上海的月亮: CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 犹太人正在掠夺世界——第12部分 — 美国运通 — Jews are Plundering the World – Part 12

翻译者：Pearl

美国运通欺诈案：一个真实的案例研究 — The AMEX Fraud: A Legitimate Case Study

这里还有更多值得一看的地方 — There is More to See Here

如果有效，冲洗后重复使用 — If it Works Once, Rinse and Repeat

并再次重复 — And Repeat Again

加拿大皇家骑警的联系 — The RCMP Connection

警察部队 — The Police Forces

模式即证明 — The Pattern is the Proof

媒体松散线索 — The Media Loose Thread

尾声 — Epilogue

I once had an American Express card. One day I saw a charge on my card for $75 from some unknown firm and an unspecified purchase. I called AMEX and was told the charge was for insurance against identity theft. I told the agent I didn’t order such a thing from anyone and insisted that he delete the charge. He said he couldn’t do that because the charge was from “a separate company”, so he had no authority, and that he couldn’t transfer my call. I smelled a rat, so I told the man to either (1) connect me with that separate company so I could delete the charge, or (2) cancel my card. The man discovered he could connect me after all. Nice lady on the phone, cheerful, friendly, but couldn’t find my account. We tried name, address, SIN number, date of birth, name of dog, but no luck. All her searches came up dry. Now, I smelled a larger rat. I said to her, either (1) find my account and cancel the charge, or (2) I would put down the phone, call AMEX and cancel my card. “Oh, here it is!!” Nice lady then canceled the charge, and all was well – almost.

我曾经有一张美国运通（American Express）信用卡。有一天，我看到我的卡上有一笔来自某个未知公司且未具体说明的75美元消费。我打电话给美国运通，得知这笔费用是用于购买身份盗窃保险。我告诉客服人员，我没有从任何人那里订购过这样的服务，并坚持要求他删除这笔费用。他说他不能这么做，因为这笔费用来自“另一家公司”，他无权处理，也无法为我转接电话。我察觉到事情有些不对劲，于是告诉客服人员，要么（1）帮我联系那家“另一家公司”，以便我删除这笔费用；要么（2）取消我的信用卡。客服人员最终发现他可以帮我联系。电话那头是一位和蔼可亲、友好热情的女士，但她找不到我的账户。我们尝试了姓名、地址、社保号、出生日期、狗的名字，但都没有成功。她所有的搜索都一无所获。现在，我察觉到更大的问题。我对她说，要么（1）找到我的账户并取消这笔费用，要么（2）我就挂断电话，打电话给美国运通取消我的信用卡。“哦，找到了！”这位和蔼的女士随后取消了这笔费用，一切都很顺利——几乎。

It was clear that I was not the only person who was quietly (and illegally) charged $75 – without my authorisation – for an essentially useless service. Since AMEX had more than 70 million card-holders in the US and Canada alone, $75 times 70 million was a lot of money, all charged to cards without the customer’s knowledge or permission, and with a low-quality scam to prevent deletion of the charges.

很显然，我不是唯一一个被悄悄地（且非法地）收取75美元费用的人——这笔费用是在未经我授权的情况下，针对一项基本无用的服务收取的。由于美国运通仅在美国和加麻大就有超过7000万的持卡人，75美元乘以7000万就是一大笔钱，而且所有费用都是在客户不知情或未经许可的情况下从信用卡上扣除的，而且该公司还通过低劣的骗术来阻止用户删除这些费用。

I had discovered a massive banking fraud, no question, so I called Canada’s world-famous national police – the RCMP. I filed a report and was assured they would follow up and get back to me. But after two weeks and no response, I called again. I wasn’t surprised to learn that they had no record of my prior call or complaint. I re-filed my complaint, asked for an investigation, and told the nice lady that if I didn’t hear from them, I would most likely file a class action against AMEX and also initiate a criminal charge against both AMEX and the RCMP as collaborators in a fraud. That brought results. The very next morning I received a courier envelope from AMEX informing me that my card was canceled. That was a clever move. Since my $75 had been refunded, I had no basis for a civil action and, since I was no longer a card-holder, I was ineligible to initiate any class action. End of story.

我毫无疑问地发现了一起大规模的银行欺诈行为，于是我给加麻大举世闻名的国家警察——加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）打了电话。我提交了一份报告，并得到保证他们会跟进并回复我。但两周过去了，没有任何回应，于是我又打了一次电话。得知他们没有我之前的电话或投诉记录，我并不感到惊讶。我重新提交了投诉，要求进行调查，并告诉那位好心的女士，如果我没有收到他们的回复，我很可能会对美国运通（AMEX）提起集体诉讼，并对美国运通和加拿大皇家骑警作为欺诈同谋提起刑事指控。这一招果然奏效。第二天早上，我收到了美国运通寄来的快递信封，通知我的信用卡已被取消。这招真高明。由于我的75美元已经退款，我没有提起民事诉讼的依据，而且由于我不再是持卡人，我也没有资格提起任何集体诉讼。故事到此为止。

It was very clear what had occurred. The local RCMP office contacted their headquarters, someone in headquarters contacted AMEX – about me – and they removed me from the picture. And that means that the owners of AMEX had deep connections with the police forces, and very likely standing protection by Canada’s Federal government. Instead of pursuing an investigation for a massive criminal fraud involving billions of dollars and possibly 70 million victims, the police collaborated with AMEX to silence dissent. That fraud was never investigated, nor was it ever reported in the media anywhere. As near as I could determine, AMEX attempted to steal around $5 billion from its card-holders, a large part of which would likely have been successful, and protected by the police. That’s very effective plundering.

事情的经过非常清楚。当地加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）办公室联系了他们的总部，总部有人联系了美国运通（AMEX）——关于我——然后他们把我从名单中删除了。这意味着美国运通的老板与警方关系深厚，而且很可能得到了加拿大联邦政府的庇护。警方没有对涉及数十亿美元和可能7000万受害者的大规模刑事欺诈进行调查，而是与美国运通合作，压制异议。那起欺诈案从未被调查，也从未在任何媒体上报道过。据我推测，美国运通试图从其持卡人那里窃取约50亿美元，其中很大一部分很可能会得逞，而且会受到警方的庇护。这是非常有效的掠夺。

美国运通欺诈案：一个真实的案例研究 — The AMEX Fraud: A Legitimate Case Study

This experience is a textbook example of how large financial institutions quietly extract money from millions of customers through small, deniable charges. The $75 identity theft insurance charge on my American Express card, which I never ordered, is what prosecutors call a “cramming” scheme. It is the practice of placing unauthorised charges on customer bills, typically for services the customer never ordered, in amounts small enough that many will not notice or will not consider worth the effort to dispute. Companies typically rely on customer inertia, inattention, and the difficulty of cancellation, to retain the revenue. The $75 charge for identity theft insurance I never requested fits the definition precisely. The scale is staggering. With over 70 million cardholders, a single $75 charge represents a potential illicit revenue stream for AMEX of $5.25 billion. If only a fraction of cardholders noticed and successfully disputed the charge, the remaining revenue would be enormous. This is not the result of a clerical error. This is a systematic fraud engineered at the institutional level.

这一经历是大型金融机构如何通过小额、可否认的费用悄悄从数百万客户那里榨取资金的典型例子。我从未订购过美国运通（American Express）信用卡上的75美元身份盗窃保险费，检察官称此为“强行收费”计划。这种做法是在客户账单上添加未经授权的费用，通常针对客户从未订购的服务，且金额小到许多人不会注意到或认为不值得为此费心提出异议。公司通常依靠客户的惰性、疏忽以及取消的难度来保持收入。我从未申请过的75美元身份盗窃保险费完全符合这一定义。其规模之大令人震惊。美国运通拥有超过7000万持卡人，单笔75美元的费用就意味着该公司可能获得52.5亿美元的非法收入。即使只有一小部分持卡人注意到并成功提出异议，剩余的收入也将十分可观。这并非笔误所致。这是机构层面精心策划的系统性欺诈。

The cheerful but obstructive customer service I encountered – the fake inability to find my account, the sudden discovery when cancellation was threatened – was a scripted retention tactic. The RCMP’s “no record of your complaint” was a classic bureaucratic disappearance. And AMEX’s response of canceling my card the next day to strip me of standing to sue, was a surgical legal maneuver that reveals how seriously they took my threat. These are all fingerprints of institutionalised fraud. These facts alone support the thesis we have been developing: that large corporations enjoy de facto immunity, and that law enforcement agencies will protect powerful institutions over individual citizens.

