Global Tyranny Step By Step - By William F Jasper

Global Tyranny ... Step by Step

Published by

Western Islands

Post Office Box 8040

Appleton, Wisconsin 54913

(414) 749–3786

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92–081764

ISBN: 0–88279–135–4

To Carmen,

Jonathan and Christopher,

and my father and mother,

with love and gratitude

Contents

Introduction

1. The New World Army

2. In the Name of Peace

3. The UN Founders

4. Reds

5. The Drive for World Government

6. Treaties and Treason

7. The Global Green Regime

8. The UN Grab for Your Child

9. The UN War on Population

10. The New World Money System

11. The Compassion Con

12. The New World Religion

13. UN Regionalism — The European Community

14. Get US out!

Bibliography

Personal Acknowledgments

About the Autho

r

Introduction

America and the world stand on the brink of one of the most perilous epochs in this planet’s history.

According to the purveyors of conventional wisdom, communism is dead, the Cold War is over, and the

greatest threats to world peace and security are rampant nationalism, inequitable wealth distribution,

overpopulation, and environmental degradation. Yet the threat to a just world peace and comity among

nations and peoples comes not from political fragmentation, ozone holes, greenhouse gases, an over-

abundance of people, a shortage of natural resources, or even from the frequently offered scenarios o

f

"rogue" elements in the former USSR acquiring control of nuclear weapons.

The true, imminent danger to America and to all nations seeking peace and good will stems from

widespread acceptance of the monstrous falsehood that in order to live in an "interdependent" world, all

nation-states must yield their sovereignty to the United Nations. This lie is given dignity by other lies,

chief of which is that Soviet totalitarianism has been buried forever.1 A too wide acceptance of these

dangerous falsehoods is resulting in: 1) a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers in the West to

the still-socialist governments of the East that remain under the control of "former" communists; 2) the

gradual but accelerating merger or "convergence" of the U.S. and Russia through increasing economic,

p

olitical, social, and military agreements and arrangements; and 3) the rapidly escalating transfer o

f

p

ower — military, regulatory, and taxing — to the UN. Unless the fiction underlying these

developments is exposed, national suicide and global rule by an all-powerful world government are

inevitable.

"The Bush Administration," Time magazine noted on September 17, 1990, "would like to make the U.N.

a cornerstone of its plans to construct a New World Order."2 That observation merely stated the

obvious. In his speech to the nation and the world on September 11, 1990, Mr. Bush stated: "Out o

f

these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge...." He proceeded to

announce his hopes for "a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."3 It became

abundantly clear to veteran students of "world order" politics that a major new push for world

government had begun. Only a few years ago, any such attempt would have flopped miserably. During

the 1970s and 80s, the UN’s record as an enclave of spies, a sinkhole of corrupt spendthrifts, and an

anti-American propaganda forum for terrorists, Third World dictators, and Communist totalitarians, ha

d

thoroughly tarnished its carefully manufactured image as mankind’s "last best hope for peace."

From 1959, when the UN could boast an 87 percent approval rating, the annual Gallup Poll showed a

continuous decline in popularity for the organization. By 1971, a Gallup survey reported that only 35

p

ercent of the American people thought the UN was doing a good job. By 1976, Gallup claimed that the

support had dropped to 33 percent. In 1980, it declined further to an all-time low of 31 percent. "At no

p

oint since [1945]," said Dr. Gallup referring to his latest figures, "has satisfaction with the overall

p

erformance of the world organization been as low as it is today."4 The John Birch Society’s long and

frequently lonely billboard, bumper sticker, petition, letter-writing, and pamphleteering educational

campaigns to "Get US out! of the United Nations" had made good sense to many Americans.

In the early years of the Reagan Administration, UN-

b

ashing became positively respectable, even

fashionable. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick could be seen and heard almost daily

denouncing the world body’s anti-Americanism, tyranny promotion, and fiscal profligacy. Editorials

opposing UN actions and the organization itself began appearing with frequency in local and regional

newspapers, and occasionally even in major national news organs.

