Saturday, July 14, 2012

The Web Of Power: Council On Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission"Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Shakespeare's immortal wisdom rings eternal. The web I refer to in Shakespeare's quotation is the international corporate/banking web of power and global dominance; the "we" refers to several little-known groups in our society that conduct the weaving. Who are the faces behind the military industrial complex, and what common traits bond them? Who guides our foreign and domestic policies, orchestrates the wars, the chaos, the suffering, the poverty, while reaping the financial benefits at the expense of so many others?

Gliding the halls of government and commerce like some ethereal ghosts, a select group of powerful wealthy wield their might through clandestine means; their cabal is often described in obscure terms such as the Invisible Government, the Insiders, the Power Elite, and the Establishment. These men and women would like the misinformed public to believe it's all a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. Yet could their goals simply be transparent and rudimentary; power, greed, and retaining control of their amassed wealth at all costs? Only the machination that accomplishes these goals appears complex: the interwoven infrastructure, the ability to manipulate, to distort the truth, to polarize groups, always diverting the peoples' attention from their true nature and identity. This article focuses on three of their primary organizations that develop their cabal and set into motion their objectives: the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission.

Council on Foreign Relations: The Council on Foreign Relations, from hereon referred to as the CFR, was founded in 1921. It's architect was Colonel House, the behind-the-scenes power to Woodrow Wilson and representative of the turn-of-the-century American industrialists and bankers, including J.D. Rockefeller, J.P.Morgan, Jacob Schiff, and Paul Warburg.

The late Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University professor and CFR member, stated in his book Tragedy and Hope, "The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established". Simply stated, the goal of the CFR is to influence all aspects of American society in such a subtle, gradual process that one day Americans would wake up and find themselves in the midst of a one-world system.

Indeed, for the past eighty years, the majority of cabinet positions have been held by members of the CFR, as well as past presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Certainly, as a leading CFR and TC member, Kissinger's own admittance that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" and "Middle East oil is too important to be left in the hands of Arabs" add little doubt to this gang's truer motives. also makes reference to The Establishment members' desire to stay "close to governments," an indictment that The Establishment gains and controls its privileged status through political power rather than market competition. Many of the self-proclaimed pillars of capitalism are in reality capitalist failures who seek and constantly rely on bailouts from the American taxpayers. Had Ken Lay's Enron, Dwayne Andreas' ADM, Jack Welch's GE, George Schultz's Bechtel, David Rockefeller's Chase Bank, or the recent airline industry's CEOs not seek bailouts, corporate welfare and exclusive government contracts, laundered through national security and foreign policy, they would have floundered under a real competitive marketplace. However, thanks to their brotherhood CFR connections, they continue to profit.

Members come from predominantly affluent circles and upbringings, as well as from those individuals with a self-serving sense of extreme ambition, elitism, and ultimate disdain for humanity. Its membership represents the interests of a governing American upper social class which owns a disproportionate share of the country's wealth, contributes a disproportionate number of its members to governmental bodies and decision-making groups, and dominates the policy-making process.

You may join the CFR only by invitation, and although the CFR has just 4000 members they are nearly all current and former senior U.S. government officials who deal with international matters, renown scholars, and leaders of business, media, human rights, humanitarian, and other non-governmental groups.

The grand political facade is best exposed by the fact that George Bush Sr. pledged both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot's membership in the CFR club.

Bilderberg Group: Originally named for the Dutch hotel where the first meeting was held in 1954, the Bilderberg meeting is a private annual gathering for the politically and corporate influential, with revolving representation from the world's western leaders in global banking, education, politics, business, military, and the media. Group founder, Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, a protege of the Rothschild family, once said, "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 supra-national body".

Many political careers seem to dramatically soar after attending their first Bilderberg meeting, including Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair. Once the groomed politicians meet the Establishment's approval as their chosen representatives, the machination is set into motion to convince the various citizenry's to elect these candidates. Henry Kissinger's 1991 Bilderberg address underscores their one-world government intent by saying "today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government." This scenario is a prophetic blueprint to our current war on terrorism's stratagem.

Though formally claiming their meetings are only healthy debates, even its members concede that Bilderberg debates do have a global impact on political, economic and military policies, a debate that circumvents our democratic process. At previous meetings, a common European currency and US-China relations were discussed before their respective governments became involved.

Trilateral Commission: Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others to foster cooperation among the big three industrial powers of the U.S., Europe and Japan, utilizing its future influential members to design a multinational consolidation of the four centers of power--- political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical--- in the formation of a one-world government.

Overlapping membership frequently occurs within these three organizations, as throughout corporate board rooms, helping to consolidate their interests. Both the Bilderbergers and the Trilateralists insist on anonymity of its attendees, no media coverage, and closed-door meetings. If their discussions are truly for the common good, why not tell the world?

Revolving door politics and influence is a golden key of opportunity for the members of these stealth organizations. In his final address, President Eisenhower warned about the dangers of such a controlling organization in government. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
His warning was dutifully noted but few heeded his words. Kennedy appointed Dean Rusk, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, to be his Secretary of State, Ford Motors president Robert McNamara, who later served as head of the World Bank, was Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, Investment banker C. Douglas Dillon was Kennedy's Secretary of the Treasury.

In recent administrations, presidential cabinet members have included George Schultz with Bechtel, Dick Cheney with Haliburton, Robert Rubin with Citibank, and Bush Sr., Frank Carlucci and Jame Baker III with the Carlysle Group, each making millions from their insider influence peddling in the private sector. Even President Obama's administration is heavily weighted with CFR members.

The illusion of ideological differences between the two political parties that is conveyed to the unsuspecting American public is best summarized by the advice of former CFR and cabinet member Henry Cabot Lodge to his colleagues "Is there anything we can APPEAR to do?" This charade is given credibility and legitimacy by the controlling CFR influence of top management within corporate media. In reality, a uni-party collusion between the CFR represented politicians and their corporate counterparts continues to solidify and presses its totalitarian agenda.