我所遭遇的客服人员虽然态度愉悦，但总是百般阻挠——先是假装找不到我的账户，然后在威胁要取消账户时突然发现账户存在——这显然是一种事先设定好的挽留策略。加拿大皇家骑警“没有你的投诉记录”这一说法，是典型的官僚主义推诿。而美国运通（AMEX）第二天就注销了我的信用卡，剥夺了我起诉的权利，这一法律操作手段之精准，揭示了他们对我的威胁是多么重视。这些都是制度化欺诈的明显迹象。仅凭这些事实，就足以支持我们一直在探讨的论点：大公司实际上享有豁免权，而执法机构会保护强大的机构而非公民个人。

The most likely explanation for the RCMP’s behavior is not a specific conspiracy tied to the ownership of AMEX, but a general institutional deference to major financial players. Banks are seen as pillars of the economy. Investigating a $5 billion fraud at American Express would have caused a major scandal, diplomatic friction with the US, and significant resource demands. The decision to silence me rather than investigate the crime is corrupt, but it is the kind of corruption that requires only the ordinary alignment of interests between powerful institutions and the state that sees them as too influential to challenge.

加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）行为的最可能解释并非与美国运通（AMEX）所有权相关的特定阴谋，而是对主要金融参与者的普遍制度性顺从。银行被视为经济的支柱。调查美国运通50亿美元的欺诈案将引发重大丑闻，导致与美国的外交摩擦，并需要大量资源。决定让我保持沉默而不是调查犯罪是腐败行为，但这种腐败只需要强大的机构与国家之间利益的普通一致，即认为这些机构影响力太大而无法挑战。

There have been many instances of large corporations committing fraud and being protected by the police: The HSBC money laundering cases, the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal, the Boeing 737 MAX crashes, the Volkswagen emissions fraud, the Sackler opioid tragedy, the Elon Musk DOGE fiasco. The pattern is systemic. It is a function of corporate power and regulatory capture resulting in effective immunity from criminal charges.

有许多大型企业涉嫌欺诈却受到警方庇护的案例：汇丰银行洗钱案、富国银行假账户丑闻、波音737 MAX坠机事件、大众汽车排放欺诈、萨克勒家族阿片类药物悲剧、埃隆·马斯克狗狗币（DOGE）丑闻。这种模式是系统性的。它是企业权力和监管被俘虏的结果，导致企业实际上免受刑事指控。

The fraud I uncovered was committed by a corporation whose executives made a calculated decision to steal $75 from each of millions of people. The RCMP officers who protected AMEX were perhaps puppets of a cabal, but they were also agents of a state that protects capital over citizens. The real villain is a system of corporate impunity. My experience with AMEX was a microcosm of everything we have discussed in this series of articles: the lawlessness of the powerful, the collusion of the state, and the silencing of those who resist. The crime is corporate. The perpetrators are a class of executives and officials whose main ethnicity is power. The cover-up is institutional. The victims are ordinary people of all backgrounds. This story is evidence of systemic collusion between corporations and law enforcement, a microcosm of the larger theme of the immunity of corporate criminals and their protection by the state.

我所揭露的欺诈行为是由一家公司实施的，该公司的高管们精心策划，决定从数百万人的口袋里每人偷走75美元。保护美国运通（AMEX）的加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）官员或许只是阴谋集团的傀儡，但他们同时也是一个保护资本而非公民的国家的代理人。真正的罪魁祸首是公司有罪不罚的制度。我在美国运通的经历正是我们在这系列文章中所讨论的一切的缩影：权势者的无法无天、国家的勾结以及抵抗者的噤声。罪行是公司性质的。肇事者是一群高管和官员，他们的主要特征就是权力。掩盖是制度性的。受害者是各种背景的普通人。这个故事证明了公司与执法部门之间的系统性勾结，是企业罪犯逍遥法外以及国家保护企业罪犯这一更大主题的缩影。

The clear inference is that RCMP headquarters contacted AMEX to neutralise a threat. The only possible conclusion is that the owners of AMEX have deep connections with police forces and likely federal protection. This story validates the pattern of the deferred prosecution/immunity model. The fraud was a classic “billing fraud”. The cover-up was the police refusal to investigate, and instead tipping off the corporation to silence a whistleblower. The cancellation of the card to eliminate legal standing was a deliberate tactic showing premeditated awareness of how to legally crush dissent. This is exactly the two-tier justice system I have been discussing.

显而易见的推论是，加拿大皇家骑警总部联系了美国运通公司以消除威胁。唯一可能的结论是，美国运通公司的所有者与警方有着深厚的关系，并很可能受到联邦保护。这个故事验证了延期起诉/豁免模式的规律。这起欺诈是一起典型的“账单欺诈”。掩盖真相的是警方拒绝调查，而是向公司通风报信，以使举报人保持沉默。注销信用卡以消除法律地位是一种蓄意策略，显示出他们有预谋地知道如何合法地压制异议。这正是我一直在讨论的两级司法制度。

The fact that the media didn’t cover it fits the narrative of media capture that cooperates with corporate power and state collusion. The legal maneuver to strip legal standing reveals a deep understanding of how to neutralise a threat while protecting the underlying crime. The RCMP’s behavior, from losing the original complaint to acting only when threatened with legal action as a co-conspirator, demonstrates that law enforcement prioritises protecting powerful institutions over public interest.

媒体未对此事进行报道，这一事实恰好印证了媒体被企业权力和国家勾结所俘获的叙事。剥夺法律地位的法律手段揭示了如何消除威胁，同时保护潜在的犯罪行为，这显示出对法律的深刻理解。加拿大皇家骑警的行为，从最初未能处理投诉，到仅在作为同谋者面临法律诉讼威胁时才采取行动，都表明执法机构更重视保护强大的机构而非公众利益。

This is how the system regularly works. The owners and executives of AMEX are part of the same class that controls the regulatory apparatus. The story is a perfect illustration of the “executive immunity” thesis, where even a massive fraud involving billions is shielded because the state sides with the corporation against the individual citizen. This story proves the state has become an instrument of corporate plunder, and that the law is used to protect the predators and punish the whistleblowers.

这就是该体系的常规运作方式。美国运通（AMEX）的所有者和管理层与控制监管机构的人属于同一阶层。这个故事完美地阐释了“高管豁免”论点，即即使涉及数十亿美元的巨额欺诈行为也会被掩盖，因为国家站在公司一边，对抗个体公民。这个故事证明，国家已成为企业掠夺的工具，法律被用来保护掠夺者，惩罚举报者。

As to the mechanics of the fraud, consider the “separate company” deflection: The first representative claimed the charge came from a separate entity over which he had no influence, and that my call could not be transferred. This is a classic bureaucratic barrier, intended to exhaust the customer into acceptance. When cancellation was threatened, the barrier magically dissolved. The “separate company” was either a fiction or a shell so tightly integrated with AMEX as to be indistinguishable.

至于欺诈的手法，以“独立公司”说辞为例：首位代表声称该费用来自一个他无法影响的独立实体，并表示我的电话无法转接。这是典型的官僚障碍，旨在让客户筋疲力尽，从而接受现实。当威胁要取消时，这一障碍神奇地消失了。“独立公司”要么是虚构的，要么是与美国运通紧密结合，难以区分的空壳公司。

The “can’t find your account” obstruction: The cheerful representative of this supposed separate company ran through all my identifiers; name, address, SIN, date of birth, even my dog’s name, and claimed to find nothing. It was only when threatened with cancellation of the card that the account miraculously appeared. These are not the actions of a legitimate business resolving a billing dispute. These are the actions of a criminal enterprise running a low-grade extortion racket, betting that friction and learned helplessness will deliver a high rate of compliance.

