In this article, we go through how the ruling class is destroying national sovereignty and aims to establish a global tyrannical oligarchy. Democratic governments and movements for social justice are repeatedly overthrown, and their leaders are often murdered by the Anglo-American Empire. Rebels from drug networks and secret operations are used to destabilize democracies and independent third-world states, as well as to assist in the drug trade of officials, politicians, and the world’s rich globalists. The IMF, BIS, and World Bank are financial weapons of the United States’ national power, used to keep countries that do not comply with the tyranny of globalization in check, following official foreign affairs, defense, and security manuals.

”None have done more to realize a world government than we Americans and Britons have done.” – Clarence Streit, an early advocate of a federal Atlantic Union and later a lobbyist for the reform of NATO, in his book ”Union Now With Britain” from 1941.

”An influential think tank led by former Senator Sam Nunn and guided by board members such as Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William Cohen, and Henry Kissinger is about to complete a report to the White House and the U.S. Congress on the benefits of integrating the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a political, economic, and security block,” reported World Net Daily in 2007.

FTAA, the ”Free Trade Area of the Americas,” proposes nothing less than an economic and political fusion of 34 nations in the Western Hemisphere. Following the same strategy used to force European countries into the independence-destroying European Union (EU), the internationalist architects of the FTAA intend to transform national states in the Western Hemisphere, including the USA, into mere administrative units in the supranational FTAA.

The FTAA represents a comprehensive ”broadening and deepening” of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which initiated the coercion process by binding Canada, the USA, and Mexico in a system of ever-expanding and constricting political, economic, social, and military bonds. Following the EU model, the trinational NAFTA adds new members (which internationalists call ”broadening”) and claims legislative authority in an ever-increasing range of areas (”deepening”) that were previously the domain of national governments and local governments.

The NAFTA/FTAA plan requires a system of regulations for an entire hemisphere to ”harmonize” business, industry, labor, agriculture, transportation, immigration, education, taxation, environment, health, trade, defense, law, and other political and legal matters ”from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.” NAFTA has nothing, and has never had anything, to do with ”free trade.” True free trade is a voluntary exchange between two parties, unencumbered by government interference and intervention.

But NAFTA, like the European Union, seeks to regulate and control virtually all issues related to industry, agriculture, trade, environment, labor rights, as well as all social issues. Instead of creating or allowing economic freedom by eliminating government intervention, NAFTA wants to homogenize the myriad of socialist programs that currently hamper the economies of the United States, Mexico, and Canada, and add a new layer of control. Furthermore, the NAFTA/FTAA globalists, following the EU pattern, have already launched their campaign for a common currency for the hemisphere as a counterweight to the euro, which replaced the currencies of some EU member states in 2002. Currently, the dollar is being hailed as the hemisphere’s currency, but plans have already been set in motion to replace the dollar with a new currency called the ”Amero.”

In 1999, the Bilderberg Group met in Sintra, Portugal, where they discussed plans for a new economic world order. Thanks to Jim Tucker’s infiltration of the secretive group, we can get a glimpse of what was discussed at the meeting. In his book ”Bilderberg Diary,” Tucker writes, ”Kenneth Clarke, a member of the British Parliament and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, called for a new ’international financial architecture’ at the Bilderberg meeting in 1999. The world should have three major regional currencies, Clarke told his Bilderberg colleagues. The first is already on the world stage: the European euro. And the United Kingdom will join the common currency, he said. Clarke said he would like to see the pound depreciate to simplify the United Kingdom’s entry into the common currency…The next step is toward a second major regional currency in the Western Hemisphere, Clarke said. ’Amerijo’ will become a reality through the ’dollarization’ of Latin America.” Tucker continues, ”Bilderberg colleagues agreed that the new regional currencies, which will not be associated with any specific country, will do much to eliminate ’nationalism’ and ’outdated views of sovereignty.’ The ”Amerijo” discussed by Bilderberg in 1999 seems to have been transformed into the common North American currency ”Amero,” as coined by Herbert Grubel with support from Robert Pastor.

Strikingly obvious is that NAFTA/FTAA’s ”broadening and deepening” and ”harmonization and integration” represent a radical and sweeping assault on national sovereignty and the constitutional form of government. Piece by piece, governmental functions are being torn away from the protective firewalls so carefully constructed by the country’s founders. These powers are being transferred to international bureaucracies that are unaccountable, not elected in democratic elections, and not bound by the system of checks and balances that has prevented the accumulation of absolute, tyrannical power in the constitutional system of government.

People in the EU have only recently begun to realize that the process that began 50 years ago under the banner of ”free trade” was nothing less than a silent attack aimed at destroying nothing less than their national independence and tricking them into a tyrannical oligarchy ruled from Brussels. The EU has become a supranational regional bloc in the new world order, and its ruling elite is now working to further concentrate and centralize power at the global level—in an all-powerful UN.

The UN, along with both the IMF and World Bank, has expressed a desire to replace the dollar with a global currency backed by a global central bank. Something the Rothschild and Rockefeller families have long worked for, while transferring debts from third-world countries and receiving land from these countries through the WCB bank. The bank is structured so that Rothschild can gain control over the third world, which covers 30% of the world’s land surface. They have also used the IMF and World Bank to impose rations on third-world countries to force privatizations and cuts in already poor nations, to collect billions in interest and ”repayments” to the imperialist blocks from heavily indebted countries. In direct violation of Section 10 of Article 4 of the World Bank charter, they have systematically issued loans to states to influence their policies. Regimes supported by major capitalist powers have received financial support even if their economic policies did not meet official international financial institutions (IFI) criteria or if they failed to respect human rights. And they have pursued a policy that, according to UNICEF’s estimates, has killed millions of children in the third world.

CFR’s conspiracy

”CFR has the goal of drowning America’s independence and national sovereignty in an all-powerful government that controls the entire world.” – Admiral Chester Ward, former member of CFR and Chief Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, in his book ”Kissinger on the Couch,” 1974.

