Session 13 May 2017

[munaychasumaq]

(...)

I agree with goyacobol and Ant22. It's seems to me that all of this is just an anti-stem cell propaganda. Plus, that Swiss Medica is a Russian clinic, which gives one more aspect to a whole story. It's no surprise that they have working facilities in Moscow and Belgrade, but not in Western Europe. OSIT.

Yeah Argo, on top of being too effective for big pharma's liking I wouldn't be surprised if this was yet another form of anti Russian propaganda.

Yes,could be a great possibility of anti Russian propaganda! and at the same time if the stem cell treatment will be aloud only in Russia,people can make a link why the big pharma is not powerfull in this country.As Laura says wait and see.

 

[Elohir]

Thanks for the session.

Thanks for the session.

I've doubt about percents given for the French election round 1. I can't believe Mélenchon was something like 4%. I think he's really popular and if Le Pen and Asselineau cumulated 90% it mean something like Mélenchon: 4%, Fillon: 4% a 2% for others ? Seem impossible for me.
Name was not asked at the beginning there was some interferences which took place?

I agree. As a french person, I also have serious doubts about the figures. Is it possible that it might have been corrupted ?
The known results didn't surprise me at all because of the propanda of all kind of medias about Macron and Lepen for months and not only in France. All European countries and USA were behind Macron. Nevertheless, despite this fake campaign that cannot save everything, french people didn't want to hear anymore about "right side" or "left side" and the "Font National" leaded by Marine Lepen still scares too many people, also thanks to propaganda (I can check that after talking with people about it). Real Figures could be different but I don't think there was so much for Lepen and so few for Macron or even Melanchon and Fillon. In fact, the moment was perfect for Macron to come in place. Everything has been very well calculated to promote his image and create this new king for some years.
For example, Asselineau is very interesting but only talked about leaving Europe and most of the people I talked with were scared about leaving Europe and whatever was their social status.

I was in Seoul, South Korea, during votes and I know some people who participated in votes counting and have relations with french embassies/consulates all around the world. Macron was far in advance, as in most of overseas countries. I can tell you for sure that most of french people abroad voted for Macron but it's easy to guess why. Macron is pro-europe, pro globalization, young and dynamic, a perfect image made for a certain purpose. It's awesome to hear some comments from people here and there ("ahh finally someone new and dynamic"). Have you taken a look to his speeches ? Even if it was bad, it brought a lot of people and they were like hypnotized.

These last months I travelled to Vietnam, France and South Korea and discussed about elections with differents french people. Most of them voted Macron, Lepen or Melanchon.

Of course, I'm just a simple guy and my experience and the different discussions I've had with people are a small contribution in this sensible debate. Nothing is impossible and I know we have to stay open minded to all possibilities but even if they cheated on the results, I think that their long propaganda and the whole french political situation was enough for him to be elected. Today, they even dare to compare Macron to Napoleon or De Gaulle...
Moreover, I think it's important to separate people who debates on internet, seeking the truth, knowing that elites have been fooling people for centuries and those who watch TV and read newspaper hoping for a radical change. When you talk with people, it can be sometimes annoying or simply sad to see their level of awareness concerning the policy and mass control...

Anyway, I really enjoyed to read that Laura is getting better and better thanks to Stem Cells therapy. If confirmed, it could be a huge progress for curing some bad deceases and give hope to some people.

 

[PERLOU]

Merci Elohir pour avoir partagé votre expérience très intéressante...

Thank you Elohir for sharing your very interesting experience ...

 

[worldbridger]

Hi Laura, sounds promising.

I just had it with doing these supplement/detoxing/protocols thing, nothing makes a dent. Been doing this for more than 20 years, and here I am, worst shape of my life.

So, right now I don't have the money, but when/if I do, I would go for stem cells, last resort.

Couple of questions:

Why didn't you opt for Moscow first?

How do I proceed, just contact them (can you recommend a contact/doctor)? and say I want a treatment?