“找不到您的账户”的障碍：这家所谓独立公司的那位热情的代表查遍了我所有的身份信息：姓名、地址、社保号、出生日期，甚至还有我家狗的名字，却声称什么也没找到。直到我威胁要注销这张卡，账户才奇迹般地出现了。这并非一家合法企业解决账单纠纷的行为。这是犯罪团伙在搞低级敲诈勒索，他们押注于摩擦和习得性无助会带来高合规率。

My interaction with the RCMP is the more damning half of the story, because it reveals the state’s role not as a neutral arbiter but as an active participant in protecting the fraud. I filed a complaint about a crime affecting potentially millions of Canadian citizens, but the RCMP oddly had no record of my call or complaint. This is not incompetence; this is the bureaucratic equivalent of the “can’t find your account” script. It is a deliberate disappearance of evidence, designed to frustrate and exhaust.

我与加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）的互动是故事中更令人震惊的一半，因为它揭示了国家并非作为中立的仲裁者，而是作为保护欺诈行为的积极参与者。我提交了一份关于可能影响数百万加麻大公民的犯罪行为的投诉，但加拿大皇家骑警却奇怪地没有我的电话或投诉记录。这并非无能；这是官僚主义版的“找不到你的账户”脚本。这是故意销毁证据，旨在让人感到沮丧和疲惫。

My threat to file a class action against AMEX and criminal charges against the RCMP itself as collaborators changed the equation. Suddenly, the state had skin in the game. The immediate cancellation of my card was a response that could have come only through an off-the-record communication between the RCMP and AMEX. The sequence is impossible to explain otherwise: I threaten the RCMP; AMEX moves with lightning speed to strip me of legal standing. The RCMP did not investigate the crime; it notified the criminal of the threat and coordinated a surgical response to eliminate the complainant. This is the state functioning as a private security service for corporate fraud. The police did not protect the victims; they protected the perpetrators.

我威胁要对美国运通（AMEX）提起集体诉讼，并对作为同谋的加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）本身提起刑事指控，这一举动改变了局面。突然之间，国家也牵涉其中。我的信用卡被立即注销，这一反应只能是通过加拿大皇家骑警与美国运通之间的非公开沟通实现的。这一系列事件无法以其他方式解释：我威胁加拿大皇家骑警；美国运通以闪电般的速度剥夺了我的法律地位。加拿大皇家骑警没有调查犯罪行为；它向犯罪分子通报了这一威胁，并协调采取外科手术式的应对措施，以消除投诉人。这就是国家作为企业欺诈的私人安全服务机构的运作方式。警方没有保护受害者；他们保护了犯罪者。

AMEX’s response of canceling my card was a masterclass in using legal procedure to shield criminality. By refunding my specific charge, they eliminated individual financial damages, the prerequisite for a civil suit. By canceling my card, they removed my standing as a cardholder to initiate or join a class action. This is the work of a legal department that has encountered this situation before and has a pre-planned protocol for neutralising complainants. The protocol recognises that the cost of silencing one persistent individual is $75 plus the lifetime value of that customer. The benefit is the continued extraction of billions of dollars from millions of silent victims. It is a coldly rational cost-benefit analysis of the kind that corporate executives approve in meetings. The fact that AMEX had such a protocol ready to deploy indicates that my case was not an anomaly. I was not the first to uncover the fraud and threaten consequences. I was simply another in a line of threats that the corporation had learned to neutralise through a combination of bureaucratic obstruction and legal surgery.

美国运通（AMEX）取消我的信用卡的回应，堪称利用法律程序掩盖犯罪行为的典范。通过退还我的特定费用，他们消除了个人经济损失，而这是提起民事诉讼的先决条件。通过取消我的信用卡，他们剥夺了我作为持卡人发起或加入集体诉讼的资格。这是法律部门的工作，他们之前遇到过这种情况，并有一套预先制定的协议来压制投诉者。该协议认识到，让一个固执己见的人闭嘴的成本是75美元，再加上该客户的终身价值。其好处是，公司可以继续从数百万沉默的受害者身上榨取数十亿美元。这是一种冷酷的理性成本效益分析，正是公司高管在会议上所赞成的那种分析。美国运通有这样一套准备部署的协议，表明我的案件并非异常。我不是第一个发现欺诈行为并威胁后果的人。我只是公司通过官僚阻挠和法律手术学会压制的一系列威胁中的另一个。

I would bring to the attention of readers that the fraud was never reported in the media anywhere. This was the final seal on the cover-up. A fraud of this magnitude – $5 billion extracted from millions of cardholders – would be front-page news if it were reported. The silence was not accidental. It reflected not the Jewish media’s structural dependence on advertising revenue from AMEX, but the strength of Jewish solidarity. The editorial independence of the media is a myth when the media’s business model depends on the goodwill of the entities it is supposed to investigate. This is regulatory capture of the press by other means. The result is the same as with the RCMP: an institution nominally dedicated to public protection – whether through law enforcement or journalism – instead protects the powerful from exposure.

我想提醒读者的是，这起欺诈事件从未在任何媒体上报道过。这是掩盖事实的最后一击。如此规模的欺诈行为——从数百万持卡人手中骗取50亿美元——如果被报道，将会成为头版新闻。这种沉默并非偶然。它反映的不是犹太媒体对美国运通广告收入的结构性依赖，而是犹太人团结的力量。当媒体的商业模式依赖于其本应调查的实体的善意时，媒体的编辑独立性就成了一个神话。这是监管机构通过其他手段对媒体的俘获。其结果与加拿大皇家骑警（Royal Canadian Mounted Police）的情况相同：一个名义上致力于保护公众（无论是通过执法还是新闻报道）的机构，实际上却在保护权势者免受曝光。

My personal experience was a fractal of the entire system of Plundering that we have been examining. The same mechanisms that allowed AMEX to attempt a $5 billion fraud and then silence me, are the same mechanisms that allow HSBC (a 100% Jewish bank) to launder drug money without prosecutions, the Jewish Sacklers to fuel an opioid epidemic without handcuffs while killing half a million Americans, and the Jew Elon Musk to fire his own regulators (through DOGE) without consequence.我的个人经历只是我们所研究的整个掠夺体系的冰山一角。正是那些让美国运通（AMEX）得以企图进行50亿美元的欺诈并随后封杀我的机制，让汇丰银行（一家100%犹太人所有的银行）得以洗毒资而不受起诉，让犹太人萨克勒家族得以在杀害50万美国人时助长阿片类药物泛滥而不受束缚，也让犹太人埃隆·马斯克得以（通过DOGE）解雇自己的监管机构而不受任何后果。

The components are consistent:

组件是一致的：

(1) A crime is committed at scale, using bureaucratic complexity to obscure individual culpability.

（1）犯罪行为规模庞大，利用官僚程序的复杂性来掩盖个人罪责。

(2) Obstruction is built into the customer experience, designed to make resistance costly and exhausting.

（2）客户体验中存在障碍，旨在使抵制变得昂贵且令人疲惫。

(3) The state does not investigate; it facilitates. Law enforcement becomes a shield, not a sword.

（3）国家不进行调查，而是提供便利。执法成为盾牌，而非利剑。

(4) The legal system provides surgical tools – deferred prosecution agreements, standing requirements, settlement mechanisms – that extinguish liability without establishing accountability.

（4）法律体系提供了手术工具——暂缓起诉协议、起诉资格要求、和解机制——这些工具在不追究责任的情况下免除了法律责任。

(5) The media remains silent, either from direct economic pressure or from a broader culture of not challenging the financial institutions that underwrite the economy.

（5）媒体保持沉默，要么是迫于直接的经济压力，要么是出于一种更广泛的文化氛围，即不挑战支撑经济的金融机构。

The victims – me and millions of silent others – are left not only defrauded but gaslit, isolated, and legally disarmed. The system is not broken. It is working precisely as it was designed to work: to extract wealth from the many and concentrate it among the few, with the state providing the enforcement muscle and the legal architecture to make it all appear legitimate.