An article authored by Columbia University law professor Richard N. Gardner, a seasoned diplomat at the State Department (Ambassador to Spain during the Clinton administration) titled ”The Hard Road to World Order” was published in the April issue of Foreign Affairs, 1974, a magazine that Time magazine calls ”the most influential journal in print.” The influence of Foreign Affairs is, of course, due to the fact that it is the official organ of the organized globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR.

The article ”Hard Road” began with CFR member Richard Gardner’s lament that like-minded internationalists had failed to achieve what he called ”instant world government.” He proposed a new, more effective path to establish an all-powerful global superstate, stating: ”In short, the ’house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ’booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. Of course, for there to be advanced forms of ”regionalization” such as the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Union (EU), the EEC was merely a step on the way to a ”unified Europe.”

In the ”Without Excuse” of 1979, Senator Barry Goldwater noted that ”The Trilateral Commission is a skillful, coordinated effort to take control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical…. What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power greater than the political governments of the nation-states involved…. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a protege of David Rockefeller, one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission, and Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, stated from his book ”Between Two Ages” in 1971: ”The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values…. The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen’s health and personal behavior, in addition to more general information. These files will be subject to immediate access by the authorities.” [Regarding the possibilities of a selected elite influencing and controlling the thinking of the masses, he wrote…] ”In the technetronic society, the trend seems to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.” [He prophetically foresaw a society…] ”…that is culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically dominated by the impact of technology and electronics—especially in the areas of computers and communication to efficiently exploit the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.” [Brzezinksi was well aware of the end results of alchemical programming through the spread of carefully constructed symbols and images. He noted that this will lead to a technetronic era in which…] ”people will become more and more manipulable and malleable.”

European Union
The United States and the EU have signed a new transatlantic economic partnership that will lead to the ”harmonization” of regulations and lay the foundation for the fusion of the USA and the EU into a single market. This is a significant step toward a new globalized world order.

Recently leaked Bilderberg documents from their 1955 meeting in Germany at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl illustrate a consensus that ”it may be better to continue through the development of a unified market through treaties rather than the creation of new high authorities.” This method, gradually implementing agreements and treaties, results in the full acceptance of the EU because it is perceived as ”just” a ”unified market” they are striving for. This is called totalitarian creep; they slowly but surely implement small treaties and eventually achieve what they initially planned. The European Economic Community (EEC) was created in 1957 with the Rome Treaty, which was formulated at Bilderberg meetings and designed by Baron Robert Rothschild. The Rome Treaty made Walter Hallstein, a law professor under the Nazis, the president of the first EU Commission. The European currency, the Euro, was introduced in early 2002, and the agreement that implemented it, the Maastricht Treaty, was signed in 1992. Documents from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting, almost 40 years earlier, prove that they were already pushing for its creation back then. The first Bilderberg meeting in 1954 was funded by the CIA, and globalists like David Rockefeller, who was involved from the beginning, along with figures like former OSS chief William J. ”Wild Bill” Donovan and former OSS agent and later CIA agent Thomas Braden. Braden played a significant role in Operation Mockingbird, a CIA operation that influenced news and controlled news organizations.

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (1911-2004), who initiated the Bilderberg Group, was a member of the Nazi Party’s Sturmabteilung (SA), the Reiter SS, and worked for the IG Farben company founded by Max Warburg. He was deeply involved in the arms trade. ”It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supranational body.” – Prince Bernhard

Józef Hieronim Retinger (Joseph Retinger, April 17, 1888 – June 12, 1960) was a Polish political adviser and one of the founders of the European Movement, which would lead to the founding of the EU. Retinger initiated the Bilderberg conferences in 1954 and was its secretary until his death in 1960. Joseph Retinger’s European Movement was funded by The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), whose leaders included General Donovan, who was the head of the OSS during the war (CIA’s precursor), George Marshall, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA and a member of the CFR. The ACUE received funding from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. The U.S. line was to promote a United States of Europe, and the committee was used to discreetly channel CIA funds – by the mid-1950s, ACUE received approximately $1,000,000 per year – to European pro-federalists supporting groups like the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the proposed European Defence Community.

Hungarian aristocrat Etienne Davignon is the current president of the Bilderberg Group. He is also the president of Friends of Europe, a think tank for a European Union. Interestingly, he worked under Paul-Henri Spaak in the 1960s, who is considered one of the ”founding fathers” of the EU (Spaak attended Bilderberg in 1963, and he worked hand in hand with Robert Rothschild). Davignon recently boasted that Bilderberg was responsible for the policy of a unified currency in the 1990s, and according to the plans, the Maastricht Treaty that created the Euro was signed in 1992. Documents from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting, nearly 40 years earlier, prove that they were pushing for its creation back then. As the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (NIOD) documented, the first Bilderberg meeting in 1954 was financed by the CIA. Globalist David Rockefeller participated from the beginning, along with figures like former OSS chief William J. ”Wild Bill” Donovan and former OSS agent and later CIA agent Thomas Braden. Braden played a major role in Operation Mockingbird, a CIA operation that influenced news and controlled news organizations.

EU President Van Rompuy, who just before becoming president met with Bilderberg and Henry Kissinger, has acknowledged the agenda for a world government: ”2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the midst of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

Former top EU official Javier Solana, who has attended Bilderberg meetings, has stated that: ”The EU must be the laboratory of a world government structure for international relations.”