Cost for Slovenia and Belgrad?

(Maybe this info is available in the stem cell thread, but I can't access it)

Take care and get well

 

[Beau]

How do I proceed, just contact them (can you recommend a contact/doctor)? and say I want a treatment?

I would imagine the best place to begin is by contacting them. They will probably need a lot of info from you before recommending any specific treatment and quoting you a price. See: http://www.startstemcells.com/index.html

 

[worldbridger]

Hi Beau,

I contacted them via email and we discussed my problems, cost etc, so most of the things has been sorted out, I just have find a way to finance it.

They asked me when I wanted to make an appointment and where, then I mentioned the financial problem and that I wanted to wait since a friend of mine just went through the stem cell therapy, and I wanted to see how it went. I also mentioned that she was very impressed how professional, knowledgeable, caring etc they were.

So the reason for this post: she was of course very happy to hear that and asked for her name and if she was coming from the Moscow office or Serbia advisers. Her name is Arina Kuryachaya, an advisor.

I don't know why she asked, could be a number of reasons.

Question to Laura: I could tell her a little white lie or the truth, but I want to check first, you know privacy etc.

Martin

(can't post in the Laura's Stem Cells thread)

 

[thorbiorn]

Last year the C's said everyone would speak English! Now, there are efforts underway to remove Russian as an official language at the UN. The relevant quotes from transcript and news article are included below.

Session Date: May 13th 2017
[...](Pierre) I have a few questions. In one of the last sessions, it was mentioned an "irresistible force" and an "immovable object", remember? What was the irresistible force, and what was the immovable object?
A: Deep State vs. Russia
[...]
A: US wishes to destabilize EU similar to Syria so that they can come in and "fix" things. i.e. rule and control resources and trade the "American way". Everyone will speak English!
[...]

And now the article from Pravda:

Russia protests against efforts to force Russian language out from UN
Russia » Politics
According to Russian diplomats, it is necessary "to prevent the development of a situation in which the knowledge of English turns into a "pass" to the UN world, as it undermines the very fundamental principle of the worldwide coverage of the Organization." "Any steps taken to the detriment of language parity are unacceptable," the message posted on the Twitter account of Russia's mission to the UN said.
A statement from representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maxim Buyakevich, also said that the Russian side continues to "expect the Department of Public Information (DPI) of the UN to provide an adequate level of funding for translation services in Russian, as well as efforts to prevent the reduction of their quality."
Pravda.Ru

 

[Altair]

Good catch, thorbiorn! Though apart from English and Russian there are also other official UN languages: Arabic, French, Mandarin and Spanish.

 

[luc]

Yes, good catch! Meanwhile in the EU:

EU has no plans to downgrade use of English after Brexit

The EU’s executive body has no plans to downgrade the use of English after Brexit, despite occasional barbs that the language would be less significant in Europe when the UK leaves the bloc.
...
When the UK leaves the EU in 2019, only 1% of the EU population - in Ireland and Malta - will be living in countries where English is the official language.

EU talks on post-Brexit budget in English? Mais Non!

France's ambassador to the European Union walked out of a meeting in Brussels in protest at a bid to hold some of the talks on the post-Brexit budget solely in English.

Envoy Philippe Leglise-Costa left the talks on Wednesday to show his dissatisfaction with the "linguistic regime", France's permanent representation to the EU said confirming a report by Politico Europe.

I think this is kind of natural since English has become the "world language" and something we just have to accept and deal with. On the other hand, this has some implications - for example, leaders nowadays are almost required to spend some time studying in the US or the UK to learn the language, where they might adopt transatlantic thinking and are kind of "educated" into the transatlantic community. This might entail giving up to an extent different "schools of thought" native to each country?