受害者——我以及数百万沉默的他人——不仅被欺骗，还被洗脑、孤立，并在法律上被剥夺了权利。这个体系并没有崩溃。它正按照其设计初衷运作：从多数人那里榨取财富，并将其集中在少数人手中，国家则提供执法力量和法律架构，使这一切看起来合法。

This story is in a sense a case study in everything I have dedicated my work to exposing. It is not a story about a $75 charge. It is a story about how the state has been repurposed from a protector of citizens to a protector of Jewish corporate predators. It is a story about how the law has been weaponised against the people it was meant to serve. And it is a story about how an ordinary citizen who stumbles upon a massive crime finds not justice, but a coordinated effort by both the corporation and the police to silence him. The crime was fraud. The cover-up was collusion between the RCMP and AMEX. The emasculation was legal surgery. The silence of the media was complicity. The outcome was the continued plunder of millions of individuals, protected by the institutions that swore to protect the plundered. This is not a bug. This is the Jewish Capitalist operating system.

这个故事在某种意义上是我毕生致力于揭露的一切的案例研究。它不是一个关于75美元收费的故事。它是一个关于国家如何从公民的保护者转变为犹太企业掠夺者的保护者的故事。它是一个关于法律如何被武器化，用来对付它本应服务的人民的故事。它是一个关于一个偶然发现重大犯罪的普通公民，非但没有得到正义，反而遭到企业和警方联手压制的故事。犯罪是欺诈。掩盖是加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）和美国运通（AMEX）之间的勾结。阉割是合法的手术。媒体的沉默是同谋。结果是数百万个人继续遭受掠夺，而保护他们的是那些发誓要保护掠夺者的机构。这不是一个漏洞。这是犹太资本主义的操作系统。

这里还有更多值得一看的地方 — There is More to See Here

Let’s take a closer look at the AMEX fraud. The decision to inflict that $75 charge onto all card holders – without their request or consent – could have been made only at the highest levels of the company. The CEO of a company would never attempt such a fraud – with all the potential legal and financial downside – without approval from the Directors. All the telephone service staff had to be trained to deal with the inevitable customer complaints; all had to have been trained to lie. AMEX likely did not actually create a “separate company”; that was almost certainly a false claim. It was just another newly-created ‘department’. But the telephone staff of that department also had to have been trained to lie, to claim they couldn’t find a customer’s account. This was an extensive effort that involved potentially hundreds of people, all conceived, planned, and orchestrated from the highest levels of the company, and almost certainly involving their legal counsel. Further, the planners would have been fully aware of the potential for unfavorable media exposure and for civil class-action lawsuits, and even criminal charges. They would certainly have taken measures in advance to deal with this, and they were obviously successful since the story never reached the media, so nobody knows of it to this day. And successful also in that there were no criminal charges and no class-action lawsuits. The fraud was flawless in execution.

让我们仔细看看美国运通（AMEX）的欺诈行为。在没有得到所有持卡人的请求或同意的情况下，就决定向他们收取75美元的费用，这种决定只能由公司最高层做出。一家公司的首席执行官（CEO）在未经董事们批准的情况下，绝不会尝试这种欺诈行为——因为这会带来所有潜在的法律和财务风险。所有电话服务人员都必须接受培训，以应对不可避免的客户投诉；所有人都必须接受过说谎的训练。美国运通很可能并没有真正创建一个“独立公司”；这几乎可以肯定是一个虚假声明。它只是新成立的另一个“部门”。但该部门的电话服务人员也必须接受过说谎的训练，声称他们找不到客户的账户。这是一项涉及数百人的庞大工程，全部由公司最高层构思、策划和协调，几乎可以肯定涉及他们的法律顾问。此外，策划者们肯定已经充分意识到媒体曝光、民事集体诉讼甚至刑事指控的可能性。他们肯定会提前采取措施来应对这些情况，而且他们显然成功了，因为这件事从未被媒体报道，所以直到今天也没有人知道。他们之所以成功，还因为既没有受到刑事指控，也没有集体诉讼。这次欺诈的执行可谓天衣无缝。

如果有效，就冲洗一下，然后重复 — If it Works Once, Rinse and Repeat

American Express were so successful at this fraud, and it was so immensely profitable, they waited a suitable time – about 10 years – and tried it again, this time with a few twists but on an even grander scale.

美国运通（American Express）在这场骗局中大获成功，且获利丰厚，于是他们等待了合适的时间——大约10年——再次尝试，这次手法略有不同，但规模更大。

The second time, AMEX first contacted all cardholders to promote this protection – again for a charge of $75, but they charged nearly every cardholder even if they didn’t subscribe. The second time, they were caught. In December 2013, American Express paid more than $75 million to settle allegations of deceptive marketing and billing practices. [1] [2] [3] The investigation conducted by various authorities found that: (a) For years ending in 2012, Amex and its subsidiaries used deceptive practices to sell credit card identity-theft protection and account monitoring services. The company misled customers about the costs, benefits, and fees of these products. (b) Nearly all cardholders who examined the identity-theft protection product but did not complete the enrollment process, were billed anyway.[4]

第二次，美国运通（AMEX）首先联系了所有持卡人，推销这项保护服务——同样收取75美元的费用，但即使持卡人没有订阅，他们也几乎向每位持卡人收费。这一次，他们被抓了个现行。2013年12月，美国运通支付了超过7500万美元，就欺诈性营销和计费行为的指控达成和解。[1][2][3]各机构进行的调查发现：（a）在截至2012年的数年里，美国运通及其子公司采用欺诈手段销售信用卡身份盗窃保护和账户监控服务。该公司就这些产品的成本、好处和费用对客户进行了误导。（b）几乎所有查看过身份盗窃保护产品但未完成注册流程的持卡人都被计费了。[4]

It was actually a double fraud: In September of 2012, American Express was required to refund $85 million to 250,000 cardholders for multiple incidents for add-on products like payment protection and credit monitoring. [1] Then, in December 2013, American Express was ordered to refund $75 million to cardholders for illegal credit card practices including deceptive marketing and unfair billing.

这实际上是一起双重欺诈：2012年9月，美国运通因多次发生支付保护和信用监控等附加产品事件，被要求向25万名持卡人退还8500万美元。[1]随后，在2013年12月，美国运通因包括欺骗性营销和不公平计费在内的非法信用卡行为，被勒令向持卡人退还7500万美元。

By the time of the second attempt in 2012, the volume and pattern of complaints reached a tipping point. The regulatory environment had changed, with the passage of new laws and tools to investigate such consumer financial fraud. The second fraud was larger in scale, contained multiple types of fraudulent charges and lasted longer, involving more employees and more complex operations. Also, the second fraud used different, more traceable methods (e.g., telemarketing directly to all cardholders), making it easier for regulators to investigate and prosecute.

到了2012年第二次尝试时，投诉的数量和模式已经达到了一个临界点。监管环境已经发生变化，新的法律和工具已经出台，用于调查此类消费者金融欺诈行为。第二次欺诈的规模更大，包含多种类型的欺诈性收费，持续时间更长，涉及的员工更多，操作也更加复杂。此外，第二次欺诈使用了不同的、更易于追踪的方法（例如，直接向所有持卡人进行电话营销），这使得监管机构更容易进行调查和起诉。

并再次重复 — And Repeat Again

American Express will pay $138m to resolve fraud investigation after it ‘misled customers by touting tax breaks that simply didn’t exist.

美国运通将支付1.38亿美元以解决欺诈调查，此前该公司“通过兜售根本不存在的税收减免来误导客户”。源/Source

In 2026, American Express was forced to pay $230 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations that it deceptively marketed credit cards and wire products for small business customers. The penalty included a $138 million payment Amex will make as part of a “non-prosecution agreement: i.e., a “Get out of Jail Free” card.[6] [7]

2026年，美国运通被迫支付2.3亿美元，以解决其欺骗性营销信用卡和电汇产品给小企业客户的刑事和民事指控。该罚款包括美国运通将作为“不起诉协议”的一部分支付的1.38亿美元，即一张“免罪卡”。[6] [7]

The silence of the first event (2000) can be explained as a fraud that was successfully suppressed at its inception, never generating a critical mass of complaints to break through media thresholds. The breaking of silence for the second and third events (2012 and 2013) does not mean that the suppression mechanism vanished. Rather, it suggests that the scale of the fraud, the intervention of regulators, and the formal action by the CFPB created a “news story” that could no longer be ignored. Once a regulatory settlement was announced, the media could report it without bearing the full risk of attacking a major corporation.

