Down On The Plantation With Vampires & Ghouls, Inc.


Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 3, 2017

You may recall the story from a few weeks ago about “parabiosis,” the latest “fad” among the technocratic “elites”. Parabiosis is the phenomenon that ingesting through transfusion the blood of younger members of your species somehow contributes to youthful renewal and vitality, and, some have argued, longevity. The practice has captured the attention of billionaire busybody Peter Thiel:

Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested in Young People’s Blood

OK. We get it: every billionaire busybody needs a pet project: Gates wants to promote Common Core, and pump people full of vaccines; Zucker-what’s-his-name has recently converted to New World Order Socialist Globaloney (we suspect while reading the late David Rockefailure’s memoirs in the “reading room”). Darth Soros likes to topple governments, foment riots and revolutions, and install neo-Fascist puppet governments, and, in general, has made being a “god” (his term, not ours), his hobby. The late vowel-impaired Zbgnw Brzznsk, while not a billionaire, was certainly a busybody, and closely associated enough with billionaires to have his own pet projects, which were of a similar nature to Darth Soros’.

Against this backdrop, Mr. Thiel’s ghoulish interests in immortality through parabiosis – and let’s face it, that seems to be a polite euphemism for the belief in, and practice of, vampirism – seems relatively tame and harmless…

…except that the idea has now grown to the point of a “parabiosis start-up”, according to this article shared by Mr. G.K.:

A startup is buying teenagers’ blood and selling it to the rich so they can live forever

It comes as no surprise, of course, that the start-up is in Nuttyfornia, and “serves” customers in the Silicon Valley.  What’s interesting here are the admissions of the article:

Growing old: It’s for the poors. Feasting on the vitality of the young in a scientifically questionable effort to live forever?

That, friends, is for the tech elite.

And if that just so happens to mean draining teenagers of their blood for rich old people, so be it. This is a brave-new world, and (the definitely-not-run-by-vampires) Ambrosia LLC is here to help the privileged, paying few conquer it one blood bag at a time.

The plasma’s mostly pulled from teenagers, with a donor-age cap of 25, ensuring that only the freshest of blood is allowed at Ambrosia. As for the customers? They’re only required to be over the age of 35, but Karmazin confirmed many are near retirement age.

But at $8,000 a pop, it’s not a leap to assume his customers believe they are doing more than just contributing to some newfangled anti-aging study. After all, they came for the blood of the young—and that’s exactly what they’re getting.

There you have it. If you’re over 35, have an extra few thousands of dollars, and want to live forever, or at least, participate in a corporate study of parabiosis, you can pay your $8000, roll up your sleeve, and get your transfusion.

If one hasn’t seen the hidden “logic” here, it’s best to state it explicitly, and with the caveat that if I can think of this high octane speculation, they’ve probably thought of it in Nuttyfornia, too, the only difference being they probably think it’s a good idea in Nuttyfornia. For good measure, let’s just tie it to those constantly percolating rumors on the internet that Mr. Globaloney also wants to depopulate the world by a few billion people (mention Georgia Guidestones here), leaving a skeleton crew of about 500,000,000 to serve Mr. Globaloney on his global plantation. One gets the image of Mr. Globaloney sitting on the veranda of his plantation, sipping mint juleps, IV stand with a blood bag next to his leather chair, receiving his daily transfusion of “young blood”. Now, barring the ability to synthesize young blood via some technological means, this will require the establishment of Young Blood Ranches to grow Young People to supply the Young Blood for Mr. Globaloney’s Vampire Project until such time as the ability to synthesize it is achieved. At that point, Mr. Globaloney will no longer need Young People or Blood Ranches for his supply of “ambrosia”, and all that will be shut down for synthetic blood factories. Eventually, of course, Mr. Globaloney will forget how to synthesize it, because he’s just too lazy and stupid, and with no young smart people any more to transfuse his young blood, the world will begin to fall apart because no one remembers how to do or make anything. It’s the old Isaac Asimov “Foundation” scenario all over again. Rehearse that previous list of billionaire busybodies mentioned above, and imagine a world being run by a class of people with the “smarts” of Gates, Zucker-what’s-his-name, Darth Soros and you have a recipe for apocalypse by insanity and irrationality and – after decades of promoting “dumbed down edgykayshun” – stupidity.