Anti-UN sentiment had already reached the point in 1981 that veteran UN-watcher Robert W. Lee could

re

p

ort in his book, The United Nations Cons

p

irac

y

: "Toda

y

the UN is increasin

g

l

y

re

g

arded not as a

sacred cow, but rather as a troika composed of a white elephant, a Trojan horse, and a Judas goat."5 The

supermarket tabloid Star, while not exactly a consistently reliable heavyweight in the news and analysis

category, expressed the sentiments of a large and growing segment of the American people with a

N

ovember 3, 1981 article by Steve Dunleavy entitled, "Rip Down This Shocking Tower of Shame."

In March of 1982, syndicated columnist Andrew Tully authored a piece headlined: "[Mayor] Koch

Should Chase UN Out of Town."6 Many similar articles and editorials could be cited, but perhaps one o

f

the most surprising was the August 24, 1987 cover story by Charles Krauthammer for The New

R

epublic, entitled "Let It Sink: The Overdue Demise of the United Nations."

But the advent of Mikhail Gorbachev’s "new thinking" in the late 1980s coincided with the beginning o

f

a remarkable rehabilitation in the public’s image of the UN. First Gorbachev, and then Boris Yeltsin,

won plaudits for reversing the traditional Soviet (or Soviet surrogate) practice of using the UN as a

venue for strident anti-American diatribes. Yassir Arafat and his PLO terrorists dropped their regula

r

anti-Israel philippics. And the UN’s "peacekeepers" won a Nobel Prize and worldwide praise for thei

r

roles as mediators in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Central America, Southern Africa, and the Middle East.

Then came Operation Desert Storm, the holy war against the aggression of Saddam Hussein. And

mirabile dictu, the United Nations was once again the world’s "last best hope for peace." Suddenly UN

"peacekeepers" began to appear almost everywhere — with more than 40,000 troops in the field in

Africa, Asia, Europe, Central America, and the Middle East7 — and every new day now brings new

appeals for the world body’s intervention and "expertise."

On United Nations Day 1990, a new Gallup Poll indicated that "American support for the United

N

ations ... is higher than it has been in over 20 years." According to the national polling organization,

"Fifty-four percent of Americans now think the United Nations has done a good job of solving the

p

roblems it has had to face...." The poll cited the "rapprochement between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.,

and the dissolution of the Iron Curtain," as well as the developing Persian Gulf situation, as majo

r

factors contributing to the enhancement of the UN’s image.8

Gallup reported that "almost six out of ten Americans think that the U.N. has been effective in helping

deal with the current [Iraq-Kuwait] crisis, with only 8% saying that the U.N. has not been at all

effective." Even more disturbing, if accurate, is the poll finding that 61 percent of those surveyed

thought it a good idea to build up the United Nations emergency force to "a size great enough to deal

with ‘brush fire’ or small wars throughout the world."9

The euphoria following the Persian Gulf hostilities temporarily boosted George Bush’s approval rating

to an all-time high for any president. Rude economic realities and an accumulating number of political

p

roblems then caused his star to plummet just as rapidly as it had risen. The UN’s gains, however,

appear to have been more durable. As reported by Richard Morin ("U.N. Real Winner After Gulf War,"

Salt Lake Tribune, January 24, 1992), a survey by the Americans Talk Issues Foundation "found that

approval for the United Nations actually increased from 66 percent in June to 78 percent in Novembe

r

[1991], a period when other measures of war-induced euphoria were sinking fast."

The Tribune reported:

[H]alf of those questioned — 51 percent — agreed that "the U.S. should abide by all World

Court decisions, even when they go against us, because this sets an example for all nations

to follow." That was u

p

from 42

p

ercent in Ma

y

.

More than half also would support increasing the amount of dues that the United States pays

to the U.N. to "help pay for a U.N. space satellite system to detect and monitor such

problems as arms movements, crop failures, refugee settlements and global pollution."

And, remarkably, 38 percent of those questioned said United Nations resolutions "should

rule over the actions and laws of individual countries, where necessary to fulfill essential

United Nations functions, including ruling over U.S. laws even when our laws are

different."