第一次事件（2000年）的沉默可以被解释为一种欺诈行为，该行为在最初阶段就被成功压制，从未引发足够多的投诉来突破媒体门槛。第二次和第三次事件（2012年和2013年）打破沉默并不意味着压制机制消失了。相反，这表明欺诈的规模、监管机构的干预以及消费者金融保护局（CFPB）的正式行动创造了一个再也无法忽视的“新闻故事”。一旦监管机构宣布和解，媒体就可以对其进行报道，而无需承担攻击大公司的全部风险。

My personal experience of the 2000 event and its complete absence from the media, is strong evidence of a systemic information‑control mechanism that can operate successfully under certain conditions. The 2013 settlement, in turn, shows that this mechanism is not omnipotent: when the scale, evidence, and regulatory pressure reach a certain level, it can break down. As for who or what caused the media silence in 2000, definitive proof remains elusive. But the structural conditions of concentrated media ownership and the interlocking ties between financial and political power, provide a framework for understanding that silence. The loose thread points to a broader question: in our information ecosystem, what forces determine what is seen and what remains unseen?

我亲身经历了2000年的那起事件，而媒体对此却只字不提，这有力地证明了在特定条件下，系统性的信息‑控制机制能够成功运作。‑而2013年的和解则表明，这种机制并非无所不能：当规模、证据和监管压力达到一定程度时，它就会失灵。‑至于2000年媒体为何保持沉默，确切的证据仍然难以找到。‑但媒体所有权集中以及金融与政治权力之间错综复杂的联系这一结构性条件，为理解这种沉默提供了一个框架。‑这条松散的线索指向了一个更广泛的问题：在我们的信息生态系统中，是什么力量决定了哪些信息被看到，哪些信息被隐藏？

Together, these AMEX events paint a picture of American Express systematically defrauding customers over at least 25 years, with the first instance successfully evading both media and legal scrutiny. One financial website made this claim: “These settlements highlight the serious consequences for financial institutions engaging in deceptive practices.” The claim is total nonsense. AMEX perpetrated these frauds repeatedly, and obtained as much as $5 billion to $10 billion in revenue each time, and this revenue was almost entirely profit going directly to the bottom line. Paying $75 million or even $230 million was nothing more than a small tax on earnings. If you are part of the Jewish financial elite – part of “Us” – crime pays. But you and I – part of “Them” – would go to prison for defrauding someone out of a few hundred dollars.

这些美国运通（AMEX）事件共同描绘出一幅画面：美国运通至少在25年的时间里系统性地欺骗客户，且其首次尝试就成功逃避了媒体和法律的审查。一家金融网站宣称：“这些和解协议凸显了金融机构从事欺诈行为所面临的严重后果。”这一说法纯属无稽之谈。美国运通多次实施这些欺诈行为，每次都能获得高达50亿至100亿美元的收入，而这些收入几乎全部是直接进入账本的利润。支付7500万美元甚至2.3亿美元不过是收益的一小部分税款。如果你是犹太金融精英的一员——即“我们”的一员——犯罪是有利可图的。但你和我——即“他们”的一员——如果骗取别人几百美元，就会进监狱。

The execution of these frauds would not have proceeded without the authorisation of the CEO and Chairman of AMEX, as well as of the Board of Directors. At the time of the first fraud discussed (2000), the global CEO and Chairman of AMEX was Harvey Golub, a Jew.

这些欺诈行为若非得到美国运通首席执行官兼董事长以及董事会的授权，是不可能进行的。在讨论的第一起欺诈行为（2000年）发生时，美国运通的全球首席执行官兼董事长是哈维·戈卢布，他是一名犹太人。

Harvey Golub, global Chairman and CEO of AMEX in 2000.

哈维·戈卢布，2000年美国运通全球董事长兼首席执行官。来源：/Source:

加拿大皇家骑警的联系 — The RCMP Connection

I would point out that there are plenty of Jews in the upper echelons of Canada’s RCMP. There is also a surprising number of them in the police force in Toronto (as one example), and I suspect in other Canadian cities as well. No doubt the same is true for the US. The Chief Commissioner of the RCMP at the time in question was Giuliano Zaccardelli. He was later forced to resign in disgrace for his involvement in other frauds and under charges of perjury to Parliament. [8] There were also alleged irregularities, fraud and abuse, and the misappropriation of funds involving the RCMP’s pension and insurance plans. Whistle-blowers who brought attention to these matters were punished.[9]

我想指出的是，在加麻大皇家骑警（Royal Canadian Mounted Police，RCMP）的高层中有很多犹太人。在多伦多（仅举一例）的警察部队中，犹太人的数量也令人惊讶，我怀疑在加麻大的其他城市也是如此。毫无疑问，美国的情况也是如此。当时RCMP的总长是朱利亚诺·扎卡德利（Giuliano Zaccardelli）。他后来因参与其他欺诈行为和被控向议会作伪证而被迫引咎辞职。[8]此外，还涉嫌RCMP养老金和保险计划存在违规、欺诈、滥用和挪用资金的行为。揭露这些问题的举报人受到了惩罚。[9]

Giuliano Zaccardelli, Chief Commissioner, RCMP.

朱利亚诺·扎卡德尔利，加拿大皇家骑警总长。源/Source

In Canada, the Commissioner of the RCMP and all the main regional commissioners, are appointed personally by the Governor-in-Council on the “personal recommendation” of the Prime Minister. And he would do that on the “personal recommendations” from some other group of persons. This is significant and not a secret; it is a matter of public record under the RCMP Act. My point is that a small, closed group of people – the Prime Minister and his inner circle – controls the appointment of the most senior police officers in the country. This creates a structural vulnerability. If that small group has relationships with, or is influenced by, the same financial interests that would benefit from suppressing an investigation, then the police force’s independence is compromised at its highest level.

在加麻大，加拿大皇家骑警（Royal Canadian Mounted Police，简称RCMP）的专员以及所有主要地区专员均由总督根据总理的“个人推荐”亲自任命。而总督的任命依据则是来自其他一些人的“个人推荐”。这一点意义重大，并非秘密；根据《加拿大皇家骑警法》，这是公开记录在案的事项。我的观点是，一个由少数封闭群体——即总理及其核心圈子——控制着该国最高级别警官的任命。这造成了结构性的脆弱性。如果这个小群体与那些会从压制调查中获益的金融利益集团有往来或受其影响，那么警察部队的最高层独立性就会受到损害。

Canada’s Prime Minister in 2000, and the man who appointed Zaccardelli as RCMP Commissioner, was Jean Chrétien. I have met more than my share of Prime Ministers and, at least in my view, Jean Chrétien was among the sleaziest.

2000年担任加麻大总理，并任命扎卡德利为加拿大皇家骑警队长的那个人是让·克雷蒂安。我见过不少总理，至少在我看来，让·克雷蒂安是最肮脏的一位。

Jean Chrétien, former Prime Minister of Canada.让·克雷蒂安，前加麻大总理。来源：/Source:

The RCMP’s “loss” of my first complaint and its failure to act on my second complaint are powerful evidence of this assertion. It is not possible that this was simple bureaucratic incompetence. And, given the pattern I have described of the immediate cancellation of my card after the threat, the total media silence, the inference of institutional protection is far more compelling than the inference of mere negligence.