Oh… wait… I forgot. They are running the world and following their “plan,” and the world is falling apart.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At:

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Monsanto quietly announces they are investing heavily in gene editing

Image: Monsanto quietly announces they are investing heavily in gene editing

Vicki Batts
June 2, 2017

Is anyone surprised that Monsanto is moving on from “conventional” genetically modified organisms to gene editing? It seems that the world’s most evil corporation is convinced that the new gene editing technology that’s been taking the globe by storm will somehow ease consumer concerns about eating GMOs.

Whether or not the difference between the two is substantial enough to assuage the many fundamental issues that surround GMO seeds, which extend far beyond just concerns about the effects of consumption, has yet to be seen. Personally, this writer feels that the alleged differences between “genetically modified” and “gene-edited” are not going to be very moving.

Dr. Robert Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer, recently told Fox Business, “I see gene editing very differently [than GMOs] because it’s being used today broadly by pharmaceutical, agricultural companies, universities and hundreds of startup companies — and I think there is broad support for this science and I think that is going to make a big difference.”

Supposedly, the key difference between GMOs and “gene-edited crops” is that while GMOs rely on genes from different species (resulting in transgenic organisms), these gene-edited versions will be “generated through precise editing of an organism’s native genome,” as Business Insider explains.

Monsanto has recently announced that they would be investing heavily into new gene editing technology, known as CRISPR/Cas-9, which is a gene editing technique that essentially allows scientists to select, snip and replace certain genetic components. It’s essentially a genetic “find and replace” tool — but there are many questions about its safety.

This technology purportedly allows scientists to manipulate a plant’s DNA without having to pull foreign DNA from other species, like current GMOs. However, you may recall that this same CRISPR-Cas9 technology was used to create human-pig embryos — which are, obviously, transgenic organisms.

The use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in crops, therefore, would not implicitly guarantee that any creations derived from it would be free of foreign DNA. The potential for transgenic creations is absolutely still quite real.

Fraley says that the CRISPR technology allows them to precisely edit a gene without having to replace it entirely. However, there will still likely be concerns about where the replacement parts for snipped genes are coming from. According to Fraley, we can expect to see the first gene-edited creations on the market within the next five years.

Megan Westgate, the executive director of Non-GMO Project, explained to Fox Business, “While these new technologies are touted to be more precise than older genetic engineering technologies, it is widely accepted in the scientific community that there can be ‘off target’ effects to the genome when the technologies are utilized. GMOs, including the products of these new technologies, have not been adequately tested—no long-term feeding studies have been conducted—and people are starting to connect these experimental technologies to health concerns.”

Fraley, like other GMO proponents, claims that the skepticism of GMOs is due to the fact that Monsanto failed to educate people about the “science” of GMOs early on. And of course, by education he means “brain-washing.” They didn’t realize that the public would be smart enough to ask pertinent questions not just about the safety of GMOs, but everything that tends to come along with them: Pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers,and monocrop farming techniques — all of which can be harmful to the environment.

Claiming that there are “vast” differences between “genetically modified” and “gene-edited” crops could be seen as an exercise in semantics. The fact of the matter is that many people feel strongly about not eating food that has been modified in a lab, by humans who think they know what they’re doing. This is not likely to change just because a new label has been slapped on it.

Regardless of how you feel about genetically modified organisms, or their new “edited” counterparts, the fact remains that every person should have the right to choose what kind of food they want to consume — and the call to label these new “gene-edited” foods needs to begin before they hit the shelves.

Read More At:


Human Embryos “Edited” In China

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 14, 2017

It has finally happened: human embryos have been genetically modified in China, by utilizing the CRISPR technique of genetic modification. Indeed, while the development is not surprising, as one might imagine, I have a few high octane speculations about it(and I would also like to thank all the readers here who sent me these two stories):

Engineering the Perfect Baby

Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos

Frankly, I found the second article so disturbing that it is difficult for me to write about, particularly in connection with my habit of high octane speculation. Nonetheless, I want to draw your attention to the following paragraphs from the second article:

The technique used by Huang’s team involves injecting embryos with the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9, which binds and splices DNA at specific locations. The complex can be programmed to target a problematic gene, which is then replaced or repaired by another molecule introduced at the same time. The system is well studied in human adult cells and in animal embryos. But there had been no published reports of its use in human embryos.