Since 2002, the EU has had its own foreign policy think tank, the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). On July 28, the EUISS released a comprehensive document containing predictions for what EU security and defense policy might look like in 2020. The document is titled ”Which Ambitions for European Defence in 2020?” It discusses the EU’s long-term security strategy, including issues of a ”hierarchical class society,” with the ”world elite” on one side and the so-called ”bottom billion” on the other. In order to avoid a ”collapse of the global system,” the document proposes using ”the full spectrum of high-intensity conflict” to protect so-called ”globalizers” from ”localizers.” Localizers, representing 80% of the world’s population, include the ”bottom billion,” states in the Middle East, and so-called ”alienated modern states” like North Korea, Burma, and Struggling Modern States (SMS), defined as ”large parts of the Arab world and pre-modern societies [Premodern Societies (PMS)],” defined as the ”bottom billion,” or, in other words, the poorest people from countries representing 65% of the world’s population. The thesis discusses in detail the ”barrier activity protecting the globally rich from the strains and problems of the poor.” It further states that ”since the proportion of the world’s population living in misery and frustration is likely to remain very high, tensions and side effects between their world and the world of the rich will continue to grow. As we are unlikely to have solved the problems at the root by 2020 – i.e. by curing dysfunctional societies, we will need to reinforce our barriers. It is an unsavory, losing strategy, but it will become inevitable if we cannot solve the basic problems.”

If one goes to Wikipedia and searches for the word ”globalization,” you can read: ”Politically, it is a shift of power upwards to supranational or intergovernmental organizations at the expense of nation-states.” This is exactly what has happened in Europe through the EU. The individual countries and their citizens pay the price for what is happening here. We are now in a developmental stage that has long been sketched out. Even when Winston Churchill spoke in 1947 on ”United States of Europe,” we can see that he aimed at a world government. A united Europe was a prerequisite for this, he argued. Churchill was close to the Rothschild family and was involved in the creation of the UN. Churchill was also an honorary president of the European Movement, which later became the EU. Here’s what Churchill said:

”The final aim, which it is to serve, is to create a regional authority of a global jurisdiction. So far as the nations of Europe are concerned, what is the sense in their giving their working days to destroy the one and only edifice which is being built upon the ruins of the old world? That is a stage upon the way to a world government. So long as the people in the world are not able to create a world government, and soon put it into action, the prospects for peace and progress are dark and insecure. Without a United Europe there is no secure prospect for a world government. It is a suitable and inevitable step towards the fulfillment of this ideal.” – Churchill Speaks, 1897-1963: Collected Speeches in Peace and War (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1980), p.913. Speech entitled ”United Europe,” May 14, 1947, Albert Hall, London, UK.

Angloamerikanska imperiet

Wikileaks has released thousands of pages of American and British defense doctrines regarding active uprisings and military counteractions. The release includes numerous counteraction doctrines (more traditionally known as ”Counterinsurgency”) that provide detailed information on how uprisings or popular revolts should be suppressed, openly or covertly. It also covers the reverse: doctrines on uprisings, how a country should infiltrate and incite an uprising to overthrow a foreign government, conduct sabotage, foment subversion, economic and financial warfare, as well as ”unlawful detainments” and the use of enemy uniforms, a violation of the Geneva Conventions. This was exposed in 2005 when British soldiers were revealed to have disguised themselves as Arabs while shooting Iraqi police to make it look like a Taliban group was responsible to garner support for continued involvement in Iraq by the American and British military.

Wikileaks’ release serves as a partial antidote to the shaping of public opinion by figures like the American General Petraeus and others, which journalists have uncritically relayed in recent years. Journalists should remember that documents intended for public consumption, such as the so-called ”Petraeus Doctrine” published by the Chicago University Press in 2007 and publicly promoted by the Pentagon, are sanitized and should preferably be ignored to prevent journalists from imposing propaganda on an unsuspecting public.

FM 3-05.130 was published in September 2008. Despite not being classified, this 248-page document is restricted ”to U.S. government agencies and their contractors, for technical or operational information protection from automatic dissemination under ’the International Exchange Program’ or otherwise. The Army department urges recipients to ”destroy by any method to prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.” Wikileaks has ensured that this highly important primary source will not disappear into the inner workings of the Pentagon.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has acted through proxies to either thwart leftist revolts or to overthrow ”hostile” governments, such as those that Washington and the multinational corporations it serves deem ideological competitors.

Historically, American unconventional warfare (UW) doctrine evolved from the Nazi experiences in dealing with ”freedom fighters” in various European countries during World War II. As analyst and researcher Michael McClintock details in his important study, American unconventional warfare borrowed extensively from the methods used by the Wehrmacht and SS to terrorize civilian populations and, perhaps more importantly, to co-opt local factions to combat resistance movements. The Army Department’s ”A Study of Special and Subversive Operations” (November 1947) was an early assessment of the lessons learned from World War II concerning the authoritative Cold War. (”Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerrilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, Counterterrorism, 1940-1990,” New York: Pantheon Books, 1992, p. 59)

But the United States did more than translate confiscated documents from the Wehrmacht and SS; they recruited many Waffen-SS veterans, often with the assistance of high-ranking officials in the Vatican. Tens of thousands of war criminals were smuggled out of Europe along ratlines into American hands for clandestine warfare against the new enemy: the Soviet Union and the international left.

Pathological murderers like SS veteran Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon, played a significant role when the CIA and Argentina’s death squad generals targeted Bolivia in the ”cocaine coup” of 1980. Together with agents connected to the CIA, Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, and existing Nazi networks, Barbie ”restructured” Bolivia’s intelligence service to reflect the ”new reality” in the southern parts of South America. (For background, see Robert Parry’s excellent series, ”Dark Side of Rev. Moon,” The Consortium for Independent Journalism).

The cocaine coup began on July 17, led by Barbie and his new fascist henchmen known as the ”Death Squad.” Michael Levine, one of the DEA’s top infiltrators, writes in his book, ”Levine’s Big White Lie,” that ”The masked thugs were not Bolivians; they spoke Spanish with a German, French, and Italian accent.” Their uniforms displayed no national insignias or rank markings, but many wore armbands with swastikas and Nazi insignias. The violence was brutal. When insurgents stormed the national labor movement headquarters, they injured labor leader Marcelo Quiroga, who had attempted to prosecute former military dictator Hugo Banzer for drug and corruption charges. Quiroga was ”dragged off to the police headquarters to be put through a game that was being played by some of the torturers imported from Argentina’s notorious School of the Navy Mechanics.”