加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）“丢失”我的第一份投诉，且未对我的第二份投诉采取行动，这强有力地证明了上述断言。这绝非简单的官僚主义无能。而且，鉴于我所描述的模式——在受到威胁后立即注销我的信用卡，媒体完全保持沉默，因此推断存在机构保护比仅仅推断为疏忽更具说服力。

警察部队 — The Police Forces

This is a relevant observation to assist in the context. The appearance of police forces is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. For many hundreds of years, there were no police forces anywhere. And when they were created, their purpose was not to “protect and serve” the public. They were created by the elites to protect them from ordinary citizens – people like you. Police forces in all the Western countries still contain much of their original purpose. As proof, it isn’t a secret that the higher you are in society, the less chance of your being charged with anything.这一观察在上下文中具有相关性。警察部队的出现实际上是一个相对较近期的现象。在长达数百年的时间里，任何地方都没有警察部队。而当警察部队被建立起来时，其目的并非“保护和服务”公众。它们是由精英阶层创建的，目的是保护他们免受普通公民——也就是像你们这样的人——的侵害。所有西方国家的警察部队仍然保留着其最初的大部分目的。作为证据，众所周知，你在社会中的地位越高，被指控任何事情的机会就越小。

This is an observation to take seriously, not a mere conspiracy theory, but a serious analysis grounded in historical facts and personal experience. It is part of the framework of explanation to bring together the various phenomena we encounter, phenomena that appear disjointed but ultimately point in the same direction: a system controlled at key levels (finance, law 我们无法回避这样一个事实：警察从其诞生之初就为精英阶层服务。而我们可以将这一普遍观察精确地应用于这一特定案例，解释为什么加拿大皇家骑警的行为和媒体的沉默在这一体系内是完全合乎逻辑的：他们是体系的一部分，而不是作为一支偏离正道的独立司法力量行事。

这是一个需要认真对待的观察结果，它并非纯粹的阴谋论，而是基于历史事实和个人经验进行的严肃分析。它构成了我们解释框架的一部分，将我们所遇到的各种看似互不相干的现象联系在一起，但这些现象最终都指向同一个方向：一个在关键层面（金融、执法、媒体）由同一群人控制的体系。

We cannot sidestep the fact that the police, from their very origins, have served the elite. And we can apply this general observation precisely to this specific case, explaining why the RCMP’s behavior and the media’s silence are entirely logical within this system: they are part of the system, rather than acting as an independent force of justice that has gone awry.

我们无法回避这样一个事实：警察从其诞生之初就为精英阶层服务。而我们可以将这一普遍观察精确地应用于这一特定案例，解释为什么加拿大皇家骑警的行为和媒体的沉默在这一体系内是完全合乎逻辑的：他们是体系的一部分，而不是作为一支偏离正道的独立司法力量行事。

The modern police force, as an institution, is a relatively recent invention, dating only to the early 19th century in most Western countries. Prior to the middle 1800s, public order was maintained by a patchwork of watchmen and the military, both deeply tied to the property-owning class. The creation of London’s “Bobbies”, (The Metropolitan Police Service) was driven by the landed aristocracy and the rising industrial bourgeoisie, who feared the growing unrest of an urbanised, impoverished working class.

现代警察部队作为一种制度，是一个相对较新的产物，在大多数西方国家，其历史仅可追溯到19世纪初。在19世纪中叶之前，公共秩序是由守望者和军队的零星维护来维持的，这两者都与拥有财产的阶层密切相关。伦敦“警察”（即大都会警察局）的创立是由拥有土地的贵族和新兴的工业资产阶级推动的，他们担心城市化的贫困工人阶级日益加剧的不安。

Even today, this is precisely how this class-based policing system operates. Further the elite use this system to ‘weed out’ those they do not want, those whose utility has expired, those who become disfavored, or those attempting to break into their inner circles. Think of Conrad Black or Dominique Strauss-Khan. This (historically accurate) observation provides a framework that makes sense of the otherwise inexplicable silence and protection so often encountered with “white-collar” crime. This is not a mere conspiracy theory, but a serious analysis grounded in historical facts and personal experience.

即使在今天，这种基于阶层的治安体系也正是如此运作的。此外，精英阶层利用这一体系来“剔除”他们不想要的人、效用已过的人、失宠的人，或企图进入其核心圈子的人。想想康拉德·布莱克或多米尼克·斯特劳斯-卡恩。这一（符合历史事实的）观察提供了一个框架，有助于理解在“白领”犯罪中经常遇到的难以解释的沉默和保护现象。这不仅仅是一个阴谋论，而是一个基于历史事实和个人经验的严肃分析。

The police were explicitly designed to control the poor and protect property, not to protect and serve the public in any egalitarian sense. The phrase “protect and serve” is a 20th-century public-relations invention, adopted by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s. It was never the original charter. Police forces were created to control labor strikes, immigrant communities, and the urban poor. The first American police forces, established in Boston (1838), New York (1845), and other cities, were modeled on the British system. Their function was overtly class-based. They were financed by and answerable to the propertied elite -merchants, factory owners, and bankers – who saw them as a tool to maintain order in the face of social unrest.

警察的存在明确是为了控制穷人和保护财产，而非在任何平等意义上保护和服务公众。“保护和服务”这一短语是20世纪公共关系领域的发明，洛杉矶警察局于20世纪50年代采用了这一说法。这绝非其最初的宗旨。警察部队的建立是为了控制劳工罢工、移民社区和城市贫民。美国最早的警察部队成立于波士顿（1838年）、纽约（1845年）和其他城市，它们以英国的制度为蓝本。其职能明显带有阶级色彩。警察由有产阶级精英——商人、工厂主和银行家——资助，并向他们负责，这些精英将警察视为在社会动荡时维持秩序的工具。

This is not a reflection of individual officers’ personal biases; it is a reflection of the institutional culture. The police are trained, implicitly and explicitly, to identify who is “us” (the respectable, the propertied, the connected) and who is “them” (the poor, the marginal, the disposable).

这并非个别警察个人偏见的反映，而是制度文化的反映。警察受到的培训，无论是明示还是暗示，都是要他们识别谁是“我们”（体面人、有财产的人、有关系的人），谁是“他们”（穷人、边缘人、可抛弃的人）。

模式即证明 — The Pattern is the Proof

My AMEX/RCMP experience fits this pattern perfectly. I, as an individual with a complaint against a major financial institution, was part of “them.” American Express, as a pillar of the financial establishment, was “us.” The institution’s response of losing my complaint, failing to investigate, never acting, was not an aberration; it was the system operating as designed.

我在美国运通（AMEX）/加拿大皇家骑警（RCMP）的经历完美地符合这一模式。作为一名对大型金融机构提出投诉的个人，我成为了“他们”中的一员。而美国运通作为金融体系的支柱，则是“我们”。该机构对我投诉置之不理、不进行调查、从不采取行动，这并非反常现象；这是该体系按其设计运行的正常表现。

A dead end on paper is often where the most interesting investigation begins. While the formal, public record shows no direct link between the RCMP, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), and American Express, the very nature of that silence is telling. The absence of a paper trail is exactly what we would expect from an informal network of influence. The AMEX fraud uncovered a pattern of behavior; a company acting with impunity, a police force failing to act, and a media maintaining total silence, that strongly suggests a system of protection, regardless of whether it’s orchestrated through formal channels or informal social networks. The absence of a formal link doesn’t mean there’s no connection; the real influence often flows through informal networks. The lack of a smoking gun is not a failure of investigation; it’s a testament to the effectiveness of the system we’re examining. These networks are designed to be invisible.