 

[thorbiorn]

Session Date: May 13th 2017
[...](Pierre) [...] In one of the last sessions, it was mentioned an "irresistible force" and an "immovable object", remember? What was the irresistible force, and what was the immovable object?
A: Deep State vs. Russia
Q: (Pierre) [...] did Trump cave in to the Deep State?
A: Seemingly...
[....](Pierre) Yes. But actually he didn't cave in, but is trying to further his agenda...
A: Not completely. But the game is not over.
[...]A: US wishes to destabilize EU similar to Syria so that they can come in and "fix" things. i.e. rule and control resources and trade the "American way". Everyone will speak English!
[...]

On the topic of the Deep State vs. Russia, the Saker noted:

[...]"There is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu has just publicly thumbed his nose at Putin and that Putin took it"
[...]There have been major developments this week, all of them bad, including Putin re-nominating Medvedev as his Prime Minister, and Bibi Netanyahu invited to Moscow to the Victory Day Parade in spite of him bombing Syria, a Russian ally, just on the eve of his visit. Once in Moscow, Netanyahu compared Iran to, what else, Nazi Germany. How original and profound indeed! Then he proceeded to order the bombing of Syria for a second time, while still in Moscow. But then, what can we expect from a self-worshiping narcissist who finds it appropriate [...] But it is the Russian reaction which is so totally disgusting: nothing, absolutely nothing. [...]

One wonders if Russia seemingly gave in? Futher on in the article:

[...]Nonetheless, it appears undeniable that the Zionists have enough power to simultaneously force not one, but two (supposed) superpowers to cave into their demands. Not only that, they have the power to do that while also putting these two superpowers on a collision course against each other. At the very least, this shows two things: the United States has completely lost its sovereignty and is now an Israeli protectorate.
[...]

Add to the United States, the UK which played along with the poisoning of the Skripals as if it was done by Russia.

There appears to be a growing awareness in Europe of the differences in the interests of Europe and the US. This could increase the probability of the US seting op circumstances (like in the Ukraine) so they can come in and control events more overtly. How Europe feels about this divide might be reflected in the picture of the front page of the German magazine Der Spiegel

The short text and symbolism of the graphical representation could be interpreted as not being too far removed from infamous remark by Victoria Nuland from the end of January 2014 when she was discussing the future of the Maidan change regime project in Ukraine and the political power distribution after the foreseen removal of Victor Yanukovich. It is here: "Fuck the EU!" (original File) - Victoria Nuland phoning with Geoffrey Pyatt

Another interpretation of the art work is that Trump isa the finger puppet of the hand behind. That however is not the line put forward in the introduction to the article where Trump is presented as an independent actor. The title of the editorial in Der Spiegel is: Welt ohne Ordnung Das vorläufige Ende des transatlantischen Bündnisses – und nun? or in English: World without order. The end for the time being of the transatlantic alliance. After Google translate, some of the first lines of the German text reads:

The glory of Donald Trump is based on American heroic stories. [...] The greatest hero story is about Trump's negotiating skills, but this story is nonsense, as Trump never mastered the art of the deal. As a businessman, he paid far too much money for lousy real estate and as a politician has no patience. He does not want to know anything. He is not prepared, can not do anything with (long-term) strategy or (flexible) tactics. Trump can only destroy, and only he does.

Whether Trump really is as poorly qualified as the article indicates is less important than the reality that he is a representative of powers which are destructive.

 

[thorbiorn]

I keep coming back to:

Session 13 May 2017
A: US wishes to destabilize EU similar to Syria so that they can come in and "fix" things. i.e. rule and control resources and trade the "American way". Everyone will speak English!

Previously I thought that this would be done through actors, like induced migration, terrorist cells, mass propaganda, economic coersion, intelligence gathering etc. But after reading the following article about the new US Cyberstrategy, it appears this process of gaining more control could be greatly assisted in other ways.