”These ’experts’ practiced their ’science’ on Quiroga to teach the Bolivians a lesson, since they were a little behind in this particular field. They kept Quiroga alive and in agony for hours. His castrated and tortured body was found several days later in a place called ’The Valley of the Moon’ in southern La Paz.” Women captured were subjected to group rape as part of their torture. For Levine, who was in Buenos Aires, it soon became clear that ”the revolution’s principal goal was to protect and control Bolivia’s cocaine industry. All the major cocaine barons were released from jail and subsequently joined forces with the Nazis in their rampages. Government buildings were occupied, and files of cocaine barons were stolen or burned. Government employees were tortured and shot, women were bound and raped repeatedly by paramilitaries and released cocaine lords.” The fascists celebrated with swastikas and shouts of ”Heil Hitler!” reported the German investigative journalist Kai Hermann. Colonel Arce-Gomez, the stereotype of a medal-bedecked, grandiose Latin American dictator, seized extensive power as the Minister of Interior. General Luis Garcia Meza was sworn in as Bolivia’s new president.

The socialist Bolivian government was a natural enemy of the drug lords because it had robust anti-drug programs. Bolivia’s cocaine-related underworld was hostile to any government that enacted anti-drug legislation, making the Bolivian drug lords ideal proxies to support a coup in Bolivia. As the drug lords sought to expand their cartel, and as the CIA and the Argentine government aimed to suppress socialism in South America, an alliance was formed against Bolivia’s legitimate government. By this point, it was inevitable that the Bolivian government would be overthrown by drug fascism. The result: a drug-fascist government. Once in the hands of the drug lords, Bolivia’s drug production was organized into a plantation and refinement cartel known as La Corporacion, which Michael Levine describes as the General Motors of cocaine. Simultaneously, Argentina was organizing Contras in Nicaragua at the time, not long before the CIA took over control of the Contras operation. All the functional dots had been arranged, and it was a simple matter to connect the various interests to form a connection from ”Point A” to ”Point Z.” ”Point Z” may not have worked as well if the CIA-supported Contras had not provided an incredible mechanism for access to the final market in America’s inner cities: a protected channel for narcotics.

A notable example of direct U.S. support for dictatorships is when, in 1975, Henry Kissinger traveled with Gerald Ford to Indonesia, where they met with the U.S.-backed and armed dictator Suharto, under whose 35-year rule millions of people were killed. On the same day Ford and Kissinger departed, Indonesian troops invaded the independent territory of East Timor. One-third of the country’s population was exterminated over the next 20 years of occupation, but this had little impact on continued U.S. and Western arms shipments to the regime in Jakarta. Documents recently released by the National Security Archives confirm that Suharto received approval for the invasion from the American president and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

Nixon and Kissinger, along with John Negroponte, one of Kissinger’s advisors and the officer responsible for Vietnam on the National Security Council, orchestrated a government coup in Cambodia in March 1970, which created chaos. Negroponte would later serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and as National Security Director from 2005 to 2007. On March 26, 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported, ”While serving as U.S. ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85, Negroponte played a critical role in the secret arming of Nicaraguan Contras, and he has been accused by human rights groups of overlooking – or perhaps even overseeing – human rights violations by CIA-trained Honduran death squads during his tenure.” The CIA had limitless resources to assist the government in its depopulation efforts. Along with Oliver North, ”he also helped orchestrate a secret agreement, later known as Iran-Contras, to send weapons via Honduras to assist Contras in overthrowing the Sandinista government.” Negroponte was the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras when hundreds of Hondurans, labeled ”insurgents,” were arrested, raped, tortured, and slaughtered by Battalion 316, a Honduran intelligence unit that was trained, financed, and supported by the Pentagon and the CIA. Battalion 316 also participated in CIA’s secret operations in Nicaragua. Negroponte served as Deputy Secretary of State under Condoleezza Rice.

Even when ”competitors” were peaceful and limited to the political-economic sphere, violence, war, and chaos ensued when the U.S. intervened. This scenario played out in Chile during the 1970s, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, and El Salvador during the 1980s, in Yugoslavia and the Balkans in general during the 1990s, and in Bolivia, Venezuela, and across the globe under the guise of the ”Global War on Terror” (GWOT). The lesson for those who defy the global hegemon? American political subversion and state-sponsored terrorism that will create chaos and thwart independent development.

And when the global Godfather’s military power intervenes directly? Although the U.S. was defeated in Southeast Asia, the countries targeted, such as Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, were destroyed by the U.S. in the process. These countries were ravaged economically and socially and, decades later, have yet to fully recover from the devastation wrought by their American ”liberators.” However, the U.S. military learned some unique skills, not least of which is how selective violence could be applied against the civilian infrastructure of the communist National Liberation Front.

The Phoenix program, detailed to the smallest degree in researcher Douglas Valentine’s outstanding account, was launched in 1967 by the CIA and American special forces as a way to win ”hearts and minds.” But from its inception, Phoenix agents worked side by side with ”allies” in South Vietnam and Laos with drug connections, and the program gradually morphed into a program of executions and torture that killed thousands. Long after the U.S. withdrew from Southeast Asia, the lessons learned from Phoenix and similar programs like Condor and Gladio in the 1970s and 1980s in Afghanistan, Italy, Turkey, and Central America were ”refined,” and these now form the foundations on which Pentagon’s unconventional warfare doctrines rest today.

During the Cold War, American power was exercised in ”proxy states” through oppressive police forces, intelligence services, and civilian allies on the far right (termed ”foreign internal defense,” FID). Such forces, trained and financed by the U.S., combined a neo-fascist political outlook with organized criminal activity, often within, but not always limited to, the international drug trade.

