Chemtrail Central
Member's Area
Member List
Who's Linking
What's Popular
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive
Top Websites

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  John Kerry involved in secretive Bilderberg meetings

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Topic:   John Kerry involved in secretive Bilderberg meetings

Topic page views:

Committee of Correspondence

The Minuteman State
5809 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-28-2004 12:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"There are usually three senators from the USA - like John Kerry (Democrat), Chuck Hagel (Republican) and Christopher Dodd (Democrat). Kenneth Clarke (previous British Conservative Minister of Finance) is often there.'


13 May 2001 - Dagens Nyheter - Swedish daily newspaper

Peter Bratt

On the 24th of May the secretive Bilderberg group starts their meeting in Stenungsund, Sweden. Host for the meeting is the Wallenberg-group's powerful corporation Investor which has booked the entire conference hotel Stenungsbaden. More than one hundred of the world's most powerful and wealthy people are gathering in total seclusion to discuss the problems of the world. DN is the first newspaper able to disclose what is going on behind the curtains.

The power-holders' meeting at Hotel Stenungsbaden

The hotel is situated on an island outside Stenungsund on the Swedish west coast. This is where the members of the Bilderberg group is going to be meeting from the 24 to 28 of May. In the spacious Bohus-salongs with a view over Hakefjord some of North America's and Europe's most influential persons will discuss big politics and business. The meeting is "private", so nobody needs to worry about being quoted in media.

Security measures

Investor is host of the meeting and has hired the entire hotel. The Swedish secret police, SÄPO, is responsible for the Swedish participants - and responsible for surveillance of the perimeters of the hotel and beyond. Prominent foreign participants have protection of their own respective state security services. These have contacted SÄPO and required permission to carry arms. A person like Henry Kissinger still has protection of the US Secret Service. Drawings over the layout of the hotel has been classified and the staff of the hotel has been instructed not to discuss the meeting with media.

The delegations - each country sends a delegation of, usually, 3 persons:

1 prominent industry- or business-leader.
1 politician of high ranking (minister, prime minister, senator).
1 intellectual (an academic or chief editor, for instance).

Sweden often has had more than three participants, and this year probably will have an extra surplus - being that the meeting is held in Sweden. The United States has most participants because of its size. Individual participants are seated in alphabetical order, not delegation by delegation.

The "Chatham House rule":

Citing direct quotes is forbidden according to this rule, which was created in 1927 by the Royal British Foreign Policy Institute [Royal Institute of International Affairs], whose seat is in Chatham House. Nobody is allowed to tell who said what. The purpose for this rule is supposed to be, that every participant should be able to speak freely, without any risk of being criticised by their employer, by parliament - or by media.

Meeting behaviours:

Six "panels", with three members in each, leads the conversations. Each panel lasts for the duration of approximately two hours. After an introductary speech of about ten minutes, the rest of participants choose - when they want to enter into the conversation - whether they want to speak for one, three or five minutes - by raising one, three or five fingers. One-minute-speakers get to speak first.

NB. The above two items came with a graphic illustration of the seating arrangements in the plenary - surrounded by 21 photos of certain named participants (maybe you could get lucky and find this on the homepage of the newspaper: - or by getting a copy of the actual newspaper. PH).

Dagens Nyheter E-mail
Facts/ previous meetings in Sweden:

This year's meeting in Stenungsund will be the fourth time that the Bilderberg group gathers in Sweden.

- The first time was in 1962 at Saltsjöbaden. At that time there were 8 Swedes participating, headed by Stateminister Tage Erlander, industry tycoon Marcus Wallenberg and the national labour union leader Arne Geier. The press was astonished by the near total secrecy - and DN's editorial described it as ludicrous.

- In 1973 was the next occasion and again it was staged at the Wallenberger's Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden. Now Stateminister Olof Palme was attending together with Finance Minister Gunnar Sträng and Foreign Minister Krister Wickman. And, of course, Marcus Wallenberg.

- In 1984 the meeting again was held at Saltsjöbaden - and this time Wallenberg had been replaced by the boss of Saab-Scania, Sten Gustafsson. Palme was there again, and previous Army Chief in Command, Stig Synnergren, Peter Wallenberg from the SE-Bank and Hans Werthén from Electrolux. Representatives from The Economist, Le Monde and New York Times were included at that time. Palme explained to DN about the Bilderberg meetings that "they are of great informational value and that is why I have participated from time to time since 1965".