Trump’s new cyber strategy seeks global dominion over internet

Published time: 21 Sep, 2018 00:45 Edited time: 21 Sep, 2018 10:08
Setting the global standard for online behavior, preserving American dominance, political and economic interests, punishing ‘malicious actors’ like Russia and China: these are the ambitious goals of the new US cyber-strategy.
The White House published the 40-page document on Thursday afternoon, the first comprehensive cyber strategy in 15 years. The strategy’s core assumption is that the US created the internet and that Washington must maintain the dominant role in defining, shaping and policing cyberspace in much the same way as it does the globe.

The US created the internet and now as a result the whole globe should follow US policy That is not the American way of doing business is it?

All strategies are but broad outlines of general measures and overall objectives, and this one is no different. Beyond merely defending US computer networks - that’s just the first part, devoted to protecting the “American People, the Homeland, and the American Way of Life” - it wants to promote US economic prosperity while advancing influence around the world and achieving “peace through strength” as well.

The striving for global control it enveloped in the usual slogans:

The Trump administration’s approach to cyberspace is “anchored by enduring American values, such as the belief in the power of individual liberty, free expression, free markets, and privacy,” the strategy says right at the start.

It also takes as an article of faith that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea use “cyber tools to undermine our economy and democracy, steal our intellectual property, and sow discord in our democratic processes.”

Having signed on to this central assertion of Russiagate-peddlers, the Trump administration lays out the ways in which it intends to achieve its pie-in-the-(cyber)sky objectives.

[...]

Those obsessed with seeing Russian hackers behind every voting machine might be interested in page nine, where the strategy proposes to “secure our democracy” by… offering training and risk management to state and local governments “when requested.” Admittedly, there isn’t much more the federal government can do to protect election systems, aside from securing the network infrastructure.

The US could of course never consider using the knowledge to assist providing the desired election outcome, when needed. The future will see the most fair elections ever and much more privacy because:

A particularly interesting tidbit here is also that law enforcement will “work with private industry to confront challenges presented by technological barriers, such as anonymization and encryption technologies” to obtain “time-sensitive evidence.”This is basically a rehash of former FBI Director James Comey’s perpetual refrain about the need for backdoor access to encrypted products and services.

The most (in)famous example of this was when the FBI took Apple to court over accessing the San Bernardino terrorist suspect’s iPhone, then hiring an Israeli company to crack the device, only to find… nothing of interest.

The above could be seen in relation to a previous expression "anchored by enduring American values, such as the belief in the power of individual liberty, free expression, free markets, and privacy,”. Havin covered the first pillar, next the second of four:

‘Promoting American prosperity’
The second pillar talks a lot about the US government sponsoring innovation and creating jobs, but its key objective is to “promote the free flow of data across borders” (p.15). And if “repressive regimes” use US-made cybersecurity tools to “undermine human rights,”Washington will expose and counter them.

No word on whether that will apply to Google’s work in China, or Twitter, YouTube and Facebook’s throttling of speech that runs counter to their executives’ politics.

Indeed.

‘Preserving peace through strength’
Pillar three is where things get offensive - literally. Its objective is to “identify, counter, disrupt, degrade, and deter behavior in cyberspace that is destabilizing and contrary to national interests” while preserving US “overmatch.”
n addition to authorizing offensive cyber operations against suspected bad actors, the strategy proceeds from the assumption that the world craves US leadership, and envisions Washington promoting a “framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace” based on international law and “voluntary non-binding norms.”

A coalition of like-minded states, led by the US would “coordinate and support each other’s responses to significant malicious cyber incidents.”

"A coalition of like-minded states, led by the US" In a previous post, I linked to an interpretation from a US State Department official of what this might mean in practical terms. There is no need to repeat it.

‘Advancing US influence’
That leads us to the fourth and final pillar, advancing US influence around the globe. Accusing China not only of wanting to create a closed, censored internet by exporting that model elsewhere, the strategy envisions US evangelizing for a “free and open” internet.

Washington “will continue to work with like-minded countries, industry, civil society, and other stakeholders to advance human rights and Internet freedom globally and to counter authoritarian efforts to censor and influence Internet development,” the strategy says.