Huang and his colleagues set out to see if the procedure could replace a gene in a single-cell fertilized human embryo; in principle, all cells produced as the embryo developed would then have the repaired gene. The embryos they obtained from the fertility clinics had been created for use in in vitro fertilization but had an extra set of chromosomes, following fertilization by two sperm. This prevents the embryos from resulting in a live birth, though they do undergo the first stages of development.

The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.”

His team also found a surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations assumed to be introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 complex acting on other parts of the genome. This effect is one of the main safety concerns surrounding germline gene editing because these unintended mutations could be harmful. The rates of such mutations were much higher than those observed in gene-editing studies of mouse embryos or human adult cells. And Huang notes that his team likely only detected a subset of the unintended mutations because their study looked only at a portion of the genome, known as the exome. “If we did the whole genome sequence, we would get many more,” he says.

He adds that critics of the paper have noted that the low efficiencies and high number of off-target mutations could be specific to the abnormal embryos used in the study. Huang acknowledges the critique, but because there are no examples of gene editing in normal embryos he says that there is no way to know if the technique operates differently in them. (Emphasis added)

There you have it: using the latest CRISPR technique, embryos were successfully modified, and those modifications would have been hereditary had the embryos been viable. But note what I can only hazard was probably a completely unexpected (and hence, ‘played down’) result: there were “off target mutations,” in other words, DNA mutations that were not planned and not expected, and might also have been passed down. Notably, we’re not informed what those “off-target mutations” actually consisted of; would they have resulted in entirely new congenital diseases or, alternatively, special “uniquenesses”? Might they have resulted – to exaggerate my point here – in people born with three eyes or six digits or truncated brains, or conversely, with expanded intellect or physical strength and endurance? We simply don’t know; the article does not say, and in that silence, I strongly suspect lies a tale.

Of course, as the article points out, critics of the study pointed out that these “off target mutations” may simply have been the result of the unusual embryos – fertilized by sperm from two different donors and hence of non-normal genetic derivation – that were used in the study.

Herewith my high octane speculation: what if they were not the result of the unusual embryos, but rather, in innate – perhaps epigenetic – response to the whole process of this type of genetic editing altogether? what if we are looking at a kind of “programmed-in defense mechanism” against tinkering in a fundamental fashion with DNA in general, or human DNA in particular? Many geneticists are in fact already questioning the standard genetic explanations for the development of individual life and its characteristics, suggesting there is another mechanism “beyond the genes” – hence the term “epi- (beyond) genetics” (genes) – that we do not yet understand.

In short, I think humanity was just served a timely warning with the appearance of “off target mutations,” the warning being: tread with great care, and great caution, and perhaps even, “Don’t tread here at all.”

See you on the flip side…

Read More At:

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Artificial Womb Created

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 7, 2017

In case you didn’t catch the story, artificial wombs have been successfully created and tested… at least, for sheep, according to this article shared by Mr. B:

An artificial womb successfully grew baby sheep — and humans could be next

Now, of course, this is all being sold – predictably enough and just according to the playbook – as a potential health benefit, for if it can be applied to humans, the technology could conceivably help premature babies; here’s the way the article puts it in its first three paragraphs:

Inside what look like oversized ziplock bags strewn with tubes of blood and fluid, eight fetal lambs continued to develop — much like they would have inside their mothers. Over four weeks, their lungs and brains grew, they sprouted wool, opened their eyes, wriggled around, and learned to swallow, according to a new study that takes the first step toward an artificial womb. One day, this device could help to bring premature human babies to term outside the uterus — but right now, it has only been tested on sheep.

It’s appealing to imagine a world where artificial wombs grow babies, eliminating the health risk of pregnancy. But it’s important not to get ahead of the data, says Alan Flake, fetal surgeon at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of today’s study. “It’s complete science fiction to think that you can take an embryo and get it through the early developmental process and put it on our machine without the mother being the critical element there,” he says.

Instead, the point of developing an external womb — which his team calls the Biobag — is to give infants born months too early a more natural, uterus-like environment to continue developing in, Flake says.
(Emphasis added)

True enough, such a technology would be a boon for care of premature babies.