To insure their power, the Establishment covers their bases. For decades, presidential candidates from both parties have been CFR members. When Bush, Cheney, McCain, Bradley, Gore, and Lieberman, all CFR members. touted the corporate globalization agenda such as NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, World Bank, ad nauseum, one could question where their loyalties might be. in the event that a presiding president's administration gets caught in some unsavory practice, the chosen legislators that head the investigative committees are often members of the CFR; thus, the truth is never revealed and the issue is quietly swept away. During Clinton's Whitewater investigation, Jim Leach, House Republican from Iowa (CFR) directed the investigation. During George W. Bush's tenure, Lieberman (CFR) Dodd (CFR) and Levin (CFR) headed committees that investigated the Bush Administration while Paul Volker, former Federal Reserve and Trilateral Commission chairman, was named chairman of an oversight committee for the International Accounting Standards Board to review recent lapses in accounting ethics.

The governmental solution presented for disciplinary or reform action is often presented by one of their own foxes watching their henhouse, assuring no constructive changes are even implemented. Through the influence of revolving door politics, corporate executives are assigned to direct public regulatory agencies that dismantle the very laws that were designed to protect the public from the abuses of corporations.

For a quick examination into the media's influence on public opinion, consider the virtual monopolistic view of the CFR promotes through mainstream media. Think you're getting the true scoop on the Sunday talk shows? They might as well call this political commentary the CFR Misinformation News Hour. You have CFR guests from both Republican and Democratic parties interviewed by CFR journalists (George Stephanopoulos, Diane Sawyer, George Will) with CFR commercial sponsorship (Archer Daniel Midlands, Merrill Lynch, IBM, etc.). Switch to PBS, you say? Jim Lehrer (CFR) will also make sure the incriminating questions are never asked.

Under the guise of risk management, multinational corporations' global conquest may encounter risks, so when private insurers are unwilling to accept the risks, corporations turn to national and multilateral government agencies which offer investment guarantees and political risk insurance backed by taxpayers.

These companies have even cornered the market on the cures for the very ills they create. General Electric, which owns four of the largest air-polluting companies, is the largest producer of air pollution equipment. Dupont, one of the largest toxic waste producers, has created a lucrative line of toxic waste disposal services and Westinghouse, which earns its money selling nuclear weapons, also profiteers from selling equipment to clean up its mess. Also, alcohol companies own rehabilitation centers and tobacco companies own cancer clinics. A vicious cycle.

The processes of corporate power do not work in isolation. The economic and legal mechanisms that allow the privatization of the commonwealth, externalization of costs, predatory economic practices, political influence-buying, manipulation of regulation and deregulation, control of the media, and the use of police and military forces to protect the property of wealthy, all of these work synergistically to weave a complex web of power. The institutionalization of multinational corporations and banks is exemplified through the structural adjustment programs of the World bank and the international Monetary Fund. These programs channel more of the debtor country's financial and productive resources to war debt payment, an extortion process which ultimately opens easy access for American and Western European companies to exploit these countries' cheap sources of labor and raw materials.

These world institutions serve to extend the concept of colonialism or feudalism globally, circumventing other countries', (including our own) national sovereignty, representative democracies, and ultimately the citizen's wishes, while instead serving the corporate elite and wealthiest shareholders' interests. This financial blackmail is dictated by the international banking leadership with such a ruthless fanaticism to the unsuspecting governments and citizens, the results are consistent. The countries are left in financial and social turmoil, in places as diverse as Bolivia, South Korea, Russia, Nigeria, and Mexico. The shallow premise that these world financial institutions' leaders are guided by benevolence is tragically false, easily recognized when one peruses the disastrous reality of these institutions' actions. in a leaked internal document, CFR member Lawrence Summers proposed in 1991 that the World bank encourage the migration of dirty industries and toxic waste toward less developed countries

Our present reality so strongly resembles a complete Orwellian 1984 chapter and verse, that you wonder if his warning has become the how-to manual by the very people Orwell warned us about; global alliances and perpetual war, political and mainstream media double-speak and perverse definitions of "war is peace" and "peace is war" have become today's normalcy.a

Fortunately, this darker tale of humanity has a hopeful side, a hope that resides with us. The 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protest in Seattle marked the consolidation of previously diverse social, labor, and environmental activist groups, each finding a common enemy within the ranks of the multinationals and their institutions, creating the birth of the anti-globalization movement. The movement is organized locally, nationally, and internationally, reaching across borders, creating a vibrant web of organizations, communities and networks. People are demanding greater participation in the decision-making process, including ways to exert more democratic control over the multinational corporations as well as questioning these world institutions' policies and legitimacy.

Friday, July 13, 2012

The Secret Code - The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code question regarding the Holy Grail that the early medieval writers asked was "who does it serve?" Well, let's have a look at the current Grail world and see if it is serving us, or are we serving it?

Very briefly and for those among us who have been on the planet Sanity for the last few of years, the Da Vinci Code is a fiction based around a man who discovers a code that reveals the true identity of the Holy Grail to be nothing more than the very bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.

Unfortunately the author, Dan Brown, claimed his now infamous book to be based upon real factual organisations and events. This however could not be farther from the truth.

Priory of Sion

This supposedly ancient and enigmatic group allegedly once had Leonardo da Vinci himself as a Grand Master, not to mention Nicolas Flamel and Isaac Newton. However, there is no truth in it at all. Sion was the name of a hill nearby the residences of Pierre Plantard and Gerade de Sede - two of the original creators of the Priory of Sion hoax.

The documents of the Priory secreted in the Biblioteque Nationale in Paris have been proven to be forgeries. In fact the only truthful copies of anything for Mr Plantard in the Paris Library are newsletters from the 1950's for a rather boring housing association, complaining about the state of the streets, and even this is in extremely poor French.

All the instigators of this surrealist hoax have admitted their creation on record. On the one hand they said it was a surrealist joke and on the other a kind of egotistical ploy to be accepted by society.

Sang Real

One of the main pieces of evidence for the books about the bloodline of Christ, from Holy Blood, Holy Grail to The Templar Revelation has been the interpretation of the original term used for the Holy Grail - San Graal. In the 80's book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent et al, we find that they interpret this differently, placing the g from graal onto the end of san, making sang real. This then translates as royal or holy blood. Mistaking a simple error by a 15th century writer - the only ever time the error was made until the 1980's - they based an entire theory upon something that was simply not true. Sir Walter Skeat, one of the greatest etymologists England has ever created even said a hundred years ago that this error was "very early falsified" and for what ends he did not know. He pointed out that in fact the original concept meant mixing bowl, which of course relates entirely with the theory I put forward in The Serpent Grail.