While we recognize that pollsters often structure their polling questions to achieve results that will

influence rather than accurately reflect public opinion, and these surveys may be exaggerating the rise o

f

p

ro-UN sentiments, there is little doubt that the world organization is experiencing a dramatic

turnaround in citizen acceptance. In large measure, this has resulted from the enormously effective UN

drum-beating campaigns of the Establishment news media.

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post have led the way, with an avalanche o

f

fawning editorials, news stories, and op-ed columns glorifying the alleged accomplishments and yet-to-

be-realized potential of the UN. These pro-UN public relations pieces have been reprinted in thousands

of newspapers and have also found their way into the mainstream of broadcast journalism.

Unfortunately, the religious media have followed along with their secular brethren in promoting this

unquestioning faith in the salvific capability of the United Nations. One of the more egregious examples

of this misplaced fervor appeared in a lengthy January 19, 1992 editorial in Our Sunday Visitor, the

nation’s largest Catholic publication. Headlined "UNsurpassed," the piece declared: "If the John Birch

Society had its way and the United Nations had ceased to exist back in the 1950s, 1991 would have been

a far more dismal year." The editorialist then proceeded to praise the UN’s latest "accomplishments":

It is unlikely that international support for the liberation of Kuwait and the dismantling of

the Iraqi war machine would have been so easily marshaled by the United States.

Cambodia’s warring factions would most likely still be warring. Terry Anderson and his

fellow hostages would still be languishing in Lebanon. Croats and Serbs would still be

locked in their death grip with no international organization pressing for a cease-fire. And

El Salvador would still be a vast cemetery slowly filling up with the victims of its fratricidal

opponents....

Now in its fifth decade of existence, the U.N. is finally coming into its own, thanks in part

to the demise of the superpower standoff that hobbled the international organization for

much of its existence. Nations are finding the mediation efforts of U.N. negotiators

preferable to either unilateral actions or a bloody status quo of unwinnable conflicts.

Similar paeans of praise can be found in leading Protestant periodicals. New Age publications which

have multiplied in number and influence in the past decade virtually worship the UN.

Readers of this book will be in a far better position to benefit from our presentation in the pages that

follow, and to understand unfolding world events, if they keep in mind the two major principles

underlying virtually all of our federal government’s foreign and domestic policies: "convergence" an

d

"interdependence." The plan to bring about a convergence or merger of the U.S. and the USSR is not a

recent policy response to the supposed reforms of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. It first came to light officially

in 1953 when public concern over large tax-exempt foundation grants to communists and communist

causes

p

rom

p

ted Con

g

ress to investi

g

ate. Of

p

articular concern were the fundin

g

activities of the

Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations. Perhaps the most startling revelation of that investigation

came when Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither admitted to Norman Dodd, staff director of the

Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations:

Of course, you know that we at the executive level here were, at one time or another, active

in either the OSS, the State Department, or the European Economic Administration. During

those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White

House. We are continuing to be guided by just such directives.... The substance [of these

directives] was to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United

States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.10

At that time — even though the activities of the foundations coincided exactly with Gaither’s startling

admission — it was simply too fantastic for many Americans to believe. It still is. Asked to assess such

information, most Americans ask: Why would some of our nation’s wealthiest and most powerful

capitalists use their great fortunes to promote such a goal? This compelling question has stymied many

good Americans for decades.

If you, too, are perplexed about this seemingly suicidal practice, you will find it explained — and

condemned — in the pages that follow. Of one thing there can be little doubt: Our nation is plunging

headlong toward "convergence" and the eventual "merger" referred to by Rowan Gaither many years

ago.

Simultaneously, our nation — along with the other nations of the world — is being steadily drawn into

the tightening noose of "interdependence." Our political and economic systems are being intertwined

and increasingly are being subjected to control by the United Nations and its adjunct international

organizations. Unless this process can be stopped, it will culminate in the creation of omnipotent global

governance and an "end to nationhood," as Walt Whitman Rostow once phrased the goal he shared with

many others.11 These were (and still are) the ultimate objectives of Gaither, his world order cronies, and

their modern-day successors.

