the few it has, are of little influence. One result is that in China, there are almost no registered Western-style charities, and typically all money collected is actually distributed to the intended beneficiaries.

中国几乎没有犹太人，即便有，也影响力甚微。其结果之一是，在中国，几乎没有注册的西式慈善机构，通常筹集到的所有资金都会实际发放给预定的受益人。

In terms of the regulatory framework for charities, China has taken a radically different approach. The country’s laws impose strict legal limits on charitable overhead. As one measure, no more than 10% of a year’s total received donations can be spent on management or expenses. One current example is Shanghai’s Wuliqiao Charitable Foundation: In 2023, the charity disbursed ¥282,809.60 to beneficiaries, while the total year’s administrative expenses totaled ¥716.00. This is not an anomaly. While some Chinese charities approach the 10% statutory cap, the existence of a legal maximum imposes a level of fiscal discipline that simply does not exist in Western regulatory frameworks, which rely on voluntary disclosure and donor scrutiny rather than statutory limits.

在慈善机构的监管框架方面，中国采取了截然不同的方法。中国法律对慈善机构的日常管理费用施加了严格的法律限制。其中一项规定是，一年内用于管理或支出的费用不得超过所收捐款总额的10%。目前的一个例子是上海的无棣桥慈善基金会：2023年，该慈善机构向受益人支付了282,809.60元人民币，而全年的行政费用总额为716.00元人民币。这并非个例。虽然一些中国慈善机构接近10%的法定上限，但法定上限的存在施加了一定程度的财务纪律，这在依赖自愿披露和捐助者审查而非法定上限的西方监管框架中根本不存在。

“许愿墙” — The “Wishing Wall”

A wishing wall in China

中国的许愿墙

Another variation of a Chinese Wishing Wall

中国许愿墙的另一种变体

One especially charming and practical charity method in China is what we call a “wishing wall”. Anyone in need of assistance can post a description of their situation on a special wall in a public space. A person or persons willing to help, will take down that poster and fulfill the need. In one case that I knew about, an elderly woman needed a new wheelchair. She posted that need on the wishing wall, and within days someone brought her a new wheelchair. In another case I know, a daughter was in the US as a student. The mother hadn’t seen her daughter for three years because the family spent every penny to pay the girl’s tuition fees and living expenses. The mother hadn’t the money to travel to the US, and the girl had no money to return home. The mother posted this situation on the wishing wall, and two persons paid the cost of a return flight ticket for the girl to return home to visit her mother.

在中国，一种特别吸引人且实用的慈善方式就是我们所说的“许愿墙”。任何需要帮助的人都可以在公共场所的一面特殊墙上发布自己的求助信息。愿意伸出援手的人会取下那张海报，并满足求助者的需求。在我所知道的一个案例中，一位老太太需要一辆新轮椅。她在许愿墙上发布了这一需求，几天后，有人给她送来了一辆新轮椅。在另一个我所知道的案例中，一位女儿在美国留学。由于家里把所有的钱都用来支付女儿的学费和生活费，母亲已经三年没见到女儿了。母亲没有钱去美国，女儿也没有钱回家。母亲在许愿墙上发布了这一情况，有两个人为女儿支付了回国的机票费用，让她回家看望母亲。

The system features zero overhead. There are no salaries, no office expenses, and no fund-raising costs. Needs are matched directly with volunteers or donors. The system is community-based, operating at the neighborhood level, not through large bureaucracies. All work is performed by volunteers. You may be familiar with the aphorism that “Charity begins at home”; this personifies it because it operates at the neighborhood level with people who help their neighbors first. The system contributes to social cohesion; it builds trust and mutual obligation among neighbors.