Leonardo da Vinci

So, now that we know the true etymology of san graal and that the Priory of Sion never in fact existed, we should also know that Leonardo could not have been a grand master of a none existing order that protected a secret that also didn't exist.

In fact, all the historical background and information on Leonardo reveals that he was a skilled and wonderful artist - so no great revelation there then.

However, there are those strange elements of his paintings, which the Da Vinci Code and others pick up on. Take the female looking character in the Last Supper for instance. Many have pointed to the fact that this individual looks remarkably feminine. Well, he does. Others have pointed to the Mona Lisa as being not quite feminine enough and that surely the sitter must have been a boy. Using these assumptions many have claimed that Leonardo was therefore homosexual. It is more and more amusing by the day just how far this rubber band can be stretched, before it comes hurtling back and hits somebody in the face.

So what is the truth? Is that a lady in the Last Supper? No.

There was a tradition of painting the disciple that Christ loved, John the Evangelist, as a slightly boyish individual, thereby bringing questions to the mind of many as to whether Jesus himself was gay. In fact I discovered this to be part of an ancient Gnostic tradition whereby the two Johns, John the Baptist and John the Evangelist, were two sides to the duality - male and female, positive and negative, which needed to be rejoined in-order to be complete. Therefore John the Evangelist was perceived as the feminine principle in this relation, whereas John the Baptist was the manly bearded wild figure.

It was also part of the hidden tradition of the painter's guild of the time to include androgynous elements within their paintings for this very reason. This androgynous element is there as a symbol of the the union of opposites mentioned before, of man and woman, of male and female, of the two sides of our mind which need bringing into union once again to form the perfect human.

Did Jesus and Mary marry and have children?

To answer this one we need to break it down.

Firstly, if Jesus married Mary Magdalene then we have to admit that Jesus and Mary existed in the first place. Although we have a substantial amount of textual evidence for these biblical characters, this is due to the sheer amount of copying being carried out hundreds of years after the supposed event. We have no actual texts naming either character from the period, most of the texts date hundreds of years after.

Even if we do admit that these people were real, then we would have to admit that Jesus did walk on water, cast out demons into pigs and die and resurrect. That, or we would have another option: That the character of Jesus, just like that of Robin Hood and King Arthur, was based upon a real man somewhere and all the extra mythical and mystical elements were added into the story. Just as Robin married Marion (Mary) and Arthur married Guinevere, so too in this way - that is mythical - Jesus may have married Mary - even though there is no textual evidence for this.

Both Marion and Mary are the same and imply water and wisdom. Guinevere comes from similar roots especially as the queen of heaven, which was a title for Mary the Mother of Jesus and Isis the Mother of Horus- and as many scholars have pointed out the two Mary's may in fact be amalgamations of a much older myth.

Guinevere is also the 'queen of serpents' and therefore knowledge and wisdom and her name is related in etymology to Eve which means female serpent and is an indication of wisdom.

Just as the early Christian church was forming groups such as the Gnostic Ophites or serpent worshippers, raising their communion cup to the good serpent they were also splitting the threefold mother goddess - Mary - into distinct parts. First the Mother Mary, then the Sister Mary and then Mary Magdalene, a mysterious element and we shall see why.

Mary the mother is Isis the mother of Horus. As Horus is the son and in fact reincarnation of Osiris, so Isis or Mary is also his sister and lover. She is all three, the feminine trinity. Mary Magdalene therefore is the hidden lover of Jesus who is both God and the Son of God, just like Horus. And all of this mystery tradition relates back to the ancient serpent cult as Isis, Osiris and Horus had strong associations with the creative, wise and immortal serpent. The same feminine trinity can in fact also be found in Celtic myth and even India with Kali.

Jesus was eventually likened to the Mosaic "brazen serpent in the wilderness" and imaged hundreds of times as a serpent upon the cross. Here we have that parallel with Arthur, whose name, Pendragon, means "head serpent" or "head of the serpent."

Now that we can see with just these few examples there is a real code afoot. An ancient code going right back into ancient Egypt and beyond, through Osiris and Isis and to Enki and Ninkhursag in Sumeria and Mesopotamia who were known themselves as serpent priests or doctors.

But what is this code telling us?

Simply that in-order to give birth to our own messiah or anointing, or in-order to save ourselves, we need to be in union with wisdom, which is symbolized as both water and the serpent - hence Arthur Pendragon and his wife the Queen of Serpents, or the early Enki and Ninkhursag, who were serpent deities or Shining Ones and were therefore symbols of enlightenment. God was upon the face of the waters of the deep in Genesis, so too must we submerge ourselves in wisdom in-order to bring about the divine creation within us.

So, now we understand that Jesus and Mary in union could be a metaphor or indeed a copy of this ancient system, what are we left with?

The truth of the Da Vinci Code is in fact more real than people know. Jesus and Mary did marry, in the Gnostic sense and not the literal sense. They did spawn a child and he was known simply as Gnosis. However, the evil twin brother known as Catholicism tried to wipe him out, like Set tried to destroy Osiris, or Mordred killed Arthur or the Sheriff of Nottingham killed Robin. In the end Set, Mordred and the Sheriff were themselves brought down, so what will be the verdict on the Catholic Church?

This hidden truth behind the veil of the literal Christianity hides the real truth of the Holy Grail, that it, like alchemy, is a work on the self. The question now is, who does it serve?

Well, one thing we do know, the organisations spoken of in the Da Vinci Code, such as the Jesuits and the Opus Dei, have indeed tried to keep this self empowering truth from mankind. The reason for this is simple, with the knowledge of our own god-head we no longer need a priest or a church and so they lose wealth and power. Let's take a look at some of these organisations and see just what they have been up to.