The Bilderberg group publishes an "information"-folder: The latest is dated January 2001. General Secretary and Chairman is Martin Taylor from Goldman Sachs. In the Steering Committee's Secretariat of 30 persons, Jacob Wallenberg (SEB) is the only Swede. The membership register includes 110 names. Four of them are Swedish: Percy Barnevik (Investor), Sten Gustafsson (Saab-Scania), Björn Lundvall (Ericsson) and Marcus Wallenberg (Investor). Most strikingly is the fact, that all Swedes - with permanent positions in Bilderberg - belong to the Wallenberg empire.

INFILTRATION and NUCLEAR POWER has been on the agenda down through the years.

What can be found out from the agendas of the Bilderberg meetings from 1954 to 2000?

The Soviet Union, Communist infiltration, NATO, Nuclear Power, the German unification, the Satellite states - these have all been standing topics of discussion. Economic-, military- and police- co-ordination against the Soviet Union seems to have been the main theme. In 1969 one topic was the instability of the West, which logically must have concerned the 68-revolts.

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the topics have shifted to such as "threats against Globalisation" and the unrest in the Balkans. In 1995 they were asking whether the "IT-society is creating a new set of political behaviour?". In 1997 they were worrying about "whether continual economic growth may threaten social solidarity in the West?". And last year it was questioned whether rightist extremism might pose a threat.

Main Article:
The Bilderberg group is having a meeting in Stenungsund on the west coast 24th - 28th of May.

"The secret high priests of capitalism and globalisation", their critics claim. "Nonsense", says Minister of Trade, Leif Pagrotsky, who is going to participate - "the meetings serve a purpose to reduce prejudices and misunderstandings".

The Bilderberg group is often depicted as some sort of freemasons, where the powerful of the world, in secrecy, are drawing up the guidelines for how capital may rule, without interference from either people or public scrutiny.

It sounds tantalising, but the picture becomes quite different when you speak with persons who've participated frequently in the meetings.

On the Internet and in the newspaper files, even in the big international ones, there is very little to be found about the Bilderberg-group. What you'll find is mostly the "run-of-the mill conspiracies" - not any accounts of what actually takes place at the meetings.

The group was formed in 1954, on the initiative of the Netherlands - and was named after the first conference hotel, Bilderberg. It had a lot to do with trying to strengthen the ties between USA and Europe in the face of the threat from the Soviet Union and Communism. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands served as the front figure.

Carl Bildt, who has participated in six meetings, says: "There are several conferences of this sort of type, where people are gathered for a concentrated discussion on subjects of acute importance. Most of the time they are carried out under what is called Chatham House rules, which means that you may use the information given - but you must never tell who have told what. This is normal.

Bilderberg is an old and merited group. There are others which are somewhat more dynamic. Discussions may be on a variety of subjects. Last year I remember a real battle over the sanctions against Austria. I am not going to be participating this year. I have to be at the Aspen-conference instead, which has a similar purpose, in the north of Italy and at the same time", says Carl Bildt.

Professor Anders Åslund, peace-researcher at the Carnegie Fund in Washington and previous economic advisor for the Russian government, says: "Bilderberg is a private network of influential persons from Western Europe and North America. Approximately 110 people are participating each year. The idea is to have a discussion of the world's big economic and political issues.

Every country has a co-ordinator, who is permitted to invite participants. In Sweden it has been from the beginning Marcus Wallenberg (senior) and later on, Sten Gustafsson from Saab - and now it is Percy Barnevik. Normally, small countries are allowed to have three participants, but Sweden usually has a few more. Carl Bild is admitted on an "international quota". A typical delegation is comprised of one person from industry - a businessman or a chief of a bank - one prominent politician, preferably a prime minister, a finance or foreign minister, and some intellectual, who usually is an academic or some chief editor.

Swedish politicians don't seem particularly interested in international issues - Björn Rosengren was present once in Portugal, and Leif Pagrotsky is one of the few who is genuinely interested. There are usually six panels on different subjects which are staged in two-hour sessions. All meetings are held in a pleni-auditorium, the participants are sitting in alphabetical order - and also the panels are put together according to the principle: industry, politics, analysts. I find it to be valuable meetings with a strong discipline.

The introductory speaker usually confines himself to a ten minutes speech - and after that you may raise one, three or five fingers signifying as many minutes. One-minute speakers get the floor first. This is no conspiracy - it is stimulating and one learns a lot. They are very prominent participants, often strong personalities and in the duration of the meetings one will usually get the chance to speak with half of them.