该系统零开销。没有工资、没有办公费用，也没有筹款成本。需求直接与志愿者或捐赠者匹配。该系统以社区为基础，在邻里层面运作，而非通过大型官僚机构。所有工作均由志愿者完成。你可能熟悉“慈善始于家庭”这句格言；该系统将其具体化，因为它在邻里层面运作，人们首先帮助邻居。该系统有助于增强社会凝聚力；它在邻里之间建立信任和相互义务。

The wishing wall’s most radical feature is that it achieves charitable outcomes without creating a permanent institution. The wheelchair is delivered. The plane ticket is purchased. And then the volunteers return to their ordinary lives. There is no office to maintain, no staff to pay, no fundraising to sustain. This is charity as it might have existed before the rise of the modern nonprofit industrial complex – direct, personal, and efficient. The wishing wall suggests that the most efficient charity is no charity at all, at least, no charity in the institutional sense. The best way to help a neighbor is simply to help a neighbor, without the mediation of a professional class.

许愿墙最激进的特点在于，它无需创建永久性机构就能实现慈善成果。轮椅被送到了，机票被购买了。然后志愿者们就回归了他们的日常生活。没有办公室需要维护，没有员工需要支付工资，也没有筹款活动需要维持。这就是现代非营利产业综合体崛起之前可能存在的慈善方式——直接、个人化且高效。许愿墙表明，最高效的慈善根本不是慈善，至少不是机构意义上的慈善。帮助邻居的最好方式就是直接帮助邻居，无需专业阶层的调解。

The Wishing Wall is a radical alternative to institutional charities. It is not an isolated phenomenon but a documented component of China’s community governance system. Shanghai’s official government portal describes the Wishing Wall as a tool that unlocks a community’s “superpower” of mutual assistance, where “residents, while realising their personal wishes, also transmit goodwill through voluntary actions, forming a value identity of helping others”. The mechanism for Shanghai operates as follows: community members post their “micro-wishes” on a public wishing wall. Local party branches and community staff collect these wishes weekly, verify the circumstances through household visits, and then match them with volunteers or charitable resources to fulfill them.

“许愿墙”是机构慈善的一种激进替代方案。它并非孤立现象，而是中国社区治理体系中一个有据可查的组成部分。上海官方政府门户网站将“许愿墙”描述为一种工具，能激发社区互助的“超能力”，让“居民在实现个人愿望的同时，也能通过志愿行动传递善意，形成助人为乐的价值认同”。上海的运作机制如下：社区成员在公共许愿墙上发布他们的“微心愿”。当地党支部和社区工作人员每周收集这些心愿，通过家访核实情况，然后将其与志愿者或慈善资源相匹配，以实现这些心愿。

Some communities report that thousands of handwritten wishes have been fulfilled one by one. The system also operates online, where community members can post wishes via WeChat group messages to be fulfilled.

一些社区报告称，数千份手写的愿望已逐一实现。该系统还支持在线操作，社区成员可通过微信群消息发布待实现的愿望。

A Wishing Tree in China

中国的许愿树

This model is almost the polar opposite of the Western institutional charity model. Where Western charities rely on professional staff, costly fundraising campaigns, and expensive office space, the wishing wall relies on social capital. It is built on trust, reciprocity, and neighborly obligation, rather than financial capital. This is not merely an efficiency difference; it reflects fundamentally different assumptions about how society should organise mutual aid. The differences between Western and Chinese charity models are not merely regulatory; they are deeply cultural. A major distinguishing difference is that Chinese organisers are not seeking to build institutions but to meet immediate needs. For example:

这种模式几乎与西方的机构慈善模式截然相反。西方慈善机构依赖专业人员、成本高昂的筹款活动和昂贵的办公空间，而许愿墙则依赖于社会资本。它建立在信任、互惠和邻里义务的基础上，而非金融资本。这不仅仅是效率上的差异；它反映了关于社会应如何组织互助的根本不同假设。西方和中国慈善模式之间的差异不仅仅是监管上的；它们在文化层面也存在深刻差异。一个主要的显著区别是，中国组织者并不寻求建立机构，而是满足当前需求。例如：

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a large-scale test of the Chinese volunteer charity model. During the early stages of the pandemic, when hospitals faced critical shortages of personal protective equipment, thousands of spontaneous volunteer groups mobilised to raise funds and procure supplies. These groups of ordinary people operated with no paid staff, no advertising budget, and no office space. Their promotions were all online with WeChat and Weibo which are free. Moreover, they operated with full transparency; there was real-time tracking of donations and disbursements, and it was solidly documented that all funds went directly to purchasing equipment for hospitals. These spontaneous volunteer groups can easily match the Western model of large-scale disaster response.