The Society of Jesus or Jesuits was founded in 1540 by St. Ignatius Loyola and since then has grown from the original seven to nearly 30000 members who work out of nearly 2000 houses in over 100 countries. According to J. Parnell McCarter in his Puritan News Service, Ignatius was himself a Gnostic illuminist - a member of the Alumbrados of Spain, his home. These Alumbrados were quite simply the Spanish version of the infamous Illuminati - bringing full circle the Jesuits being created by an Illuminati and then going on to create an Illuminati. All of this was occurring at the same time as the rise in Freemasonic thought.

What is known about Ignatius is that he was a Spanish Basque soldier who then supposedly underwent an extraordinary conversion while recuperating from a broken leg. His experiences were written down and he called them Spiritual Exercises, going on later to found the Society of Jesus or Jesuits with the approval of Pope Paul III in 1540. Strangely upon the printing of his Spiritual Exercises in 1548 he was brought before the Inquisition, but was later released.

According to the Catholic Church the Jesuits have become renowned for their sanctity, which basically means that they have had many members Canonised or Blessed. They have been involved in many scientific discoveries and in the exploration or indeed exploitation of the New World.

From the start the Pope was overwhelmed with the Jesuit service, becoming his secret police, collector of information and general bully-boys, much akin to the history of the Alumbrados (Illuminated Ones.) On the face of it the Jesuits were opening schools, making amazing discoveries and sending missionaries out across the world. In fact it is claimed by the Catholic Church that no Order has ever had so many martyrs. Stamping out a culture or pagan religion often brings dangers and martyrdom.

The skill of Ignatius Loyola was in the gathering around him of an energetic band of well-educated and determined men. Ignatius had the concept of supplying the Church with missionaries such as Francis Xavier, who would preach and administer the sacraments, whilst growing the Church's membership and gathering huge amounts of information.

Ignatius soon discovered that colleges and universities offered the greatest service to the church, for by and through religious instruction, the Jesuits could manipulate the thinkers in addition to the masses manipulated in church on a Sunday.

In 1773 Pope Clement XIV yielded to Bourbon pressure and reduced the power of the Jesuits on the surface. The Jesuits followed orders and disbanded temporarily until 1814 when they were brought back together again. Like the Knights Templar before them the Jesuits simply assumed other roles. As if to prove that the Jesuits were ultimately obedient to the Pope in 1590 Pope Sixtus V wanted to take out the name Jesus from the official name of the society, to which the Jesuits duly complied - although Sixtus then surprisingly died - the questions arise who killed him and does this really show obedience to the Pope?

Today the Jesuits are back in force, with schools, colleges and universities across the world. At any one time they are educating over half a million people. Ex-President Mitterand of France was himself a Jesuit and it was he who instigated the infamous pyramid of light at the Louvre in Paris.

There is a subtle undercurrent running beneath the cover of this Catholic Order - it is a current of illumination now bastardised as a secret truth and hidden from our eyes by the clever manipulating of religion for the masses. But they also have links in the world of commerce and politics.


This modern day group of the powerful elite has been accused on an international basis of forming the brains behind a new world order. On the other hand, they themselves claim that the Bilderberg Group is simply a meeting of those in power in-order to discuss in a free and easy way the concerns of the world leaders.

What does appear to have come out of the meetings are two other groups also called to bare by the conspiracy theorists - namely the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

"One of the key institutions that has fostered unity and cooperation with the Atlantic Community beyond the old concepts has been the Bilderberg Group." Bilderberg: The Cold War Internationale, 1971, Eugene Pasymowski and Carl Gilbert. origins of this group rest with one man, Joseph Retinger, a Catholic who had links to the Jesuit Order who we have just seen have been manipulating in the background for centuries. He even recommended the turning of Hungary, Austria and Poland into a tripartite state under the guidance of the Jesuits Order. The plan was however, dropped.

"I remember Retinger in the United States picking up the telephone and immediately making an appointment with the President, and in Europe he had complete entrée in every political circle as a kind of right acquired through trust, devotion and loyalty he inspired." Sir Edward Bedington-Behrens.

A good war record, Retinger was certainly involved in secret and underground works, even parachuting into occupied Germany at the age of 58.

He found the European Movement, which gave rise to the Council of Europe in 1949 who set up in Strasbourg from where Retinger worked.

Retinger believed in unity and to that end it did not really matter how the unity was brought about. He certainly involved big business and the influence that they created within the general public - we are, after all, tied to our television screens and led by marketing men.

Involving Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, Retinger began his crusade by starting on America, who he believed to be essential to world "peace." The Prince held an important position in Royal Dutch Petroleum or Shell and was involved in several international corporations, and so had influence that the Americans and others would adhere to.

In 1952 it was proposed by Retinger that there should be an open and frank discussion between the disparate organisations and individuals that controlled the world. This should be in secret to allow those taking part to air their views without the worry of it appearing in the newspapers the next day.

This was the birth of the Bilderberg Group, which was named after the hotel in Oosterbeek, where the meetings were originally held in May 1954.

"In short, Bilderberg is a recognised, flexible and informal international leadership forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced." Bilderberg Meetings, 1989

Well, make of that what you will, but before we conclude we ought to take a brief look at the Opus Dei, another of the groups implicated by Dan Brown.

Opus Dei means simply the 'work of God' and although they claim not to be a sect due to their authority being derived from the Catholic Church, they act like one.

I did find in my own researchers that Opus Dei were in fact more than incidental in the Franco regime and in fact helped with the financial organising of the regimes political desires. It was Opus Dei members who were in charge of the Ministries of Finance to such an extent that some Spanish writers called them the Spanish Mafia. And today, in almost every country of the Western world, whether Catholic or not there are Opus Dei members in positions of incredible political power. In England the Opus Dei have recruited many females and one of these is actually in government. Ruth Kelly is the British Secretary of State for Education and was recruited, along with her brother, Dr Ronan Kelly, at Oxford University. So, even when a female is "allowed" to be in government, she is governed herself by the male dominated Catholic Opus Dei - a society where she can never achieve ascendancy over a man and must follow the dogma and doctrine of a male dominated religion. Her beliefs are governed by the male Church and thereby her decisions whilst in power will come under the scrutiny of her male masters in the Opus Dei.