Thirty-five years after Mr. Gaither’s admission, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) warned America o

f

"establishment insiders" who are "bringing this one-world design — with a convergence of the Soviet

and American systems as its centerpiece — into being." "The influence of establishment insiders ove

r

our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time," the Senator charged. "... It is an influence

which, if unchecked, could ultimately subvert our constitutional order." In this 1987 Senate speech,

Senator Helms also identified the organizations through which these insiders operate:

A careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these

interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what

some refer to as a new world order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign

Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the

Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute,

and the Bilderberg Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called

new world order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles.12

Unfortunately, because of the tremendous power that these Establishment Insiders* wield in our majo

r

media, Senator Helms’s warning never reached the American people. It was drowned under a flood o

f

one-world propaganda on the Gorbachev "revolution" and the "new potentialities" for world peace

throu

g

h a revived and stren

g

thened United Nations.

Yet, contrary to the many seductive pro-UN siren songs, the lessons of history about the relationship o

f

man to government loudly and clearly proclaim that far from guaranteeing a new era of peace and

security, the centralization of political and economic power on a planetary level can only bring about

global tyranny and oppression on a scale never before imagined.

In late September of 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain journeyed to Germany for his

third meeting with Adolph Hitler. Blind to the menace of Hitler’s "new world order" (Hitler’s own

words),13 Chamberlain returned from that now-infamous meeting brandishing an agreement he had

signed with der Fuehrer and proudly proclaiming that he had won "peace with honor" and "peace fo

r

our time." He was greeted with clamorous huzzahs by British politicians, the press, and throngs o

f

citizens who also blindly called the betrayal "peace." Within months, Europe was convulsed in conflict,

and soon even America was dragged into the bloodiest war in world history.

The peril America and the free world face today is every bit as real, though far greater in scope, than

what a peace-hungry world faced in 1938. National sovereignty is threatened as never before. As UN

p

ower grows, the entire world stands on the brink of an era of totalitarian control. We must pull bac

k

before it is too late — too late to save our country, our freedoms, our families, and all we hold dear.

Here is what this book claims the new world order under the United Nations would mean:

zAn end to your God-given rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, i.e., freedom of religion,

speech, press, and assembly, the right to trial by jury, etc. (Chapter 6)

zNational and personal disarmament along with conscription of U.S. citizens into a United Nations

Army or Police Force to serve at the pleasure of the UN hierarchy. (Chapters 1 and 2)

zThe end of private property rights and the ability to control your own home, farm, or business.

(Chapters 6 and 7)

zEconomic and environmental regulation at the hands of UN bureaucrats. (Chapter 10)

zLoss of your right as parents to raise and instruct your children in accordance with your personal

beliefs. (Chapter 8)

zCoercive population control measures that will determine when — or if — you may have children.

(Chapter 9)

zUnlimited global taxation. (Chapter 10)

zA centrally managed world monetary system that will lead all but the ruling elite into poverty.

(Chapter 10)

zEnvironmental controls that will mean the end of single family homes and personal automobile

ownership. (Chapter 6)

zThe enthronement of an occult, New Age, new world religion. (Chapter 12)

zCommunist-style totalitarian dictatorship and random, ruthless terror, torture, and extermination to

cow all

p

eo

p

les into ab

j

ect submission.

(

Cha

p

ters 2 & 14

)

All of this need not happen. As late as the hour has become, it is still not too late to avert catastrophe

and save our freedom. The world’s future need not degenerate into what George Orwell wrote woul

d

resemble "a boot stamping on a human face — forever!" But the urgency of our situation cannot be

overstated. Simply put, unless significant numbers of Americans can be awakened from their slumbers,

shaken from their apathy and ignorance, pulled away from their diversions, and convinced to work,

p

ray, vote, speak up, struggle, and fight against the powers arrayed against them, then such a horrible

fate surely awaits all of us.