But like Mr. B., I have difficulty believing that this technology is not applicable to the earliest stages of pregnancy. And that brings me to my high octane speculation of the day…

… while such a technology might be beneficial in the care of premature babies, I strongly suspect there’s another reason set of reasons entirely for the creation of this technology, and that set of reasons boils down to just two words: genetic engineering. Conceivably, such a technology could fulfill two dreams – or rather, nightmares – of the transhumanist “community,” for it would be (1)  a means not only to create but to gestate chimerical life forms, and (2) a means to create and gestate clones. Both purposes could be served by the perfection of this technology. In the latter case, it would be a kind of real world fulfillment of the film Island, staring Scottish actor Ewan McGregor, where human clones are literally gestated in such ‘biobags” and then “birthed” surgically on a pre-determined date.

The reason? There organs are going to be harvested for their “real” counterparts, and the clone – who is not viewed as a real “person” of course – is butchered, murdered, and thrown away. The technology, in other words, raises moral and jurisprudential issues. I’m one of those that maintains that human clones are persons, unique and different from their “originals” in the same way identical twins or triplets are different unique persons, regardless of the DNA similarities.

But watch, the transhumanist-progressive crowd will consult medical “ethicists” from the University of Oxford, who will contrive sophistical arguments why this is not the case.

Read More At:

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The Dreams Of The Russian Cosmists May Have Just Come True

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 4, 2017

Ok… I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, “What the heck is Russian Cosmism?” It’s not an easy question to answer, particularly for a Western audience unfamiliar with Russian philosophy, or for that matter, the huge role of Eastern Orthodoxy in Russian culture. Needless to say, any attempt to summarize an entire philosophical school of movement in a few sentences in a paragraph is doomed to failure. With that caveat in mind, here goes:

Cosmism is a school of thought that developed from – and in some cases, in opposition to – the thought of the Russian philosopher Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov (1829-1903), a man of vast intellect, reading, and influence within Russian letters and thought. Briefly put (all too briefly!), for Fyodorov the Orthodox understanding of the Resurrection, not just of Christ, but eventually, of humanity, was not just a doctrine; it was an agenda to be achieved and applied by the advance of science.  It was a task that mankind had to fulfill as a co-worker with God. In this respect, Fyodorov actually believed, and maintained, that as science advanced, one would have to literally collect the dust of all of one’s ancestors that was in the Earth, and use it to “reconstruct” or resurrect them. Fyodorov also envisioned this “ancestral dust collecting and resurrection” project coupled with the human colonization – the humanization – of the entire universe. To make it over in man’s image was to make it over in God’s image. One may, in view of this all too brief summary of Cosmist thought, think of “Cosmism” as a kind of Russian transhumanism without the rejection of religion (in some cases, though there were, subsequently, “secular” cosmists). Think of Fyodorov’s “resurrection” and “ancestral dust collection” project as a kind of Jurassic Park, but for people, not dinosaurs.

Well, being somewhat familiar with the movements and currents of Russian philosophy, one can imagine my reaction when Mr. S.D. shared the following article with me; my jaw was on the floor, and the first thing I thought of was… well, Nikolai Fryodorovich Fyodorov, who doubtless would have enthused over the article:

How a bit of cave dirt just changed archaeology

Now, in case you don’t have the time to read the whole story, here’s the crux of it:

It’s no wonder then that a Harvard geneticist refers to a new technique of recovering human DNA without bones, described in a study published in Science Thursday, as a “real revolution in technology,” per the New York Times.

German researchers took dirt samples at seven cave sites in Europe and Asia where Neanderthals or Denisovans once lived. Four returned Neanderthal DNA, and one of the four sites contained Denisovan DNA, per a release, which notes many of the sediment samples were taken from archaeological layers or sites that hadn’t previously yielded bones.

“It’s a bit like discovering that you can extract gold dust from the air,” as one geneticist puts it. Researchers had previously taken animal DNA from sediment, but this study describes the first successful effort involving human DNA.

It involved collecting samples at sites where human bones or tools had been found and using molecules that recognize mammalian mitochondrial DNA to “fish out” the material, which sticks to minerals in sediment. (Emphasis added)

Let that sink in for a moment: human DNA – thousands of years old – is recoverable from dirt.