NATO’s infamous ”stay-behind” Operation Gladio networks in Italy and Turkey, to name a couple, worked directly with international drug syndicates and political parties with fascist sympathies, such as the Italian Avanguardia Nazionale (The National Vanguard) founded by terrorist and drug smuggler Stefano delle Chiaie and the Turkish Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi (National Action Group, MHP) and the terrorist group the Gray Wolves, also with drug ties, founded by Alparslan Türkeş, who sympathized with Germany during World War II.

Linked to these nations’ intelligence services as well as the CIA and the Pentagon, these organizations waged a ruthless war against the left through terror bombings, murders, and executions in an attempt to destabilize these governments and trigger complete military takeovers. Together with the CIA, the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has been instrumental in the organization and execution of unconventional warfare with the stated purpose of maintaining an economic-political status quo in the targeted countries.

As loyal readers of Antifascist Calling know, there are some very important themes explored here, including those related to the intersection of corporate and military power and how these powers interact on the contemporary political stage to undermine democracy and social justice movements. In fact, what has come to be identified as the corporatist ”deep state” is often mentioned: i.e., the objective interface between political elites, multinational corporations, the military, intelligence services, and organized crime. These connections are part of the war Washington has waged for decades against movements for social justice in general and democratic and grassroots movements in particular.

As we will see in this analysis of FM 3-05.130, USSOCOM makes these connections clear and reasons: ”UW must be conducted by, with, or through surrogates; such surrogates must be unconventional forces.” Deputy groups, often allied with far-right groups and linked to organized crime (mostly interchangeable players), are the ”unconventional groups” that Washington prefers to use. USSOCOM claims that this definition ”is consistent with the historical reasons the U.S. has engaged in UW” and continues by citing the country’s ”support” during the 1980s, both for insurgencies such as the Contras in Nicaragua, and resistance movements to defeat an occupying power, such as the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. It cannot get much clearer than that!

ideologically consistent
The authors of FM 3-05.130 are far from warmongering cavemen; they are knowledgeable and scholarly. They provide a broad and ideologically consistent description that is both informative and historically interesting in its openness and methodological purposes. In other words, they get straight to the point, unlike their political leaders.

They inform the reader straightforwardly that UW establishes a ”litmus test” that is warfare ”by, with, or through surrogates” and that they prefer ”unconventional forces.” ”Unconventional forces” are individuals or groups of individuals who are not members of the regular army, police, or other internal security forces. They are usually not sponsored by the state and not bound by the laws and boundaries of independent nations. These forces may include, but are not limited to, specific paramilitary forces, contractors, individuals, companies, foreign political organizations, resistance or insurgent movements, immigrants, transnational terrorist adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorist members, black-market operators, and other social and political ”undesirables” (Unconventional Warfare, p. 1-3).

While ”conventional warfare” is seen as conflict between states, Irregular Warfare (IW) and UW, according to FM 3-05.130, ”are about people, not platforms.” Irregular and unconventional warfare ”depend not solely on military skills.” They also depend on an understanding of dynamic forces such as political regimes, social networks, religious influence, and cultural practices. Although IW is armed conflict, not all participating unconventional forces need necessarily be armed. People, rather than weapons, platforms, and advanced technology, are the key to success in IW. Successful IW is built on establishing relationships and partnerships at the local level. It requires patient, persistent, and culturally informed individuals within the joint forces to conduct IW (Unconventional Warfare, p. 1-5).

It is explicitly stated in FM 3-05.130 that its ”strategic purpose [is] to gain or maintain control or influence over relevant populations and to support these populations with political, psychological, and economic methods.” While both IW and UW aim to gain influence over ”relevant population groups,” UW, unlike IW, is ”always by, with, or through unconventional forces.” In other words, local surrogates drawn from suitable right-wing groups and/or organized crime are the tools to exert ”influence” over ”relevant population groups.”

In Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s, elements of the ”unconventional forces” deployed during the U.S. and NATO destabilization operations in former Yugoslavia included members from the Afghan-Arab database of available intelligence agents, e.g., al-Qaeda, which has been linked to the CIA, MI6 in the UK, the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), and Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI), as well as well-established networks for smuggling drugs, weapons, and people linked to the mafia in Albania and Turkey. In fact, ”unconventional forces” such as the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) exhibited all these connections as clearly as possible.

According to FM 3-05.130, modern IW theory includes the following components: insurgency; counterinsurgency (COIN); unconventional warfare (UW); terrorism; counterterrorism (CT); foreign internal defense (FID); stability, security, transition, and reconstruction operations (SSTR); strategic communication (SC); psychological operations (PSYOP); civil-military operations (CMO); intelligence operations (IO); espionage and counterespionage (CI); cross-border criminal activities, including drug trafficking, illegal arms sales, and illicit financial transactions that support or assist IW; and policing activities focused on countering unconventional adversaries (Unconventional Warfare, p. 1-5).

The transition from quoting parts of UW to using very dubious players as strategic partners in global U.S. destabilization operations is not a big one at all.

The role of the media
The role of the media is clearly pronounced when it comes to advancing the goals of U.S. national power. As recent exposés in The New York Times and other sources have documented, ”message force multipliers,” such as retired Pentagon employees and former high-ranking officers, often with connections to defense companies that rely heavily on Pentagon generosity, have maximized their expertise and carried out illegal domestic psychological operations (PSYOPS) and information warfare, with the participation and full knowledge of media giants.