Does that mean the State Department intends to challenge the new EU copyright rules that would effectively outlaw memes and charge a “link tax”? Somehow that seems highly... unlikely.

See also: Assange: Generation born now is the last to be free - from last interview before blackout In this interview he said:

“Look at what Google and Baidu and Tencent and Amazon and Facebook are doing. They are basically open-cut harvesting the knowledge of humankind as we express it, when we communicate with each other… This classical model, which people in academia call ‘surveillance capitalism’… has changed now.

When I added the last last link, I wondered if much more of the alternative media will eventually go the way of Assange and be kept off grid by those who control it.
For the possible future of the internet, see also NewsReal: 9/11: Kill The Internet

 

[Gwelan (too)]

Peter) What were the results of the first round of elections in France? They want to know the results for Asselineau forum.

(Joe) What were the results for Asselineau in the first round? He received less than 1% officially, but unofficially?

A: 29

Q: (Peter) and Le Pen in the first round?

A: 61

Q: [General disbelief Exclamations] (Niall) She was elected president automatically!

(Peter) But the two combined, it reaches 90 percent!

(Niall) Both genuine anti-establishment candidates have won nearly everything.

(Chu) And she should be president ...

(Peter) And only after the first round! So they manipulated not by 20% with Ségolène figures as in 2007, but 40%! They have lowered Le Pen 61% to 21% ...

(Niall) Now they have a situation in the country where 90% of people did not vote for the guy who has just become president.

(Pierre) It's a powder keg.

I’m not sure to properly understand these answers.

The supposed electoral fraud as stated by the Cassiopeans (for Asselineau and Lepen) would have concerned a minimum of 25 million votes (51 % of expressed votes), only concerning these two candidates. I have serious doubt that a fraud of such magnitude could be possible in France without any complain from any side ?

How might we understand these assertions about the elections?

Mod's note: Edited to fix the quotation boxes[/QUOTE]

 

[zak]

Can you considered a moment Gwelan (too), that to move the "schmilblick" forward, maybe you should bring some water to the mill, if I remember correctly at Cassiopaea, there is 10 percent of the vote for transcripts, and 90 percent for sweat and research.
As a member of this forum, can you do your part, knowing that if you continue like this we will go nowhere.

I found this link on French electoral fraud that may be a beginning of your own research, and then since the subject seems to interest you,
you can share it with us.
I understand you just want an answer to the transcript quotes, but it seems like you need to invest a little more in getting it.
François de Siebenthal: Fraudes électorales françaises

 

[Gwelan (too)]

Hello Zak,

Contrary to what you may think, I’ve done my own research and, although the percentages mentioned by the cassiopeans only concerns two candidates, it doesn’t make much sens when we know the procedures and the different levels of surveillance (during the vote, during the count , during the transmition of results, and after their official publication). As I am used to assisting the polling station in my village, I can testify that at each step, all political parties are there and check everything, and, believe me, it’s not a joke at all : if the number of signatures on the list doesn’t correspond to the number of bulletins taken out of the urn, the whole vote of the polling station is cancelled. For those reasons, I assume that the number of people who did vote (37 003 546) is rather correct, even in the case of polling station equipped with voting machines.

It thus seems that the cassiopean’s estimations are rather an opinion survey of the population in general.

The scale of the difference with the real votes remains gigantic nevertheless because we would have to admit that 68 % of the voters did not vote according to their conviction, or that a fraud was able to concern 68 % of the votes, that is ± 25 million votes. Both being as improbable than unprovable.

 

[zak]

Here we are, it's more interesting what you brought now.
Maybe in your research, there are evidences that it's more hard to cheat in a little village, than in a big town, than in all a country.
And more the lies are big, more easily we are ready to swallow them, because we are educated to think that it's reasonably impossible.
But i didn't dig it too much in this topic, in my first post, i just wanted to make you know there are others manners to arrive to have an answer.
And as often with the Cassiopaea you have to stay open.