Jurgen Schrempp (Daimler-Chrysler) is usually there plus Conrad Black (The Telegraph, Canada) and Bertrand Collomb (Lafarge), the chiefs of the German and French National Banks, Giovanni Agnelli (Fiat) and the bosses of IMF, the World Bank - and the World Trade Organisation, WTO.

I usually end up sitting next to Bernard Arnault from the French luxury firm LVMH and Paul Allaire (Xerox), because of the alphabetical order. Vernon Jordan is usually always there (Lazard Brothers) - and either the owner of Washington Post, Katherine Graham - or her son. There are usually three senators from the USA - like John Kerry (Democrat), Chuck Hagel (Republican) and Christopher Dodd (Democrat). Kenneth Clarke (previous British Conservative Minister of Finance) is often there.

There are few representatives from labour unions, at most a couple from USA. But Social Democrats are usually well represented through European politicians, such as Peter Mendelsohn. Henry Kissinger or Peter Carrington is usually chairman. Percy Barnevik normally brings along Marcus or Jacob Wallenberg - one year it was Tom Hedelius and a minister and an intellectual, like myself. But this year I am not attending.

The normal agenda covers Russia, Japan, China, big economic questions like East-West co-operation and the Balkans", ends Mr Åslund.

The Swedish Minister for this year is Leif Pagrotsky, who also attended last year. He explains: "Industry often has an odd perception of those of us who are working in politics. Even in such a small country as Sweden - we are living in separate worlds. When we are invited, I think we should participate and not remain standing on the sideline claiming that this is just too conservative... Last year, I didn't see many Social Democrats in the assembly, but it is good that persons like myself, from a small European party on the Left, get to meet senators from the USA - and vice-versa", says the Minister of Trade.

"When I have travelled the Anglo-Saxon business-world, I have often been met by a belief, that a Swedish Social Democratic minister is some kind of half-Communist, who hasn't got any grasp on economy. It is very useful to be able to air out prejudices and misconceptions. The fact, that the meetings are secret, or rather, private - in the way that one doesn't disclose what other people have said, is actually quite normal - this is the same way of things within the EU and OECD, too.

What is not really good, is all the strange conceptions about the Bilderberg group that abound. Between the EU and the USA there have been a lot of suspicion and struggle. That is why it is important that representatives from both sides are given the opportunity to understand the reasoning of the other side. Last year year's meeting was concerned with the expansion of the EU, the situation in Eastern Europe and the situation in the USA, before the presidential elections. What it will be this year, I don't know", says Minister of Trade, Leif Pagrotsky.

-- ©Copyright Peter Bratt, Dagens Nyheter, Swedish Daily Newspaper, 13 May 2001.

IP Logged

Boomer Chick
Senior Member

812 posts, Sep 2003

posted 03-28-2004 08:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Boomer Chick     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sounds fairly benign to me. It's certainly no Bohemian Grove!

It's another way to convene and converge with other politicians and executives from other countries. Let them bs and then go home. That's all it is.

Please don't post pages and pages of past Bilderberger meeting stuff. I've read it all!

So far, nothing points to anything truly horrible except meetings like those at Bohemian Grove. Now that's evil!

If you think World Trade is evil, than of course you wouldn't like such meetings. But you'll have to change the meaning of World Trade.

Kerry was onboard the WTO, but now he'll have to condition that. Now I understand about Clinton and the WTO. A little history:

The WTO Vote: Whose Rules for Globalism?

By Jeff Faux
Issue Date: 0.0.00
Print Friendly | Email Article

As this spring's congressional debate heats up over ratification of the recent China-U.S. trade agreement, the mainstream media have once again dragged out the hoary morality play on "free trade." On the dark side are protectionist unions, irresponsible eco-freaks, and the jingoist right. On the side of light and reason are the president, the Republican leadership, and the high-minded CEOs of America's great multinational corporations. In the script, the triumph of virtue is continually put at risk by the public's ignorance of economics.

To be sure, there are irrational isolationists among those who oppose permanent normal trading relations (PNTR) with China, as there are child labor abusers and despoilers of the environment who support it. But the underlying issue is not the motivations of either side. The question is, what rules will guide the emerging global marketplace?