It is important for official authorities, including the military, to realize the fundamental role that the media plays in conveying information. The USG uses Strategic Communication (SC) to provide top-down guidance regarding the use of the instruments of national power through coordinated information, themes, messages, and products synchronized with other instruments of national power. The military supports SC themes and messages through Information Operations (IO), Public Affairs (PA), and support for Public Diplomacy (DSPD). The military must ensure that the media’s access to information is in line with classification requirements, legal constraints, and individual privacy. The military must also provide the public with current and accurate information. Success in military operations relies on acquiring and integrating the most critical information and the ability to prevent the adversary from gaining access to it. The military is responsible for conducting IO, protecting what should not be disclosed, and aggressively attacking the adversary’s information systems. IO can involve complex legal and political issues that require approval, review, and coordination at the national level. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-2)

As the authors actually claim, ”since UW consists of operations conducted ’by, with, or through’ non-conventional forces, ’warfare in the human terrain’ is ’primarily a clash of ideas’!” In short, ”the human terrain” explicitly includes the American public, which is also a target of Pentagon propaganda-like ”information operations.” The following is expressed without reservation: USG-controlled specific instruments can, however, despite being of limited scope, achieve specific and measurable results useful for conducting UW. ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] can work with counterparts within DOS [government departments] to identify and ”engage” selected TAs [target audiences] that can influence behavior in a UWOA [unconventional warfare operational area]. Such TAs may exist within the UWOA itself or outside it but with the potential to influence the UWOA. The USG can then expose these TAs, directly or indirectly, to a DOS public diplomacy (PD) campaign coordinated to support the UW effort. Since UW can be a protracted and politically sensitive issue, ARSOF and its DOS partners can similarly construct a PA campaign to keep the [American] domestic audience informed of the truth in a way that supports USG’s goals and enables the effective pursuit of UW. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-3)

Economic undermining
The authors of FM 3-05.130 believe that the ”appropriate integrated manipulation of economic power can and should be one of the components of UW.” It doesn’t matter that such ”manipulation” led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq before the U.S. invasion and occupation in 2003, as well as in a dozen other countries that have defied the USA.

Cases like Chile and Nicaragua are illustrative in this regard: Richard Nixon, the disgraced president, promised to ”make the economy scream” before the 1973 coup; similarly, crippling sanctions and an economic embargo were imposed on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. Various sanctions against regimes ”can build and maintain international coalitions that conduct or support American UW campaigns. A similar approach is being used today against Iran as ”punishment” for its legal development of civilian nuclear power.

Like all other instruments of U.S. national power, the use and effects of economic ”weapons” are internally related and must be coordinated carefully. Once again, ARSOF must work thoroughly with the DOS and intelligence services to determine which elements of the human terrain in the UWOA are most susceptible to economic interventions and what secondary and tertiary effects are likely after such an intervention. The United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) presence abroad and its mission to employ groups of people provide a channel for reinforcing economic incentives. DOCs can similarly strengthen their routine influence among U.S. companies operating abroad. Moreover, IO effects from economic promises kept (or broken) may prove critical to the legitimacy of U.S. UW efforts. UW practitioners must plan for these effects. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-7)

ARSOF’s plans for UW take an integrated approach and claim that they ”can and should exploit the active and analytical opportunities among the financial instruments of U.S. power.” The application of financial warfare, including the ”coercive influence” of ”actors” at the national and other levels concerning the availability and terms of ”loans, aid, or other financial assistance,” however, depends on the willingness to comply with the will of the USA. The authors argue that ”such exercise of financial power must be part of a discreet, integrated, and consistent UW plan.” In other words, threats, bribes, and economic disruption in general can work excellently to get the attention of the recalcitrant states that are not ”on board” with the USA. In Chapter Two, ”Financial Instrument of U.S. National Power and Unconventional Warfare,” they write in black and white how the IMF, BIS, and VB are financial weapons of U.S. national power.

Angloamerikanska imperiet

Drug-smuggling networks and the ”Global War on Terrorism”
For decades, investigative journalists, researchers, and analysts have highlighted the symbiotic relationship between international drug smuggling syndicates, neo-fascist political groups, U.S. intelligence services, and U.S. special forces in the war against leftist political opponents.

Dozens of books and hundreds of articles by journalists and authors such as Alfred W. McCoy, Peter Dale Scott, Henrik Krüger, Robert Parry, Gary Webb, Jonathan Marshall, Douglas Valentine, Daniel Hopsicker, Bill Conroy, as well as revelations from former DEA investigators like Michael Levine and Celerino Castillo III, have documented the long and bloody involvement of the United States in the global drug trade.

While the USA has poured billions of dollars into so-called drug eradication programs in target countries like Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Afghanistan, and Mexico through poorly conceived projects like Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative, also known as Plan Mexico, recent reports, especially in The Narco News Bulletin, have revealed the close relationship between drug traffickers, right-wing extremists, political elites, and U.S. intelligence services.

Investigative journalist Bill Conroy has recently reported how a U.S.-trained and equipped special force within the Mexican army (the Zetas) ”is now assisting the Mexican military in its drug smuggling activities along the border.”

However, none of this troubles the authors of Unconventional Warfare. And why should it? As they themselves describe in the doctrine, unconventional warfare is conducted ”by, with, or through surrogates; and such surrogates must consist of irregular forces.” The next logical step is the use of transnational criminal networks to advance U.S. national power. The section, ”Instruments for Maintaining Law and Order for U.S. National Power and Unconventional Warfare,” expresses this without reservation: no conspiracy theories here!