新冠肺炎疫情对中国志愿者慈善模式进行了大规模的考验。在疫情初期，当医院面临个人防护装备严重短缺时，数千个自发志愿者团体动员起来筹集资金和采购物资。这些由普通人组成的团体没有雇佣带薪员工，没有广告预算，也没有办公场所。他们的宣传全部通过微信和微博等免费平台进行。此外，他们的运作完全透明；捐赠和支出都有实时追踪，并有确凿证据表明所有资金都直接用于为医院购买设备。这些自发志愿者团体可以轻松与西方的大规模灾难应对模式相媲美。

The Chinese system has Confucian roots. Chinese charitable giving is substantially influenced by Confucian cultural norms which place strong emphasis on benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. Charitable giving in China is not a tax-driven or professionally managed activity as in the West, but is embedded in a cultural framework that emphasises moral obligation over institutional efficiency. Importantly, there is no greed in the Chinese system. There are no people drooling over the vast sums of money involved, and scheming of ways to intercept it. The direct opposite of the Western model as it exists today.

中国的慈善体系源于儒家思想。中国的慈善捐赠深受儒家文化规范的影响，这些规范强调仁、义、礼、智。与西方不同，中国的慈善捐赠并非受税收驱动或由专业人士管理，而是根植于一种文化框架，该框架更强调道德义务而非机构效率。重要的是，中国的慈善体系中不存在贪婪。没有人垂涎于所涉及的巨额资金，也没有人策划如何从中获利。这与当今西方的模式截然相反。

To ensure this state of affairs, the state plays a role in charities through legislation and supervision, again in direct contrast to the West. China treats philanthropy as an important component of social security, social governance, and the distribution of resources. This framing that charity as part of “social security”, shapes the way it is organised. Government guidance establishes the legal framework and provides some oversight, while leaving room for spontaneous community action. The approach is less laissez-faire than the Western model but also less “financialised” and bureaucratised.

为确保这种状况，国家通过立法和监管在慈善事业中发挥作用，这再次与西方形成鲜明对比。中国将慈善视为社会保障、社会治理和资源配置的重要组成部分。这种将慈善视为“社会保障”一部分的框架，塑造了慈善的组织方式。政府指导建立法律框架并提供一定监督，同时为自发的社区行动留有余地。这种做法比西方模式更少自由放任，但也更少“金融化”和官僚化。

The Chinese charity model relies on something that Western societies have been systematically losing: social capital. Trust in neighbors, willingness to help strangers, and the sense of mutual obligation are all forms of social capital that have declined dramatically in Western societies over recent decades. The Chinese model cannot be simply imported into a society that has lost these social bonds.A wishing wall works because Chinese communities still possess reservoirs of mutual trust. The Chinese model is built on a level of social trust that does not exist in atomised Western societies.

中国慈善模式依赖于西方社会一直在系统性地失去的东西：社会资本。对邻居的信任、帮助陌生人的意愿以及相互义务感，这些都是近几十年来西方社会急剧减少的社会资本形式。中国模式不能简单地移植到一个已经失去这些社会纽带的社群中。许愿墙之所以有效，是因为中国社区仍然拥有深厚的相互信任基础。中国模式建立在一种社会信任水平之上，而这种信任水平在原子化的西方社会中并不存在。

Mr. Romanoff’s writinghas 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 150 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. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).00000

00000

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 11

注释——第11部分

[1] CARE 2024年财务概览
https://www.care-international.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/21842_CARE_financial_overview_2024.pdf

[2] 《独自打保龄球：美国社会资本的衰退》
https://www.academia.edu/114619955/Bowling_Alone_Americas_Declining_Social_Capital

[3] 社区再投资局发布《2023至202
https://www.carters.ca/cra-releases-report-on-charities-program-2023-to-20/

[4] 非营利组织对政府拨款的依赖程度有多高？
https://candid.org/blogs/how-many-nonprofits-rely-on-government-grants-data/

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