The most successful national economies have learned, often through violent struggles, the necessity of rules that constrain the otherwise overwhelming power of capital to ignore the social costs of maximizing profits. For example, the rules of such "mixed" economies protect the rights of capital to property ownership, contract obligations, and limited liability; they protect labor with safety nets, the right to organize, and minimum standards for working conditions. But these lessons seem lost upon the global elites busy dismantling national social contracts in the name of international free trade.

In reality, "free trade" is a misnomer. If the trade agreements of the past few years (e.g., North American Free Trade Agreement and PNTR with China) were aimed at establishing free trade, they could have been written on one page--a simple treaty to eliminate tariffs. Instead, they add up to hundreds of pages largely devoted to strengthening protections of international corporate investors' rights and weakening protections of human rights as well as worker and environmental standards. As these documents make clear, the agreements' primary purpose is not free trade, but to dismantle social protections and financial regulations in order to allow capital to invest across borders rapidly and unhindered.

The response of the global policy elites who have created the Washington Consensus--as the package of investor protections is widely known--is that the benefits of more liberalized trade will make up for any shredding of the social contract. As countries prosper from those benefits, they, on their own, will transform themselves into Western-style capitalist democracies.

This central claim of the Washington Consensus is accepted passively by many otherwise progressive policy intellectuals who would ridicule it if it were proposed for the United States. Suppose, for example, that the state of Mississippi argued it should be exempt from all federal laws concerning child labor, antidiscrimination, the minimum wage, clean air standards, and even the Bill of Rights, on the grounds that the resulting increase in economic growth would eventually enable a more prosperous Mississippi to fashion a social contract of its own. It does not pass the laugh test.

Even Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative, has called the notion that labor rights should be disconnected from trade "intellectually indefensible." And the president himself has acknowledged the common-sense proposition that labor rights should be enforced with trade sanctions, just as investor rights are. Yet when confronted with business demands to accept a China trade agreement without labor protections--much less enforceable protections--the administration simply ignores the issue.

There are of course clear economic efficiency gains to be had from more liberalized trade. But, as in any policy discussion, the question is, how big are the benefits compared to the costs?

Given the importance of this question, one would think that the proposed China agreement would be accompanied by an in-depth analysis of the benefits and costs. Think again. The sole effort was a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), based on an economic model that assumed no unemployment could result from increased imports because all workers would be instantly re-employed. Even so, the best the ITC could come up with was a net benefit to the United States of $1.7 billion, a number so trivial in a $9 trillion economy that it is less than the statistical error allowed in the calculation of the country's gross domestic product (GDP).

Ignoring that embarrassing report, the administration relies on free trade generalizations, which are reported in the media as sacred economic truths. Thus, President Clinton argues that because the United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population and more than 20 percent of its income, the country "must sell its products to other nations to survive economically." This oddly Leninist notion of advanced capitalism sails through the media without comment from the Paul Krugmans, Robert Samuelsons, Thomas Friedmans, Michael Kellys, and others who have filled their columns with cackles of contempt for street protesters whose concerns about sweatshops have not been published in scholarly journals.

And there has been no scrutiny of the administration's mantra that, over the past decade, a substantial amount of American economic growth can be attributed to growth in exports. What the voter-reader has not been told is that imports have grown much faster. Since the contribution of international trade to GDP is calculated by the sum of exports minus imports, the rising trade deficit must by definition reduce growth. In the case of the U.S. economy, the booming domestic sector has of course compensated for the negative effect of increased total trade.

The assumption that the benefits of trade are so vast that they ipso facto justify any costs has simply no basis in economic literature. Harvard University's Dani Rodrik, a mainstream economist, has observed that "no widely accepted model attributes to postwar trade liberalization more than a very tiny fraction of the increased prosperity of the advanced industrial countries." He adds, "Yet most economists do believe that expanding trade was very important to this progress."

The claim that investor-protected liberalization policies will help those in poor countries also goes unchallenged, in spite of the evidence. Since third world nations have opened up to the flows of goods and capital, economic growth has slowed; in 70 countries, average incomes are below where they were in 1970. Even middle-income developing countries have suffered. In the early 1980s, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other financiers demanded that Mexico abandon its national development strategy in favor of an export-led growth model emphasizing the privatization and deregulation of industry. What followed was a two-decade decline in the growth of per capita income, a rise in poverty, and a dramatic increase in crime (including political violence) and social instability.