Actors used to support UWOA can rely on criminal activities, such as drug or human smuggling. Political and military adversaries in UWOA exhibit the same sensitivity to public exposure and involvement because criminal entities routinely try to evade law enforcement. In some cases, political and military enemies are also criminal adversaries, which ARSOF’s UW planners must see as a threat. At other times, the methods and networks of actual or perceived criminal entities can be useful as support elements for U.S.-sponsored efforts. Regardless, ARSOF understands the importance of coordinating military intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) for specific war plans with the routine intelligence activities conducted by U.S. intelligence services. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-7)

During the disruptive activities of U.S. ARSOF soldiers in target areas, domestic networks, often linked to right-wing extremist and drug-smuggling groups (Nicaragua, Bosnia, Kosovo), including ”former” allies like al-Qaida, ”The Underground,” and ”Support Forces” in FM 3-05.130. However, there are few details, and the authors unequivocally state:

More SF participation occurs in the development and advising of underground [and supporting] elements than is widely known or confirmed. Most of this involvement is classified and not suitable for inclusion in this manual. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 5-5)

Preparing the terrain for U.S. attacks and/or disruptive activities by surrogate forces that share U.S. objectives is one of the key components of UW theory. Whether a population is positively disposed toward U.S. geostrategic goals and the tactical methods used in such campaigns is irrelevant to the new cold-blooded warriors in the GWOT. When ”persuasion” fails, the muscles step in to get the ”natives’ ” attention.

The organization of the broader indigenous population, from which the surrogate forces are drawn—the broad mass—must also be carried out by the same organization, under indirect oversight from SF. The primary value of the broad mass in UW operations is not so much a matter of formal organization as it is ensuring that population groups act in a particular way that supports the overall UW campaign. The broad mass, or the general population and society at large, is seen as an operational, rather than a structural, effort for ARSOF in UW. Elements of the broad mass are divided into three distinct groups with respect to purpose or movement—for, against, and those who are neutral, ambivalent, or undecided. ARSOF, ”The Underground,” and ”Support Forces” then conduct irregular activities to influence or reinforce these groups. These groups may be aware or unaware that the operations or activities they are being used for have a UW character. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 5-5)

In, for example, Colombia, U.S. ”anti-drug” aid was provided to the corrupt Uribe government, directly to the right-wing, drug-smuggling death squad, Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC). Despite being designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, the top military leadership of the Uribe government, under direct guidance from the Pentagon, smuggled weapons and intelligence used by narco-fascists to murder union leaders, often after payment by U.S. multinationals like Chiquita Brands International and their identification of who they identified as guerrillas.

In ARSOF language, AUC ”influence”—such as forcing unsuspecting citizens to get off a bus and then behead them in front of their children—is what is meant when saying that death squads with connections to big business or drugs ”carry out irregular activities” to ”influence these groups.” The international community uses another term to describe these activities: state terrorism.

As part of extensive U.S. efforts to overthrow Venezuela’s socialist President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan authorities arrested about 100 AUC fighters in 2004 who were planning to attack selected targets in Caracas. According to published reports, several senior U.S. and Colombian officers were involved in the operation.

The parapolitical scandal that continues to shake Bogotá revealed the high level of involvement in the narco-fascist AUC by Colombia’s political and military elite. However, the scandal also revealed the involvement of the U.S. 7th Special Forces Group and 1st Psychological Operations Battalion in the direct training and advising of Colombian military units responsible for the worst human rights violations. Numerous reports have detailed these connections, including the 2007 revelation by the National Security Archive that Colombian Army commander General Mario Montoya ”participated in a joint operation with a Medellín-based paramilitary group.”

However, this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg
In Afghanistan, the world’s largest producer of opium and its ”end product,” heroin, intended for the European and American markets, the drug trade is ”out of control,” according to a 2008 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). According to UNODC, drug money is used as ”a lubricant for corruption and a source of financing for terrorism: corrupt officials and terrorists, in turn, make it easier to produce and smuggle drugs.”

Since the US invasion and occupation in 2001, opium production has skyrocketed by 1,000%, now constituting a significant part of the country’s GDP. Significantly, some of the staunchest US allies in the region have direct connections to international drug organizations. According to UNODC, the global increase in opium production ”was almost entirely due to the 17 percent increase in cultivation in Afghanistan, which now covers 193,000 hectares.” This amounted to 8,700 tons in 2007, which is a staggering 92% of the global opium production!

Despite these horrifying figures, the authors of FM 3-05.130 argue that ”real or perceived methods of criminal networks may be appropriate”! Indeed, they can be, serving as a seemingly endless source of black money earmarked for American global subversive activities aimed at expanding the power of American corporations.

According to a June 2008 report in The Times, Taliban drug lords with American connections are stockpiling enormous quantities of opium, as last year’s record harvest caused the price of opium to fall dramatically, to induce a price increase. Time Magazine reported in October last year that the value of the stored opium could amount to as much as $3.2 billion.

Hailed by the Pentagon and the American media as an ”outstanding victory,” the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has quickly turned into chaos, with the country now facing a resurgent Taliban movement, a new base for al-Qaeda’s operations against the tribal areas in Pakistan, and signs of ISI involvement in aiding fundamentalist insurgents and the global drug trade. A full account of the war crimes planned and led by ARSOF and their ”allies” in the Northern Alliance has yet to be provided.

As Peter Dale Scott noted in 2002, it is a bitter irony: the largely successful American campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is set to increase funding for terrorists worldwide.

It is true, as President Bush has insisted, that global terrorism is funded by the flow of illegal drugs. Nevertheless, the United States itself has helped to reestablish the flow of heroin from Afghanistan to terrorist groups, from the Balkans and Chechnya to Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Kashmir, by installing and rewarding a coalition of drug-financed warlords in Kabul. A full account of the war crimes planned and led by ARSOF and their ”allies” in the Northern Alliance has yet to be provided.

As some of the most steadfast allies of the United States in the region, figures like Hazrat Ali and Gul Agha, ”have been bought” with million-dollar agreements negotiated by American and British intelligence services. However, while the United States was content to support a drug-related status quo relying on the so-called ”warlord strategy” to ”stabilize” Afghanistan, the side effects of these dubious alliances included the possibility for bin Laden to flee to Pakistan in 2001, after the ”battle” at Tora Bora.

For advocates of unconventional warfare in the Pentagon, ”the price is always right” when it comes to strategic and tactical alliances with drug traffickers and international terrorists. Everything is allowed because ”unconventional warfare must be fought by, with, or through surrogates; and such surrogates must be irregular forces.”