* The terms "Establishment" and "Insiders" will be used throughout this text to refer generally to the

elite coterie of one-world-minded individuals associated with the organizations named above by Senato

r

Helms. For identification purposes, and to demonstrate the inordinate and dangerous influence these

interests wield, individuals who are, or have been, members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the

Trilateral Commission will be so noted parenthetically in the text as (CFR) or (TC) respectively.

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.

— Edmund Burke (1784)

Notes

1. For factual information and perspective on developments in the USSR and Eastern Europe, see, fo

r

example, the following articles from The New American: John F. McManus interview with Russian

chess grandmaster Lev Albert, "Lev Albert’s Defense," March 30, 1987; Kirk Kidwell, "Has the Soviet

Union Changed?" August 29, 1988; Robert W. Lee, "U.S.S.R. & Eastern Europe," January 29, 1991;

James J. Drummey, "Nice Smile, Iron Teeth," March 12, 1991; Robert W. Lee, "The New, Improved

USSR," November 19, 1991; William F. Jasper, "From the Atlantic to the Urals (and Beyond)," January

27, 1992; William F. Jasper, "Meeting Ground of East and West," February 24, 1992.

2. George J. Church, "A New World," Time, September 17, 1990, p. 23.

3. President Bush in a televised address before a Joint Session of Congress, September 11, 1990, Weekly

Compilation of Presidential Documents, September 17, 1990, Vol. 26 — Number 37, pp. 1359-60.

4. Robert W. Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1981), p. ix.

5. Ibid., p. xi.

6. Andrew Tully, "[Mayor] Koch Should Chase UN Out of Town," San Gabriel Valley Tribune (CA),

March 3, 1982.

7. Author in telephone interview with Matthew Norzig, UN spokesman at UN information Office,

Washington, DC on September 11, 1992: 40,000+ UN troops in 12 operations in 13 countries.

8. "American Support for United Nations Highest in 20 Years; Strong Support for Permanent

Peacekeeping Force," The Gallup Poll News Service, Vol. 55, No. 23, October 24, 1990.

9. Ibid.

10. William H. McIlhany, II, The Tax-Exempt Foundations (Westport, CT: Arlington House, 1980), p.

63. See also Norman Dodd, videota

p

ed interview of, The Hidden A

g

enda: Mer

g

in

g

America Into Worl

d

Government, Westlake Village, CA: American Media, one hour (VHS).

11. Walt Whitman Rostow, The United States in the World Arena (New York: Harper & Brothers,

1960), p. 549.

12. Senator Jesse Helms, Congressional Record, December 15, 1987, p. S 18146.

13. Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit (Paris: CoopŽration,1939), quoted by Jean-Michel Angebert,

The Occult and the Third Reich

(

New York: Macmillan, 1974

)

,

p

. 155.

CHAPTER 1 - The New World Army

In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of by its founders, with the

world's leading nations orchestrating and sanctioning collective action against

aggression.1

- President George Bush, August 1991, National Security Strategy of the United States

The army of tomorrow is neither the Red Army nor the U.S. Army.... If there is to be peace,

it will be secured by a multinational force that monitors cease-fires ... and protects human

rights. Blue-helmeted United Nations peacekeepers are doing just that....

- "The Unsung New World Army," New York Times editorial, May 11, 1992

[I]t is time for the United States to lead in the creation of a modest U.N. rapid-deployment

force.

- Republican Congressman James A. Leach, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1992

The United States should strongly support efforts to expand the U.N. peacekeeping role.

- Democratic Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1992

Though few seemed to notice, January 31, 1992 was an historic day on the march toward the new world

order. To most New Yorkers, it simply meant worse than usual traffic jams, as motorcades and security

cordons for the many foreign dignitaries on their way to United Nations headquarters tied up traffic fo

r

hours.

For the rest of America, the blur of headlines and evening news sound bites about the need fo

r

"collective security" coming from visiting potentates gave little hint of the significance of what was

transpiring. Yet, this 3,046th meeting of the United Nations Security Council that attracted the

dignitaries marked the first time that the body had convened at the level of heads of state or government.

The exalted group of world leaders representing the five permanent and ten rotating member states o

f

the Security Council included a king, five presidents, six prime ministers, a chancellor, a premier, and

two foreign ministers. They were gathering to launch a process that should have set off alarms

worldwide: the arming of the United Nations.