One does not have to agree with the street chants against globalization in order to recognize that there is a serious case against the Washington Consensus. But instead of pausing to reassess their obviously shaky assumptions, the Clinton administration and its ideological allies stubbornly demand more of the same.

One recent example is the administration-supported African Growth and Opportunity Act, which offers African countries some limited further access to U.S. apparel markets. U.S. union opposition to the bill brought down the wrath of Thomas Friedman of The New York Times. "Shame ... shame ... shame," he wrote in a moral diatribe against those who would deprive poor Africans of economic opportunity, virtually blaming American unions for the African AIDS epidemic.

But Friedman failed to tell his readers that the bill would require countries getting a tiny economic benefit to submit to IMF-type conditionality, which typically includes cutting back on public spending, lowering corporate taxes, and privatization--a rather draconian prescription for countries with massive health and education problems, few sources of public revenue, and a history of corrupt relations between business and government.

He also failed to explain that unions supported the competing and more comprehensive Hope for Africa bill, introduced by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., and backed by 74 colleagues. Jackson's bill included trade benefits over a wider range of goods, a requirement that a certain share of their content be produced in Africa, and debt relief. It did not impose restrictions on government spending or the privatization of banks to foreign investors. It did increase loans and guarantees to African development. It also required adherence to minimum labor rights.

Friedman also neglected to mention that Jackson's bill was supported by dozens of HIV/AIDS organizations, a large number of African nongovernmental organizations, and the head of the South African apparel workers' union, or that the administration's bill was opposed by Randall Robinson of TransAfrica and Nelson Mandela!

The two bills represent distinct views of development. They could have inspired a real debate over the rules of globalization and who should benefit from them. Instead, the public was misled, and a serious and badly needed discussion over the structure of the global economy was suppressed in the nation with the most power to influence its future.

At this point, the only hope for such a national discussion is for the Washington Consensus to lose the upcoming vote on PNTR for China. That might be just enough to convince them to junk the tired free-trader and protectionist theatrics and get on with building a global economy with rules that protect everyone.


John Kerry on Free Tradep

Click here for 14 full quotes by John Kerry OR click here for 3 headlines about Labor Policy OR click here for John Kerry on other issues.

All new trade must include labor and environmental standards. (Jan 25)
Veto FTAA and CAFTA until they have stronger standards. (Jan 4)
Dean's trade policy is protectionist. (Sep 2003)
FTAA needs more labor and environmental standards. (Sep 2003)
Fix NAFTA-canceling it would be disastrous. (Sep 2003)
Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. (May 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)
Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)

Dennis Kucinich on Free Trade

Click here for 20 full quotes by Dennis Kucinich OR click here for 85 headlines about Affirmative Action OR click here for Dennis Kucinich on other issues.

Withdraw from WTO because they disallow protecting jobs. (Feb 26)
Americans' social consciousness overrides cheap goods. (Jan 29)
Free trade encourages privatization, so avoid it. (Jan 25)
Bilateral trade structure to support American manufacturing. (Jan 22)
President has authority to cancel NAFTA and WTO-I will. (Jan 4)
Push trade deals based on power of US market leverage. (Nov 2003)
Against China MFN because of $100B trade deficit. (Sep 2003)
First act as president will be to cancel NAFTA. (Sep 2003)
Need specific worker rights written into trade agreements. (Sep 2003)
Companies profit from trade based on Third World misery. (Sep 2003)
Review & modify all treaties not respecting human rights. (Aug 2003)
No NAFTA, No WTO, No Fast Track. (Aug 2003)
Cancel NAFTA and the WTO. (May 2003)
Don't sacrifice our rights to global corporate ethic. (Apr 2003)
Retaliatory tariffs yes; GATT no. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
Maintain anti-dumping restrictions against foreign importers. (Oct 2001)
No MFN for China; condition trade on human rights. (Nov 1999)


I prefer Kucinich and hope that Kerry will condition his stance with strong legislation as he promises. I'll be seeing Kucinich on April 10th! When Kerry comes, I'll see him, too!

IP Logged

Committee of Correspondence

The Minuteman State
5809 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-28-2004 08:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BOOMER CHICK: Sounds fairly benign to me. It's certainly no Bohemian Grove!

Well I 100% disagree.

Kerry is an ELITIST puppet for the globalists as far as i'm concerned. Go ahead and vote for him if you want. I've made my mind up.

Youre just uninformed. Do the research yourself.

IP Logged

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Site Meter

Contact Us | Chemtrail Central

Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c