An article in The New York Times that dropped like a bomb in October last year reveals how Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s president’s brother, a suspected leader of the country’s flourishing opium trade, has been on the CIA’s payroll for the past eight years. The article is, however, hardly more than a whitewash as it fails to account for the fact that one of the main reasons for the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was to restore the drug trade in the Golden Crescent.

”Heroin is a multibillion-dollar industry supported by powerful interests that require a steady and secure trade flow. One of the ’hidden’ goals of the war was precisely to restore the CIA-sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control over drug routes,” writes Chossudovsky.

”After two years of CIA secret operations in Afghanistan ’heroin production resumed,’ the traditional source of funding for the CIA. Since the invasion in October 2001, according to the New York Times, opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has increased more than 600 percent,” notes Chossudovsky. Fmr. CEO and board member of the investment bank Dillon Read, Catherine Austin Fitts, has long claimed that bankers laundered enormous sums of drug money. ”According to the Department of Defense, the US launders $500 billion to $1 trillion annually. I have no idea what percentage of this is drug money, but one could safely assume that at least $100-200 billion has drug connections to US imports and exports and retail,” writes Fitts.

Fitts’ claim was reinforced by Antonio Maria Costa, head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in Vienna, who said in January 2009 that the illegal drug trade has been used to keep banks afloat during the global economic crisis. ”In many cases, drug money is currently the only liquid investment capital,” said Costa. ”In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s biggest problem, and hence liquid capital became an important factor.”

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She started working as a translator of Turkish and Farsi for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after expressing concerns about a translator in her department being a member of a Turkish organization under investigation for bribing high-ranking government officials and congressmen, drug smuggling, illegal arms sales, and the spread of nuclear weapons. She appealed her dismissal but found it more troubling that nothing was done to address the corruption she had uncovered. John Ashcroft’s Justice Department indirectly confirmed Edmonds’ credibility by twice invoking the State Secrets Privilege to prevent her from disclosing what she knew. The ACLU has called her ”the most silenced woman in U.S. history.”

According to a released version of a 2005 report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Sibel Edmonds’ allegations are ”credible,” ”serious,” and ”warrant careful and thorough review by the FBI.” Perhaps even more condemning, John Cole from the FBI recently confirmed one of the key elements of Edmonds’ claims when he revealed the existence of an ”FBI decade-long investigation” of the State Department’s Marc Grossman. Edmonds claimed that Grossman may be the top U.S. leader of the entire foreign espionage program. Cole further stated that the investigation was ”buried and covered up.” Cole, now working as an intelligence officer for the Air Force, not only believes that Edmonds is ”very credible” but also confirms the ”ongoing and detailed efforts Turkey makes to develop its influence in the United States” through a number of illegal means. ”Turkish individuals request a service – you know, ’If you help me then I will help you’ – and what happens is that the elected official accepts this money or gift,” Cole explained. ”Or, if it’s a government employee, I’ve seen it where after retirement they have a very lucrative job with a Turkish company, or whatever country it is.”

Senator Charles Grassley (R) says of her allegations, ”Absolutely, she’s credible, and the reason I feel she’s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.” Recently released FBI documents provide additional support for many of the claims that former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has been making, publicly and in Congress, since 2002. The documents were released under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for an organization called the Turkish American Cultural Alliance (TACA), an organization that Ms. Edmonds has referred to in the past as part of the American Turkish Council and her “State Secrets Privilege Gallery.” She has said that the TACA was part of the large network that was engaged in the sale of nuclear secrets, arms and drugs, and included both current and former high-ranking U.S. officials.

Sibel Edmonds dropped a bomb on Mike Malloy’s radio show last year. In the interview, Sibel says, ”I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban and all of these Central Asian – ’Stans’ and – ’Stans’ meaning countries – it’s a lie. It’s a lie. They were working with these people, and the thing with these ’Stans is, it’s very interesting, the things they’re doing there: when you go back to, these operations involve Central Asia, all the way up to September 11th.”

According to Sibel, this ”intimate relationship” included using Bin Laden for ”operations” in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These ”operations” included using al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the same way ”we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict,” that is, to fight ’enemies’ through proxies.

Sibel says the beginning of this more than 10 years long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US, within the government, and by several individuals, they were also, the drug barons, also, the oil industry – they get together and the object is to further this goal, and that is to further the American military and financial industrial interest in the region.” Further, it gives Sibel additional credibility because the leader of a Pakistani-based terrorist organization closely linked to al-Qaeda has detailed in court how his group has been getting support from the CIA in exchange for continued attacks on the Iranian government, population and infrastructure. Abdolmalek Rigi, the leader of the Baluchi terrorist group Jundullah, said in his testimony, ”I don’t want to say for sure that the Americans had a plan from the beginning to use the Jundullah for toppling the Islamic Republic of Iran…because the Americans would want to blame the Pakis [Pakistanis] for the terrorism in Iran to justify their own operations in Pakistan and undermine the Pakistani government…But I can say for sure that they wanted to use the Baluchis for pressing their other aims in the region…One of the aims was to bring the Baluchis and their areas under their control and pressure the Iranian government…If you look carefully you will see that the Americans kept away from the Jundullah and did not get too close to them because it was becoming clear that the Jundullah was an Al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist organization.”

Ultimately, as Sibel stated, ”This ’intimate relationship’ included using Bin Laden for ’operations’ in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These ’operations’ included using al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the same way ”we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict,” that is, to fight ’enemies’ through proxies.”

Research-related links

Obama and Afghanistan: America’s Drug-Corrupted War
State-Sponsored Terror: British and American Black Ops in Iraq
Financial Scams and the Bush Family. NAFTA Negotiations with the Salinas Family

The Anglo-American Empire has declared war on humanity