The assemblage took on a religious aura as, one by one, the national leaders worshipped at the UN altar,

referred to the UN Charter with a reverence usually reserved for Holy Writ, and recited the by-now-

familiar doxology always heard at these increasingly frequent "summits": new world order; peace,

equity, and justice; interdependence; global harmony; democracy; human rights; the rule of law;

collective engagement; an enhanced and strengthened United Nations; etc.

President Bush enthusiastically extolled "the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter"

and, recalling its messianic mission, proclaimed: "For perhaps the first time since that hopeful moment

in San Francisco, we can look at our Charter as a living, breathing document."2

The UN's newl

y

-installed Secretar

y

-General, E

gyp

t's Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was no less cau

g

ht u

p

with

the spiritual purpose of the world organization. He called for additional summit-level meetings of the

Security Council, since this "would also help to assure that transfiguration of this house which the world

hopes to be completed before its fiftieth anniversary, in 1995."3 How he divined what the world's

"hopes" for the organization on its 50th birthday might be, he did not say. And he did not have to

explain the motive behind his use of Biblical metaphor. That was transparent enough. Webster defines

"transfigure" this way: "to give a new and typically exalted or spiritual appearance to." To the Christian

mind, of course, "transfiguration" recalls the Gospel account of Christ's manifestation of his divine

glory.

Boutros-Ghali undoubtedly knows the power of the symbolism he chose and, like his fellow true

believers in the one-world gospel, he realized that much more of this evangelization is necessary if the

masses are to be sold on the idea of the UN as the world's savior.

When his turn at the UN podium came, even Boris Yeltsin was appropriately religious, referring to the

organization as "the political Olympus of the contemporary world."4 Venezuelan President Carlos

Andres Perez proclaimed that "the United Nations is indispensable to us all."5 Presumably, we cannot

survive without it.

"This means," said Perez, "placing our trust in its leadership and in its set-up, as well as in the decision-

making machinery. The guiding principles must be those that inspired its establishment, now brought to

complete fruition."6 That's quite a contrast with the scriptural injunction to "trust in the Lord," and fa

r

indeed from the admonitions of our founding fathers to avoid putting trust in man (and government) but

instead to "bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."7

A Bigger and Better UN?

Such quaint notions as national independence and limitation of government held no sway with these

internationalists. The participants in this special convocation of the Security Council were virtually

unanimous in their support of greatly expanded United Nations powers. This was necessary, they said,

b

ecause of the rapid "acceleration of history," the "critical stage" of current world events, "global

instability," "nuclear proliferation," and the many "threats to peace and security" presented by economic,

social, humanitarian, and ecological "sources of instability."

The obsolete nation-state is incapable of meeting the world's needs, claimed one speaker after another.

Boutros-Ghali explained that in his vision of the new world order, "State sovereignty takes a new

meaning...." "[N]arrow nationalism," warned the Egyptian, "can disrupt a peaceful global existence.

N

ations are too interdependent, national frontiers are too porous and transnational realities ... too

dangerous to permit egocentric isolationism."8

Repeated calls were made at this special UN session for increasing the powers of the Secretary-General,

enhancing the jurisdiction of the World Court, expanding the membership of the Security Council,

abolishing the veto power of the five permanent members, establishing a permanent funding mechanism

for "peacekeeping," convening a summit meeting to address social development, increasing economic

aid from North to South, and more. Hardly a speaker failed to hail the "end of the Cold War" and the

demise of communism, but socialist thought was still the order of the day as one leader after anothe

r

called for greater "global management" and redistribution of wealth.

French President Francois Mitterrand made the first concrete proposal to give military teeth to the world

body with his call for establishing a rapid-deployment UN army. "I state that for its part France is ready

to make available to the Secretar

y

-General a 1,000-man contin

g

ent for

p

eace-kee

p

in

g

o

p

erations, at an

y

Global Tyranny Step By Step - By William F Jasper

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

热门标签

举报选择: