According to Google, parabiosis is “the anatomical joining of two individuals, especially artificially in physiological research.” Based on research that has been done on mice, it is believed that blood transfusions could potentially slow or even reverse aging in humans. The Bible tells us that “the life of the flesh is in the blood”, but now these elitists want to greedily use the blood of younger people to greatly extend their own lifespans. If it turns out that this method is highly successful, will the blood of young people become a greatly valued commodity?

As I mentioned above, Peter Thiel is one of the leading proponents of this technology. The following is an excerpt from a recent Inc article…

“In particular, Thiel is very excited about the work being done by a firm known as “Ambrosia”. This company has already been conducting full-blown clinical trials, and so far the results have been quite astounding…”

“But as far as anti-aging studies go, parabiosis appears promising. According to Inc, a company called Ambrosia in Monterey, California, is conducting clinical trials wherein participants 35 and older agree to pay $8,000 apiece to receive a transfusion of blood from those aged 16-25, and then have their blood monitored over the next two years to determine if there’s been any improvement in the patient’s health.”

“The effects seem to be almost permanent,” Ambrosia founder Jesse Karmazin, a Stanford-trained anti-aging expert, told Inc “It’s almost like there’s a resetting of gene expression.”

At the beginning of this article, I quoted a line from Leviticus 17 that says “the life of the flesh is in the blood”. Right after that, God directly commands us not to eat blood. The blood that flows through all of us has some amazing properties that we are only just beginning to understand, and there are certain lines that should not be crossed. Most of us would be repulsed by just the thought of eating someone else’s blood, but that is essentially what these elitists want to do. They want to get the blood of younger people inside of them so that they can live much longer lives.

“As [WikiLeaks founder] Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians,” former Ambassador Craig Murray wrote on his blog Monday morning, adding that he had direct access to the original source. “As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks — there is a major difference between the two …”

“Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access.”

“It does not help us if tanks will be going up and down on both sides of the border,” Brandenburg’s leader and SPD party member, Dietmar Woidke, told RBB. “I hope everyone will keep calm.” “I believe that despite all the difficulties, we should seek dialogue with Russia,” he added on Thursday, warning that relations with Moscow could worsen even further.

Crowds of people marched through Bremerhaven on Saturday to protest the deployment and transport of NATO troops and weapons through the city. Hundreds of American tanks, trucks, and other military equipment bound for Poland, said to be the largest arms shipment since the fall of the Soviet Union, arrived at the German port on Friday to be transferred to Eastern Europe.

The protesters marched through the city holding signs and banners reading, “No NATO deployments! End the militaristic march against Russia!” and “Out of NATO.”

The hostility towards Mr Trump from the world of showbiz contrasts with the feting of his defeated rival in November's presidential election, Hillary Clinton. Streep was referring to a rally in South Carolina in November 2015 when Mr Trump jerked his arms in front of his body as he made fun of Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times journalist who has a congenital joint condition.

Mr Trump, who will be inaugurated in less than two weeks, tweeted on Monday morning: "For the 100th time, I never 'mocked' a disabled reporter (would never do that) but simply showed him 'groveling' when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad. Just more very dishonest media!"

The story contains basically two elements: (1) security agencies of the US government say there is overwhelming evidence that emails were hacked by the Russian government to effect the presidential election, but (2) those agencies have failed to deliver that evidence. The only new elements that appear from day to day is the name of the person or agency that makes the claim and that fails to deliver.

The only reason we are bothering to report on this ongoing non-news phenomenon is that the major media outlets are counting on people to become so saturated by the claim that they fail to notice that the proof of the claim is still missing. We must not let them get away with that deception.

A main issue here is the reorientation of the US military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct confrontation with main powers like Russia and China. A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. Another role has been delegated to the various military and NATO think tanks like the Atlantic Council and the British RUSI and reliable proxies within the media.

The current emphasis of the campaign is on the release of emails and papers from the Clinton campaign through Wikileaks. It is alleged that some releases were gained through hacking, planned and executed by the Russian government. Trump had announced that he plans to seek good relations with Russia, the power that the cabal had earlier chosen as the new enemy de jour.

But there is a problem. There is no real evidence that a "hack" ever happened. There is no evidence that Russia is involved. None at all.

The digital record would be regularly updated based on databases from airlines, customs agencies, banks and other sources, and could be managed by an independent international authority.” The quotation above comes from CNN, an American news network that has done such an exemplary job in recent years in serving as a mouthpiece for the US Government.

The argument for global passports is a familiar one: “You are in danger of being killed by terrorists. We will save you by removing yet another of your freedoms.”

Or, as Hermann Goering said, “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

This is an issue to be watched closely. Historically, whenever governments have put the squeeze on their citizens’ freedoms, citizens have reacted by trying to wriggle out. The squeeze in many countries is presently at its zenith and many, many people are voting with their feet. There will always be takers in the world when this occurs and, in the Caribbean, opportunities for increased freedom are very much on the increase.

Reflecting on Donald Trump’s recent election success, the scientist claims “the deep structural forces that brought us the current political crisis have not gone away.” He warns the 2020s could bring society to an “instability peak” as issues over the rich-poor divide, political infighting and government dysfunction come to a head. 

According to Professor Turchin’s research: "We should expect many years of political turmoil, peaking in the 2020s. But this is a science-based forecast, not a ‘prophecy’. It's based on solid social science.”  The professor at the University of Connecticut in the ecology and evolutionary biology department is a world-leading expert on cliodynamics. 

The research uses maths and science to predict historical events such as the rise and fall of empires and growth and death of religions. Professor Turchin said as living standards fall and political parties in the US threaten to break apart, his model found “social instability and political violence would peak in the 2020s”. 

Gabriel, whose Social Democrats (SPD) are junior partner to Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives in her ruling grand coalition, said strenuous efforts by countries like France and Italy to reduce their fiscal deficits came with political risks.

The SPD is expected to choose Gabriel, their long-standing chairman who is also economy minister, to run against Merkel for chancellor in September's federal election, senior party sources said on Thursday. Asked if he really believed he could win more votes by transferring more German money to other EU countries, Gabriel replied: "I know that this discussion is extremely unpopular."

"But I also know about the state of the EU. It is no longer unthinkable that it breaks apart," he said in the interview, published on Saturday. "Should that happen, our children and grandchildren would curse us," he added. "Because Germany is the biggest beneficiary of the European community - economically and politically."

It is not true that humanity cannot learn from history. It can and, in the case of the lessons of the dark period between 1914 and 1945, the west did. But it seems to have forgotten those lessons. We are living, once again, in an era of strident nationalism and xenophobia. The hopes of a brave new world of progress, harmony and democracy, raised by the market opening of the 1980s and the collapse of Soviet communism between 1989 and 1991, have turned into ashes.

What lies ahead for the US, creator and guarantor of the postwar liberal order, soon to be governed by a president who repudiates permanent alliances, embraces protectionism and admires despots? What lies ahead for a battered EU, contemplating the rise of “illiberal democracy” in the east, Brexit and the possibility of Marine Le Pen’s election to the French presidency?

What lies ahead now that Vladimir Putin’s irredentist Russia exerts increasing influence on the world and China has announced that Xi Jinping is not first among equals but a “core leader”? We are, in short, at the end of both an economic period — that of western-led globalisation — and a geopolitical one — the post-cold war “unipolar moment” of a US-led global order.

The question is whether what follows will be an unravelling of the post-second world war era into deglobalisation and conflict, as happened in the first half of the 20th century, or a new period in which non-western powers, especially China and India, play a bigger role in sustaining a co-operative global order.