An indication of the kind of control comes from the founder of Opus Day Josemaria Escriva's book The Way:

"You shall not buy books without the advice of an experienced Christian. It is so easy to buy something useless or mischievous. Often people believe they are carrying a book under their arm ... but they only carry a load of mud." (Josemaria Escriva, The Way, P339)

This is obvious control, leaving the authorisation of a book to the orthodoxy is no better than banning it. It is part of the "childhood in front of the Opus", whereby members are to sacrifice their very will to the work of God, trusting the leaders with their soul. According to some ex-members this control stretches as far as having their own private mail read in-order to censor ungodly material. In another way I too will now draw down their censors because anybody who criticises them is "fair game." There is little surprise in this kind of fascism being present in their doctrine when one considers that they were created in 1928 at the dawn of Italian fascism.

So all I can say is beware of this group, there is too much control on your life and what you wish to think. They are even clever in spreading their net as The Way shows:

"Ally yourself with the guardian angel of the person you want to win for your apostolate - He is always a good accomplice''. P563

There is little difference here to the way secret societies and even secret services gather their flock. This can be seen in the following statements from The Way (p643 and 655):

"do not reveal the secrets of your apostolate" and

"I can not stop to tell you about the importance of "discretion". Maybe it is not the spire of your weapon but at least it is the handle of it."

Indeed, they are very open about the fact that they gather intelligent and wealthy individuals to their cause, claiming that these make good shepherds. The same is true of the secret services, who also gather around Universities and Colleges to pick off their prospective members.

So what is the truth? Does the Catholic Church have its tentacles in every part of the globe? Are they at the centre of a huge web of control? I have said on many occasions - if you want to win a football match, then own both teams. This is a skill that mankind has used for centuries, playing both sides. The historical evidence shows that the Jesuit Order, and now the Opus Dei have been at the centre of the growth of wealth, at the heart of power and control. What more do we need to understand that our religious leaders are not always there for the love of God? And just who is promulgating this "bloodline" nonsense? Who owns team Brown?

Philip Gardiner is the best selling author of The Shining Ones, The Serpent Grail, Gnosis: The Secret of Solomon’s Temple Revealed and Proof – Does God Exist? His website is [] He will be appearing on international television later this year with a documentary about the Freemasons as well as several other tv, radio and media appearances. He does tours through and will be hosting the huge Forbidden Knowledge Conference in the UK in July 2006. Following that he will be racing over to the States for TV and radio and then off to field trips and location shoots around the world.

Key Geopolitical Controversies Facing America In 2012 And Beyond I finished THE ROAD TO 9/11, put it in the FINISHED pile and reached for the top book in the TO READ pile. It turned out to be THE CHOICE by Zbigniew Brzezinski. I knew the name, of course, and that he had been a National Security Advisor, belonged to the Bilderberger Group, and was the founder of the Trilateral Commission. I didn't know his political positions in detail, but did realize that his positions and mine were more than worlds apart. The fact his name is associated with The New World Order condemns him all by itself. While thumbing through the book to see what I was in for, I ran across a list of issues that he considered vital to America's future. I hatched the idea that it would be interesting to explain my positions on each item before reading the book, so that I could get a good picture of the match between his outlook and my own.

While anybody reading this knows in at least general terms what Brzezinski stands for, they do not know what I stand for. Therefore, a brief description of my background and political-ideological orientation should help the reader "position" my arguments.

For my undergraduate degree I majored in wood science in forestry school (wood anatomy, wood physics, wood chemistry, wood drying and treating, etc., a pretty demanding program) and also financial management. I received my MBA from a very unusual program which was heavily geared toward preparing electrical engineers at Western Electric, at that time the manufacturing arm of AT&T, for advancement to junior management positions. It differed from traditional MBA programs in that its goal was to provide students with information they could actually USE on the job, and I profited from it immensely. I also have 66% of a Masters degree in History. After several years in wood industry management and five years as a general contractor in the Napa Valley in California, I entered the marketing program as a PhD. Student at Arizona State University. the last twenty five years I have taught marketing strategy from a geopolitical perspective because marketing has become heavily involved with what's happing all over the world. My views of the world are nearly antithetical to those of Brzezinski. For example, I believe that the New World Order is a nightmarish product of a social and intellectual elite that has never "worked" for a living. I am a libertarian in both the Big L and Little L sense, meaning I am a member of the Libertarian Party as well as possessing an instinctive belief in freedom and choice for everyone. Some would call me an Anarcho-Libertarian because I believe that we should have the most minimal government involvement possible in our lives. I served on the outposts of the New World Order in the early sixties, and firmly believe that the very conbept of a New World Order is completely impossible. We should keep our troops at home and let the rest of the world kill itself off without bothering us. So, what follows are my own views on the questions raised by Brzezinski, without reference to his views.

1. What are the main threats to America?

One threat facing America involves the New World Order and its attempts to subvert our legitimate government and put ht under the governance of agents of the Bilderbergers or the Trilateral Commission. Several people in our government or those in the past are connected with the Bilderbergers. It seems highly likely that Barak Obama was assisted into the presidency by Bilderbergers or associates. We appear to have been deliberately driven to near bankruptcy by Bush's policies which Obama has continued but at an even more ruinous level of spending. Some Web articles state that we are right at the verge of default, which Obama seems to have been working for. Now that the presidential eligibility issue is active in the courts, Obama may become more desperate and make more overt moves to cripple us before his time runs out. I am far from confident that Obama would go to extreme measures to protect us from terrorism. He seems prone to making huge concessions to Islam.

Another threat, which according to past experience is nearly as damaging as the Bilderbergers is Islamic terrorism. Although I don't believe that Muslims were behind the Trade Center destruction, it appears that they are carrying on a constant stream of relatively minor attacks such as bombing attempts on airliners. It appears that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons and its desire to use them against the U.S. is clear. Until just lately it seemed that there would be no attempt to disrupt Iran's plans, but in the last few days it is seems that there is some sort of international effort under way against Iran, but the details are not yet clear.

Islam also poses a threat from another direction. There appears to be a major effort to build up the Muslim populations in selected countries, staying dormant until they reach a tipping point when they will go active. That's happened in several European countries and could happen here.

Obama's show of weakness has also enticed allies to act against our best interests. An alliance between Brazil and Turkey seems close to fruition if it has not already occurred.