纸面上的死胡同往往是最有趣的调查起点。虽然正式的公开记录显示加拿大皇家骑警（Royal Canadian Mounted Police，简称RCMP）、总理办公室（Prime Minister’s Office，简称PMO）和美国运通（American Express）之间没有直接联系，但这种沉默本身就说明问题。缺乏书面记录正是非正式影响力网络的特征。美国运通欺诈案揭示了一种行为模式：一家公司肆无忌惮地行事，警方未能采取行动，媒体保持完全沉默，这强烈暗示存在一个保护体系，无论该体系是通过正式渠道还是非正式社交网络策划的。缺乏正式联系并不意味着没有联系；真正的影响力往往是通过非正式网络传递的。缺乏确凿证据并不意味着调查失败；它证明了我们正在研究的体系是有效的。这些网络的设计初衷就是隐形的。

媒体松散线索 — The Media Loose Thread

The lack of media attention was the main loose thread in the story. It was simply too total to result from “a confluence of similar interests”. I searched diligently at the time, and frequently over the years, using every available tool, but no results. With the huge number of cardholders – just in Canada alone – it was impossible that this would have escaped the attention of the media. Moreover, with the thousands of people employed by the newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations, many or perhaps most of those people would have had AMEX credit cards and have been themselves subjected to the same fraud. Any reporter with an AMEX card would have received that $75 charge and had a powerful incentive to pursue it, because he would know there was a huge story there. AMEX would have no access to employment records so they could not have omitted deliberately all the media people from their fraud. There had to be collusion.

媒体关注度的缺失是故事中主要的松散线索。这绝非“利益趋同”所能导致。当时我曾竭尽全力，多年来也多次尝试，动用一切可用工具，但均无果而终。仅在加拿大，持卡人数量就极为庞大，此事不可能逃过媒体的注意。此外，报纸、杂志、广播和电视台雇佣了成千上万名员工，其中许多人甚至大多数人可能都持有美国运通（AMEX）信用卡，他们自己也遭受了同样的欺诈。任何持有美国运通卡的记者都会收到那笔75美元的费用，并有强烈的动机去追查此事，因为他知道这里面有一个大新闻。美国运通无法获取就业记录，因此他们不可能故意将所有媒体人员排除在欺诈之外。这其中必定存在勾结。

The fact that this story produced only silence means that someone, or some group of persons, had the power to silence the entire Canadian media, and also in the US. The Canadian media is highly concentrated; only 6% of newspapers are privately-owned. The balance is almost all held by Post Media and Chatham Investments, both Jewish companies. The media may not have been “silenced” in the sense of a direct censorship order. A Jewish media landscape with ties to the Jewish financial industry creates an environment where self-censorship is automatic. Editors do not need to be told what not to publish, nor do they need to be told to kill a story; they simply need to be aware of the consequences of running it. This is not conspiracy; it is commercial reality.

这个故事只引发了沉默，这一事实意味着，有某个人或某个团体拥有让整个加麻大媒体以及美国媒体噤声的权力。加麻大媒体高度集中；只有6%的报纸是私营的。其余的几乎全部由邮政媒体和查塔姆投资公司持有，这两家公司都是犹太公司。媒体可能并不是在直接审查令的意义上被“噤声”。与犹太金融业有联系的犹太媒体格局创造了一个自我审查自动化的环境。编辑们不需要被告知什么不能发表，也不需要被告知要毙掉一个故事；他们只需要意识到发表的后果。这不是阴谋；这是商业现实。

In this investigation, I pulled a loose thread, and it unraveled a pattern. The 2000 American Express fraud was real. The institutional responses I encountered – the obstruction, the police inaction, the media silence, the strategic cancellation of my card – were real. The fact that this story never reached the public record is not evidence that it did not happen; it is evidence that the system designed to suppress such stories worked as intended. This is not a collection of coincidences. It is a system.

在这次调查中，我抽丝剥茧，揭示了一个模式。2000年美国运通（American Express）的欺诈事件确有其事。我所遇到的机构反应——阻挠、警方不作为、媒体沉默、策略性地注销我的信用卡——都是真实存在的。这个故事从未进入公众记录，这一事实并不能证明它没有发生；相反，它证明了旨在压制此类报道的制度发挥了应有的作用。这不是一系列巧合。这是一个系统。

My question about who has the power to control the media to this extent, points to the structural reality I have already identified: media ownership concentrated in a few Jewish hands, a politically appointed police leadership, and a financial industry with deep ties to both. The individuals at the top of these institutions may change, but the systemic alignment of interests remains constant. The “loose thread” I have pulled leads to a larger question: how many other stories like this have been successfully suppressed, never reaching the public record, never investigated, never punished? That is the question my work has always sought to answer.

我之所以质疑谁有如此大的权力控制媒体，是因为我看到了一个结构性现实：媒体所有权集中在少数犹太人手中，警察领导层由政治任命，而金融业与这两者都关系深厚。这些机构的高层人员或许会更换，但利益的系统性结盟却始终如一。我拉出的“松散线索”引出了一个更大的问题：还有多少这样的故事被成功压制，从未进入公众视野，从未被调查，从未受到惩罚？这正是我的工作一直试图回答的问题

If the primary newspapers in Canada are owned by a U.S.-based hedge fund with deep ties to the financial establishment, then the editorial direction of those papers – or at minimum, the suppression of stories that would embarrass major financial institutions – does not require a direct phone call from the CEO of American Express to the publisher of the Globe and Mail. It requires only that the owners and the financial institution share common interests, common social circles, and common business relationships.

如果加麻大的主要报纸归一家与金融界关系深厚的美国对冲基金所有，那么这些报纸的编辑方向——或者至少是压制那些会让主要金融机构难堪的报道——并不需要美国运通的首席执行官直接致电《环球邮报》的出版商。它只需要所有者和金融机构之间有共同的利益、共同的社会圈子以及共同的商业关系。

The media silence is the most revealing element. The fact that this story, which should have been “a real media festival”, was not reported anywhere suggests effective pre-emptive suppression. The mechanism of that suppression is not a single “conspiracy” but a web of structural dependencies: ownership concentration, advertising revenue, legal threats, and shared interests among the financial elite.

媒体的沉默是最具揭示性的因素。这本应成为“一场真正的媒体盛宴”的故事，却未被任何媒体报道，这一事实表明了有效的先发制人的压制。这种压制的机制并非单一的“阴谋”，而是一个由结构性依赖关系构成的网：所有权集中、广告收入、法律威胁以及金融精英之间的共同利益。

The silence was too complete, too consistent, to be explained by independent editors making similar judgments. And the argument about journalists themselves being victims is particularly strong. As I noted earlier, a reporter who discovered an unauthorised $75 charge on their own card would have a personal stake in the story, a direct experience of the fraud, and a professional incentive to investigate. The fact that no such investigation occurred suggests that the story was actively suppressed, not merely overlooked.

这种沉默太过彻底、太过一致，无法用独立编辑做出类似判断来解释。关于记者本身是受害者的论点尤其有力。正如我之前所述，如果一名记者发现自己的信用卡被未经授权地扣款75美元，那么这个故事对他来说就具有个人利害关系，他会有直接遭受欺诈的经历，并且有专业动机去调查。没有进行此类调查的事实表明，这个故事被积极压制，而不仅仅是被忽视。

The structural condition that makes such suppression possible is the concentration of Canadian media ownership in the hands of a small number of Jewish actors, notably Post Media and Chatham Asset Management. When a handful of people control the majority of newspapers, the ability to suppress a story does not require a conspiracy.

使这种压制成为可能的结构性条件是，加麻大的媒体所有权集中在少数犹太人手中，尤其是Post Media和Chatham Asset Management。当少数人控制着大多数报纸时，压制一篇报道的能力并不需要一个阴谋。

尾声 — Epilogue

These observations, taken together, form a coherent framework. What this reveals is that the system we are investigating is not a system of laws and institutions that function as advertised. It is instead a system of power, in which the institutions – police, media, courts, regulators – exist to protect the interests of the elite, and to suppress any challenge to those interests. The loose threads I have pulled are not random anomalies. They are the frayed edges of a fabric that is carefully maintained to appear seamless. When you pull one, you see the underlying structure.

这些观察结果合在一起，构成了一个连贯的框架。这揭示出，我们正在研究的这个体系并非如宣传的那样，是一个由法律和制度构成的体系。相反，它是一个权力体系，其中的制度——警察、媒体、法院、监管机构——都是为了保护精英阶层的利益，并压制任何对这些利益的挑战。我梳理出的这些松散的线索并非随意的异常现象。它们就像一块精心缝制得看似无缝的布料，其边缘已被磨损。当你拉扯其中一条时，就能看到其底层结构。

It is clear that the Western countries are essentially oligarchies, with a very clear distinction between “us” and “them”. That is why it is permissible for AMEX to defraud “them” and be protected by “us”. AMEX is part of “us”, and the cardholders are “them”. This is the logical chain of how the ‘us/them’ division operates in practical cases – how the respective roles of the police, the media and the legal system serve this division. This serves to explain much of the logic of power within the Western narrative.

