bilderberg Meeting of Bilderberg elite that benefits from wars & terror

[BhForce]

The annual Bilderberg meeting is going on at Chantilly, Virginia, under heavy police protection. It's a secretive meeting (the public not allowed) of about 150 elite leaders from Europe and America. The point is to promote cross-Atlantic friendship (if you're sympathetic to them) or to plan global governmental structures (if you're skeptical of them).

The top takeaway from The Guardian's article is this:

Quote

Some at this year’s Bilderberg have a financial interest in the international order being a bit more disorderly: the CEO of Airbus, a board member of Boeing, the chairman of the Saab Group. They are in the business of selling weaponry, so a bit of friction on the eastern front might do wonders to warm up their bottom line.

Some people think that elites are actually promoting disorder in order to profit.

Also:

Quote

 

if Goldman Sachs is the “vampire squid” that Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi said it was, Bilderberg is its brain: doing the deep thinking, inviting historians and futurists’ perspectives, trying to work out where the world is going, doing its best to make sure everything stays more or less on course.

 

More info here: https://www.google.com/search?q=bilderberg&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=nws

https://www.google.com/search?q=bilderberg

[MisterrSingh]

Most people roll their eyes at the mention of a shadowy elite running things. The stigma of conspiracy theory around the discussion of such groups prevents serious discussions from taking place regarding what exactly these people are doing behind closed doors. I struggle to believe these people are meeting in broad daylight. Either they're shamelessly brazen about their activities, or they're stupid. 

[singhbj singh]

Sun Tzu posits in his seminal work, The Art of War, that "Every battle is won or lost before it's ever fought." Can this be seen as being an accurate statement in many or most occasions?

 

Are the results of any battle (or any conflict in general) foretold? and , if not, why are they not?

 

 

13 ANSWERS

Joshua Engel, worked at The Rude Mechanicals

Answered 13 Apr 2012

It is true for some battles, perhaps many battles, but not for all battles.

What Sun Tzu has in mind is the great set-piece battles the were fought in China at the time, where huge armies would be lined up and then sent off to fight. The battle would go to whoever had prepared best, a combination of the best supplies, the best planning, the best intelligence, the best control of the ground, the best training, etc. The general wound things up and let them go.

But he oversimplifies. Many battles are closely balanced, and tiny changes have big effects. Hannibal would have lost the Battle of Geronium if his hidden reserves of troops had been discovered by any stray patrol. Agincourt might have gone the other way if it hadn't rained. Some say Napoleon would have won Waterloo if his hemorrhoids hadn't been acting up. The number of books that have been written about the ways the Allies could have lost D-Day would crash the server.

Good planning is crucial, but a battle is more like poker than like chess. You make your moves in ignorance, not only of your opponent's moves (as in chess) but of the myriad ways chance can intervene. A good hand can lose, or a bad hand win, even despite optimal play. The greatest general is the one who has planned for the most contingencies, but that doesn't mean the greatest general always wins.

One could say that the chance is all predetermined, but viewed that way, the entire thing was set in place five billion years ago and none of it is worth talking about. The fact is that you do not know these things, and the general has been tasked to win despite the ignorance.

Another thing has changed substantially since Sun Tzu's day is communications. At his time, the general had only minimal effect on the flow of battle because it moved faster than his runners. The process of getting new intelligence, deciding on it, and sending out orders was nearly useless. The general could go home and have a bath, and hear how it went after the fact.

Today, a battle is an active thing. The battle plan may not survive first contact with the enemy, but the general formulates a new plan instantly. The evolving plan is part of the plan, and is not set before the battle begins.

You must still heed Sun Tzu's advice. You have to have everything set up for that to happen. Reserves must be where they are most likely to do good. Communications must be set up so that they are reliable in the din of combat. The old necessities of holding some grounds and ceding others hold. You must still have intelligence so that you know your enemy better than he knows himself.

But it's not the only thing. Art of War is a good place to start, but it is not the only book you must read.

 

Source - 

 

https://www.quora.com/Sun-Tzu-posits-in-his-seminal-work-The-Art-of-War-that-Every-battle-is-won-or-lost-before-its-ever-fought-Can-this-be-seen-as-being-an-accurate-statement-in-many-or-most-occasions

[PokeYourPinealGland]

bilderberg members are the architects of todays capitalism, and currency (central banking cartel). the rothschild have been funding both sides of wars since the days of napoleon. every war is a payday for the people supplying the resources. just another business.

the media is theirs, they sway peoples minds to where they want it to be, get approval from them while they manipulate the entire situation and do what they want. then give you a <banned word filter activated> story on the news which surprisingly is very convincing to people

also there is a google patent for television which states that about 15 years back they came up with a technology to emit low frequencies through your monitor or tv to manipulate your neurological mindstate. TV is the best weapon they could have produced.

but the elite of today have learned from the mistakes of the kings and queens in the past and now run everything from the shadows giving people the false hope of government and democracy and what not.

[genie]

As long as all our basic human rights and civil liberties are not curtailed and threatened then the elitists can not relax. They want alternative media especially social media shut down or control servery. The minute they start to be curtailed by allowing attacks by their puppet islamic jihadi terrorist proxies to do what they do then you can see how legislation and policies are brought in that stop the basic human rights of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

I suggest people watch youtube videos about the "rich mans trick" how the "elites" have manipulated human history for decades, centuries if not for thousands of years to try and stay in power by stealing wealth, starting and funding wars behind the shadows,etc.

[BhForce]

6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Most people roll their eyes at the mention of a shadowy elite running things.

You're right about that, but that's partially because the CIA made up the term "conspiracy theory" and actively discredited it:

Quote

 

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.  The dispatch was marked “psych” –  short for “psychological operations” or disinformation –  and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-cia-invented-and-promoted-conspiracy-theories-discredit-controversial-views

6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

I struggle to believe these people are meeting in broad daylight.

Well, they are and they aren't. First, the Guardian is considered a "mainstream" source. Second, some of the attendees were in the open, like Michael O'Leary (RyanAir boss). But others went to ridiculous extremes to avoid being seen:

Quote

 

Attendees spotted by the press are for the most part still locked in a bizarre, pre-internet paradigm of hiding their faces behind copies of the Financial Times or even, in the case of one participant this year, bending double to avoid – heaven forfend! – being identified. 

 

Also, this isn't like TED talks. The meetings are totally closed, and they don't put them up on Youtube afterwards.

[MisterrSingh]

8 minutes ago, BhForce said:

You're right about that, but that's partially because the CIA made up the term "conspiracy theory" and actively discredited it:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-cia-invented-and-promoted-conspiracy-theories-discredit-controversial-views

Well, they are and they aren't. First, the Guardian is considered a "mainstream" source. Second, some of the attendees were in the open, like Michael O'Leary (RyanAir boss). But others went to ridiculous extremes to avoid being seen:

Also, this isn't like TED talks. The meetings are totally closed, and they don't put them up on Youtube afterwards.

I believe the "real" meetings are occurring elsewhere, minus the fanfare. The annual Bilderberg sideshow is a front designed to distract the press and conspiracy theorists for a few days. I'm not suggesting the Bilderberg attendees are insignificant, but I doubt the boss of RyanAir is going to figure in any serious long-term planning for the direction of the planet and the human race.