Although our industrial might has been literally ripped out of the country, nobody from any political faction seems to have even made plans to stop this process or build new industries that we can maintain. The next presidential election is more than two years out but no one with any substantial political power has shown signs of preparing for such a move. Newt Gingrich has made vague musings about a run, and has revived his presence somewhat with the publication of a recent book, but there is no one showing signs of a serious run. Mitt Romney shows signs of interest, but I understand that he is a Mormon and therefore stands little chance of winning a national election. Everyone assumes Obama will seek a second term but judging by his aggressive actions on his agenda and the possibility of an adverse ruling on his eligibility to serve as President, I suspect that he knows a second term is unlikely, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he intends to do all the damage he can and step aside. In that case, Hillary Clinton would seem to be a shoo-in.

Another threat is the immigration bomb. All the top people seem to assume that whites will be a minority in another decade or two. The real danger is not the addition to the population itself but the makeup of the increase. Mexicans and other Latin Americans will almost certainly dominate immigration by far, but it's not clear that they have those qualities needed to maintain and build a leading economy. I've written a paper that we should seriously consider bringing in Chinese, but this idea will probably not gain any traction.

2. Given its hegemonic status, is America entitled to more security than other nations?

A country is entitled to all the security it can afford and the willingness to spend

its financial resources. Security is not an entitlement so it's not a question of whether it is entitled to more security, but to what lengths it is willing to go to protect itself. A key security measure would involve bringing our entire military forces home instead of spreading them all over the world. When countries we spend billions on for protection begin building their own military facilities abroad to serve their own purposes, such as is the case with Japan building a base in North Africa, there is no justification to spend scarce financial resources protecting them. It has been made quite clear by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, that nation building is a no win undertaking for us. People need to be willing to do and spend what it takes to protect them. If the protection they need is beyond their reach, it is not our responsibility to provide it for them. They need to develop the alliances and mutual protection agreements necessary to protect themselves, or come to terms with a possible invader, not rely on us for their protection. We have worked hard and invested billions in our own defense. We are entitled to the protection are willing and able to pay for.

3. How should America cope with potentially lethal threats that emanate not from powerful rivals but from weak foes?

We should try to convert them from foes to at least neutrals. If this is not possible, we should target them with nuclear weapons and inform them of that fact. We should also deploy other damaging but not-lethal weapons, such as biological, chemical, or fuel-air bombs. I understand that there are at present approximately twenty five nuclear capable countries. Obama's wish to eliminate all nuclear weapons is a dangerous fantasy, these countries did not sacrifice to create these forces just to destroy them. A no first strike policy is unrealistic today. Rather than sending our citizens abroad to fight conventional wars that kill many and disable more, we should make it clear that as a last resort nuclear weapons are no longer off the table. Maintaining our President's intention to reduce nuclear weapons and his*unwillingness to employ them only creates the opportunity for weak foes to nibble at our assets around the world as long as they maintain their aggression below the level that would provoke a response on our part.

We need to show the world, especially Islam, that we are no longer going to be bled to death. Today, the term "weak foes" essentially means Islamic countries. What weak non-Islamic countries threaten us? Islam is not a rational religion by our standards nor is there a rational Islamic country. The only thing that will deter them is the threat of overwhelming response to aggression, and there is no sense in risking our citizens' lives to limit their actions. If anyone attacks our citizens here or abroad, or our facilities, they should look up to see that incoming streak in the sky. We have to accept that SOMEONE, sooner or later, IS going to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle. Nuclear disarmament is not a realistic goal. Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in order to destroy them, and there is no force on Earth that could convince the Israelis to give up their nuclear weapons. We need to convince the rest of the world that we will not be a passive target. It might be possible with today's technology to use fuel-air bombs, or non-lethal chemical or biological weapons without resorting to nuclear weapons.

4. Can America manage its long-term relationship with the Islamic world, many of whose 1.2 billion people increasingly view America as implacably hostile?

NO. We have markedly different world views that neither we nor Muslims are going to change to any great extent. Psychologically, we live in different worlds, and we are not going to adapt too much to please them, and they are probably not going to adapt at all. In the past, the majority of immigrants to this country were European, and in a broad sense, were able and willing to adapt enough to live here with a minimum of violence. The same thing used to apply to Mexicans. While some, mostly elders, chose to cling to their own language and customs, by and large Mexicans fit in enough that discord, and especially physical hostilities remained at a minimum. Today, however, there is increasing hostility between two peoples that had lived together mostly harmoniously for several generations. Mexicans are taught by several nationalistic organizations and even by the Mexican government that they "own" western America and want it back. They not only don't attempt to acculturate, but intentionally abuse our social systems. They contribute considerably to our health care costs, consume public services and welfare payments, damage entire neighborhoods, drive without licenses or insurance, and vote illegally. Illegals are actually taken by busses from precinct to precinct by "community activists" to cast illegal ballots.

Geert Hofstede has developed a long accepted method of analyzing different cultures. The closer in culture people are, the more likely they are to get along. Conversely, the more different they are, the more likely they are to experience conflict. The latest statistics I've seen are about ten years old, but I think the conclusions still hold. Of the approximately fifty wars that rage constantly around the world at any one time, almost all of them are within countries between people of different cultures. From my own studies, it appears that as a rough rule of thumb, peace will tend to exist when one culture dominates all others. A very rude approximation seems to indicate that as long as a country remains roughly seventy percent of one culture, peace prevails even if uneasy. When there is no clearly dominant culture, conflict and war almost inevitably follow.

France and England provide good examples. When France consisted mostly of Frenchmen (what a quaint notion), Algerian Muslim residents caused almost no problems. As the balance of cultures changed, latent conflict increased. I don't know the exact percentages of each culture, but within the last ten years or so Muslims achieved near parity with native Frenchmen and started demanding more and more accommodations. They wanted restrictions on women's dress relaxed or increased. They demanded that schools adapt to Islamic standards, including teaching religion in public schools and adapt to Arab speaking youths. I don't know if Muslims have actually reached parity with the French, but articles on European web sites state that the French have lost control of their country to Muslims. They have allowed Muslims to choose to follow Sharia law, which seems incredibly strict toward women. So now citizens of France live under two different legal systems that are not very compatible.