显而易见，西方国家本质上都是寡头政治，在“我们”和“他们”之间有着非常明确的界限。这就是为什么美国运通（AMEX）可以欺骗“他们”并受到“我们”的保护。美国运通是“我们”的一部分，而持卡人则是“他们”。这是“我们/他们”划分在实际案例中的逻辑链条——警察、媒体和法律体系各自的角色如何服务于这种划分。这解释了西方叙事中权力逻辑的很大一部分。

The Western democracies present themselves as systems of laws, equality, and representation, but beneath the surface they are oligarchies with a thin democratic veneer. The distinction is between “Us” – the elite – those who own, control, and influence the institutions of power: financial executives, media owners, senior politicians, police commissioners, corporate lawyers; and “Them”: the mass of ordinary people who are subject to the system but have no say in how it operates. These are the cardholders, taxpayers, employees, consumers, the general public. This is not a conspiracy in the sense of a secret meeting of a dozen people in a smoke-filled room. It is a structural reality – a system that has evolved over centuries to concentrate power and wealth in a small number of hands, and to protect those hands from any challenge from below. My AMEX experience fits perfectly into this framework:

西方民主国家自诩为法律、平等和代表性的制度，但表面之下，它们却是披着薄薄民主外衣的寡头政治。这种区分在于“我们”——精英阶层——即拥有、控制和影响权力机构的人：金融高管、媒体所有者、高级政客、警察局长、公司律师；以及“他们”：普通大众，他们受制于这一制度，却对制度的运作毫无发言权。这些人包括持卡人、纳税人、雇员、消费者和普通公众。这并非十来个人在烟雾缭绕的房间里秘密会晤意义上的阴谋。而是一种结构性现实——一种经过几个世纪演变的制度，将权力和财富集中在少数人手中，并保护这些权力免受来自底层的任何挑战。我在美国运通（AMEX）的经历完全符合这一框架：

From the perspective of the elite, this is not a “scandal”. It is normal operations; the predictable functioning of a system in which one class takes from another and faces no consequences. Moreover, this is not a recent development. It is the continuation of a pattern that has existed for millennia. In feudal Europe, the nobility took from the peasantry through taxes, tithes, and forced labor. The peasantry had no recourse. In industrial England, the factory owners took from the workers through low wages, dangerous conditions, and debt. The workers had no recourse. In our modern financial capitalism, the banks and corporations take from the public through hidden fees, unauthorized charges, and financial manipulation. The public has no recourse. The methods have changed, but the underlying relationship of a powerful class extracting wealth from a powerless class, has remained constant.

从精英阶层的角度来看，这并非“丑闻”。这是正常运作；是一个阶级从另一个阶级那里掠夺且不承担任何后果的体制下可预见的运作方式。此外，这并非近期才出现的情况。这是延续了数千年的模式。在封建时代的欧洲，贵族通过税收、什一税和强迫劳动从农民那里掠夺。农民毫无追索权。在工业化的英国，工厂主通过低工资、危险的工作条件和债务从工人那里掠夺。工人毫无追索权。在我们现代的金融资本主义中，银行和公司通过隐性费用、未经授权的收费和金融操纵从公众那里掠夺。公众毫无追索权。虽然手段发生了变化，但统治阶级从被统治阶级手中榨取财富这一根本关系始终未变。

This has profound implications for how we understand the world. For one thing, the “rule of law” is a myth: The law is not applied equally. It is a tool used by “Us” to control “Them,” and occasionally to dispose of members of “Us” who have become inconvenient. “Democracy” is a facade: Elections do not change the underlying power structure. They allow “Them” to choose between different representatives of “Us,” but the fundamental relationship remains unchanged. The media are not independent: The media serve the interests of “Us” by controlling the narrative, suppressing stories that would embarrass “Us,” and creating a false reality that keeps “Them” passive. The police are enforcers, not protectors: The police exist to maintain order on behalf of “Us.” They protect property, control dissent, and ensure that “Them” do not threaten “Us.”

这对我们如何理解世界具有深远的影响。首先，“法治”是一个虚幻的概念：法律并非平等适用。它是“我们”用来控制“他们”的工具，偶尔也会用来处理那些变得碍事的“我们”的成员。“民主”只是表象：选举并不能改变根本的权力结构。选举只是让“他们”在“我们”的不同代表之间做出选择，但根本的关系并未改变。媒体并非独立：媒体通过控制叙事、压制会令“我们”尴尬的报道，以及制造一种让“他们”保持被动的虚假现实，来服务于“我们”的利益。警察是执法者，而非保护者：警察的存在是为了代表“我们”维持秩序。他们保护财产，控制异议，并确保“他们”不会威胁到“我们”

In this essay, I have articulated a truth that is rarely spoken aloud but is widely understood by those who have seen the system from the inside. The Western democracies are oligarchies, and the distinction between “Us” and “Them” is the fundamental organising principle of society. What I experienced with American Express was not an anomaly. It was a normal transaction in a system in which “Us” takes from “Them” with impunity. The fraud, the obstruction, the police inaction, the media silence, all of these are features, not bugs, of the system as it actually operates. My work in pulling these loose threads is an act of resistance against this system. It exposes the hidden structure that the elite works so hard to conceal. That is why my research (and that of many others) is valuable, and why the system works so hard to suppress it.

在这篇文章中，我阐述了一个很少被大声说出但被那些从内部观察过该体系的人广泛理解的真相。西方民主国家是寡头政治，而“我们”和“他们”之间的区别是社会的基本组织原则。我在美国运通所经历的并非异常现象。在一个“我们”肆无忌惮地从“他们”那里掠夺的体系中，这是一次正常的交易。欺诈、阻挠、警方不作为、媒体沉默，所有这些都是该体系实际运作中的特征，而非漏洞。我梳理这些松散线索的工作是对该体系的抵抗。它揭露了精英阶层竭力隐藏的隐性结构。这就是为什么我的研究（以及许多其他人的研究）具有价值，以及为什么该体系如此竭力压制它的原因

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 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).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成34种语言，其文章被发布在30多个国家的150多个外文新闻和政治网站上，以及150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位，并拥有一家国际进出口企业。他曾担任上海复旦大学的客座教授，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。他是辛西娅·麦金尼（Cynthia McKinney）新选集《当中国打喷嚏》（第2章——与恶魔打交道）的特约作者之一。

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/ 您可以通过以下方式联系他：2186604556@qq.com

NOTES – Part 12

[1] AMEX Duped Cardholders with Identity Protection Service

https://www.stacksmag.net/2013/12/amex-duped-cardholders-identity-protection-service-ordered-pay-75-million-settlement.html

[2] Why Credit Card Issuers Will Refund Cardholders

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/cfpb-orders-citi-to-pay-cardholders-960163

[3] American Express Settles Cardholder Suit for $75M

https://www.foxnews.com/story/american-express-settles-cardholder-suit-for-75m

[4] American Express to pay $75 million in deceptive practices case

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-regulators-fine-american-express-75-million-for-credit-card-practices-20131224-story.html

[5] Credit Card Issuers Forced by CFPB to Refund Cardholders

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/cfpb-orders-citi-to-pay-cardholders-960163

[6] Amex to pay $230M to settle deceptive marketing, fraud probes

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/01/amex-to-pay-230m-to-settle-deceptive-marketing-fraud-probes-00198831

[7] American Express Agrees to Pay Massive Settlement to Resolve Deceptive Marketing Scheme & Fraud Allegations

https://www.grcreport.com/post/american-express-agrees-to-pay-large-settlement-in-deceptive-marketing-scheme

[8] RCMP’s embattled chief quits over Arar

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/zaccardelli.html

[9] Restoring integrity of RCMP is essential

https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=5994

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 *

本作者的其他作品