England is obviously worried about the same trend there, but seems a little more determined to maintain its own dominance. While Muslims have adopted such tactics as creating huge traffic jams at rush hour, so far the English have refused to have a dual justice system. Reportedly, many English people recognized that the country needed more workers, but doubt that they made a good choice in turning to Muslims. Interestingly, England's population replacement rate is noticeably lower than ours.

To refocus on the question, I don't believe that we can maintain peaceful relations with a society that encourages suicide bombers, honors Islamic hijackers of all types, totally refuses to recognize the legitimacy of other religions, puts women to death for actions that we in the West consider normal, bury alive teenage daughters who have had sex, and whose leaders have repeatedly stated that they are going to rule the entire world according to Islamic law.

5. Can America act decisively to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given the overlapping but legitimate claims of two peoples to the same land?

No, it is not going to happen. As explained above, Muslims do not believe that it is correct to tolerate other religions. Beyond the restrictions of the question, Muslims are never going to rest while there is a Jew alive in the world. Some Islamic leaders say that it is possible and desirable to share land with the Jews, but they are being less than forthright. I have several videos of important Islamic religious leaders yelling at huge crowds that Islam cannot rest while a single Jew remains alive. They are VERY convincing.

6. What is needed to create political stability in the volatile new "Global Balkans" located in the southern rim of Central Eurasia?

Aside from sorting out the various ethnic and religious groups and somehow keeping them apart, there is no chance of maintaining political stability in the area. And such a sorting process is extremely unlikely to occur.

7. Can America forge a genuine partnership with Europe, given Europe's slow progress to political unity but increasing economic might?

This question was asked six years ago when the phrase "Europe's increasing economic might" was not a joke. Again, we are talking about unifying people of very different cultures. Given my background in history and culture, I think it is irresponsible to claim that achieving a useful measure of unity in such a diverse group is even possible. Let's look at what they are trying to do. To start with an example, they want to accomplish a meaningful unity between Germany and Greece. Can we possibly imagine a greater clash of cultures and the "mental world" each country lives in? Germany is disciplined, Greece is not. Germany takes life seriously, Greece does not. Germany sees economic solvency as a fundamental and mandatory ingredient of nationhood, Greece has no idea what that means. Germany believes that sound and cross generational financial, economic, cultural, political, scientific and philosophic institutions are what really make a country. Greece says "Hunh?' Germany lost two world wars but was not "defeated." England won both wars but was "defeated."

And just what, exactly, do we mean by "economic might?" Do we mean Gross Domestic Product? Well, some are much bigger than others, so that won't do. Do we mean Gross Domestic Product per capita? I'm no economist, don't believe in them, actually, but this sounds reasonable. So when we say "Europe's increasing economic might," do we mean that all of the countries have the same Gross Domestic Product per capita? Uh, well, probably not. What I suspect it means is that a handful are doing pretty well, while all the rest are nealyr basket cases. What I expect we can honestly say is that Germany, and two or three others, are doing well, but most are not. What I think is, just like "the Emperor has no clothes," "there really is no "Europe." What I strongly suspect is the reality of the case of "Europe," is that you have Germany, Country B, Country C, and maybe Country D.

So the real question is, "Can we forge a genuine partnership with Germany?" I read somewhere that Germany and Russia are getting closer together. That probably makes sense for Germany, and definitely makes sense for Russia. But does this mean that we can't forge a genuine partnership with Germany? Or, to really think outside the box, could we include Russia? Do the United States and Russia HAVE to be at each other's throats? When I was just a kid, probably not even in school yet, Germany and Russia lost MILLIONS of men fighting each other over one city. Now the word is that they are working together. If THEY can do that, why can't we?

So, my answer to the question is no, because there is no "Europe." I spent all four years of high school in a Department of Defense high school in Frankfurt, Germany. I never learned German because I couldn't cough, choke, and gurgle all at the same time, but I met lots of Germans and even worked with them in the Post Exchange. They are GOOD people. Even the working class. We worked with them all through the Cold War. I see no hope of working with "Europe," but we could definitely work with the Germans if they wanted to. And the Russians? The Russians will always make us nervous because they MUST secure their borders, having no natural boundaries. But I don't think they want to conquer the world anymore, if they ever did. Sure we could work together as a Group of Three. But forget "Europe." There isn't one.

8. Can Russia, no longer a rival to America, be drawn into an American-led Atlantic framework?

Sure, but I don't think we should join in. The Bildergergers, the Trilateralists, and the CFRs all want that, but what's in it for us? Old wisdom is often very good wisdom. Either Washington, Jefferson, or Sam Jones said, "Friendly relationships with all, entangling alliances with none." We forgot that when Wilson wanted into World War I, even though we could have stayed neutral and saved the lives of thousands of American troops, Wilson suckered us into the war anyway. Did the sacrifice that resulted accomplish anything? Not for us.

We forgot that lesson when Roosevelt tricked us into World War II, even though we could have stayed neutral and saved the lives of thousands of Americans. Did their sacrifice accomplish anything? Nothing worth their death. But the Japanese ATTACKED us! Not until Roosevelt duped them into it. FDR really wanted to fight the Germans to help the British, but the country wasn't buying it. But Germany and Japan were allies, so if one got into a war with us, the other would declare war on us, too. So Roosevelt cut off Japan's oil. The only other place to get it was way down in the Pacific on the Dutch islands of Java and Sumatra. But Bull Halsey and his aircraft carriers stood in the way. So Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to sink the carriers, but they weren't there. But we were now at war with Japan so Hitler declared war on us, and Roosevelt was tickled pink. But one of my uncles was killed in the Pacific, and I'll NEVER believe it was for a good cause.

Let's get real for a minute. Unless we are attacked again, which is very unlikely, there is no reason for us to be in an Atlantic alliance framework. Europeans have been killing Europeans ever since there were Europeans, and chances are good that they will again. (They also killed a LOT of non-Europeans, but that doesn't count). But it is not our business. We don't need to be in a military alliance with anyone except probably the Canadians. They're good guys. All we would get out of an Atlantic Alliance Framework are dead Americans, and we don't need any more of those. Let the Europeans play the Bilderberger's game while we practice the excellent advice, "Friendly relationships with all, entangling alliances with none." We forgot this advice before. Let's promise ourselves "Never Again." Let someone else's kids die for David Rockefeller, and Kissinger, and Brzezinski, and all those other self-important One World Order Jokers. They're so sick they think our government works for them! I can hear it now: "But that's ISOLATIONISM!" You're damned right it is, and it's a damned good thing. If our kids have to fight someone, let it be the IRS.

9. What should be the American role in the Far East, given Japan's continued but reluctant dependence on the United States, as well as its quietly growing military might, and also given the rise of Chinese power?

America's role in the Far-East should be the same as our role in Europe, discussed in detail above. The short version: Be good trading partners.

10. How likely is it that globalization might breed a coherent counter-doctrine or counter-alliance against America?

Extremely likely, which is why we should stay out of "entangling alliances.

11. Are demography and migration becoming the new threats to global stability?

Not necessarily, but the people of some cultures will fit into ours better than those from a different culture. Political correctness aside, we should pursue people from the most compatible cultures. We should have the wisdom to say who we want here and who we don't, and not just accept anyone who manages to get into the country. Concerning cultural compatibility, review the discussion about Germany and Greece in question 7.

12. How should America respond to the emerging inequality in human affairs, which the current scientific revolution may precipitate and which globalization may precipitate?

If you look at any country there is inequality, including the US. But traditionally those with lots of money invested much of it here, which made most of us reasonably well off. In addition, governments and a lot of private organizations made a huge investment in schools, hospitals, physical infrastructure and invisible infrastructure (think radio). Lately, the extremely rich seem to think its better to invest abroad, which could lead to one of two states: (1) We could learn to adapt and accept a lower standard of living. (2) We could hang them and take all their money. After all, greed is a sin. (I assume my preference is obvious)

In many countries, however, such as India, there is a very tiny super-wealthy class that couldn't care less about the less fortunate. They plow very little of their money back into their country, so much of the population lives in extreme poverty and hunger, with huge child death rates. Persistent conditions like this usually end up in an extremely violent revolt against the wealthy. But the extremely wealthy, if they are in the country at all, keep their Lear Jets ready, and almost none of their wealth is in the country, so they leave little behind for the enraged poor to plunder. The end result of such an uprising is always the same as acceptance of the status quo: starvation, illness, and early death.

How should America respond? Our professional politicians are seldom wise in difficult disciplines like economics, and can be very harsh on business through regulation, taxes, bureaucratic harassment, and a very anti-business attitude.

Conversely, the present administration can't seem to shovel enough money to huge banks and corporations. Hopefully, a tiny bit of this will actually stimulate the economy, and rich economies tend to reduce inequality. Mainly, however, we should keep our requirements for immigration high so we don't become more of a dumping ground for the world's hopeless.

13. Is America's democracy compatible with a hegemonic role, however carefully that hegemony may be camouflaged? How will the security of that special role affect traditional civil rights?

"Hegemonic Role" means someone's kids dieing in some God Forsaken pest hole to save the money and property of the psychopathic rich. This usually means meddling in someone else's country, and leads to "blowback." This is Chalmers Johnson's term which basically means people don't like foreigners meddling in their affairs and they react to such intrusion violently.

As for how our "traditional civil rights" would be affected, Zbigniew obviously meant this as jest. Writing in 2006, he certainly knew that his class had already destroyed them very quickly after 9/11 with the Patriot Acts, the Military commissions act, Presidential Orders, FEMA's construction of concentration camps for citizens, and many other violations of the "Constitution Of Historic Interest Only."

For more information on the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, and the Council of Foreign Relations, see The True Story of the Bilderbergers Group by Daniel Estulin.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

A Thousand Irish Welcomes (Cead Mile Failte) to Obama and the Queen Albert of Monaco's visit to Ireland a fortnight ago, The Dalai Lama's visit this week, the Queen's visit to Ireland in May, and 'el presidento' Barack Obama's sojourn to his ancestral homeland 'the emerald green isle of scholars and saints,' means that Ireland is the place to visit this summer.
Queen Elizabeth has been on the throne for 59 years (surprisingly, it actually feels longer) and Ireland is one of the few countries that she hasn't visited during her reign. While there are historical and cultural reasons why she hasn't been able to visit the 'Irish Free State'-most notably the troubles in the North- her visit marks a watershed in Anglo-Irish (not the now defunct bank) relations.
Barack O'Bama with extra stress placed on the O' is about as Irish as they come, yet this is his first trip to Ireland. He is to visit his ancestral hometown of 'No' MoneyGall, Co.Offaly, where his Irish forebears resided- his great great great grandmother circa 1851. There is a certain sense of nostalgia that resonates in the memory of the Irish when we think about the great bond between America and Ireland. J.F.K's visit to these shores in 1963 attracted hundreds of thousand of Irish men, women and child to line the streets; their reverence for the first Irish-American president, and his pride at returning home equally matched.
While the bond between Obama and Ireland may not be as tight as that of J.F.K or even Clinton; it still shows the pride that the American diaspora takes in being Irish. As an Irishman, I am the first to admit that we as a 'people' neglect the significance of being Irish. Of course, it isn't easy in these times, being the 'pariah of Europe,' with what remains of our political sovereignty hanging by a thread as the EU/IMF continue to roll in their 'metaphorical tanks' on government buildings. And whilst the new government are holding tight, "no surrender," Enda Kenny cries, "we're Irish we know how to fight," one can't help think that Ireland despite our economic woes isn't as bad as us Irish 'doom and gloom' merchants make out: after all the queen, the president of America, and the Dalai Lama wouldn't just take a holiday to any 'auld' dump, would they??? have spectacular rugged landscape, from the Cliffs of Moher, to the Áran Islands to the Ring of Kerry and Newgrange; we have a rich history and culture that simply can not be eroded just because we're 'broke'. The Irish sense of humor and good nature is back, once again: it got overtaken by greed, money and status during the Celtic tiger era. Even the 'rip off republic' the mantra of the noughties no longer remains true. The country has so many good bargains now, perhaps, this is why the queen is visiting, maybe in her old age she is becoming more frugal with her money???