Now let’s speculate wildly here: combine this new capability, with that of cloning, the new techniques of “artificial wombs”, and voila! Your test-tube baby might actually be – as Fyodorov speculated over a century ago – a long-lost relative or ancestor, at least, physically speaking. Of course, some readers will spot the philosophical problem: is a clone necessarily the same person? Well, not necessarily: identical twins have essentially the same DNA, but can be very different personalities and persons.

Nonetheless, the major outlines of Fyodorov’s “ancestral dust collection” and “resurrection” project are beginning to fall into place. And with it, so are the major outlines of novelist Ira Levin’s Boys from Brazil

… I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not live in a world of Ivan the Terribles, Napoleon Bonapartes, Pol Pots, Josef Stalins or Mao Tse-Dungs. The current bumper crop of malcontents is bad enough.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At:

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Catherine Austin Fitts – Empire Endgame: Digital Slave Population by Dark Journalist

Source: DarkJournalist
Daniel Liszt
April 28, 2017

In the exciting Part 2 episode Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt interviews Former US Assistant Housing Secretary and Solari Report Publisher Catherine Austin Fitts. Together they focus on the intensely dangerous moves towards Transhumanist control that the Global Empire is making to attempt to fight the forces of populism exploding around the world. The apex of these moves is the push to create a Digital Currency.

Covert Forces

After looking closely at the covert forces behind the war tensions with North Korea and Syria, Fitts sees the plans of the hidden elite groups that are attempting to set up the conditions to survive and rule when the debt-growth model is exhausted and the Central Banking Warfare model implodes. Their plans call for a Cold War 2.0 with Russia, but after the defeat of Neocon Hawk Hillary Clinton, they are instead trying to sell President Trump on what Whistleblower General Wesley Clark described in 2006 as a ‘Five Year, Seven Nation War’ that would leave the empire intact but ultimately destroy America’s prosperity.

Deep State Vs. Reality Problem

Fitts sees a Deep State systemic problem that involves the Washington Political Establishment, the Corporate Media, Wall Street Forces and the Intelligence Agencies and their attempt to create a false version of reality for general consumption while maintaining a model of intense secrecy. The utilization of Black Budget operations keep the average perception of the general public in a state of perpetual misinformation.

Transhumanist Digital Slavery

Fitts believes that the Global Elite Power Circles are starting to panic and want to bring about their microchipped, chemtrail, digital slave model into full reality as soon as possible. She sees these leadership types as believing in slavery as a means of control and profit with little concern for human rights. The Transhumanist outlook is that they can bring about mechanization and robotics to supply a labor force and boost the productivity that they require and are exploring different means of depopulation for the wider public.

With the modern advent of advanced satellites, invasive tracking technology, drone warfare and the development of a Global Smart Grid, many of their tools for dominance are in place as they weigh their options for consolidation of power.

U.K. Doctors Granted License to Create 3-Parent GM Babies

Julie Fidler
March 30, 2017

Doctors in the U.K. have been given the first-ever license to create “three-parent babies,” with the controversial IVF treatment taking place as early as later this year. [1]

The license was granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to a team who pioneered the mitochondrial pronuclear transfer technique at the University of Newcastle.

The development takes humanity closer to the creation of “designer babies,” but the doctors at the Newcastle Fertility Centre say they only plan to use the technology “to help families affected by these devastating diseases.”

Mary Herbert, a professor of Reproductive Biology at the Centre, says:

“Many years of research have led to the development of pronuclear transfer as a treatment to reduce the risk of mothers transmitting disease to their children. It’s a great testament to the regulatory system here in the U.K. that research innovation can be applied in treatment.” [2]

Read: “Steer Clear of Creating GMO Babies,” Scientists and Ethicists Say

The IVF treatment involves halting the fertilization process to remove faulty mitochondria that can cause fatal heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders, blindness, and muscular dystrophy. These are known as mitochondrial diseases, and they are incurable conditions that get passed down the maternal line, affecting about one in 6,500 children worldwide.

Source: Daily Mail

It’s known as “three-parent IVF” because the babies are born from genetically modified embryos, and they would have DNA from a mother, a father, and a female donor.

In 2016, Britain’s parliament voted to change the law to allow three-parent IVF if and when it was ready for licensing. However, the HFEA still had to approve each clinic and each patient on an individual basis before the treatment could occur.

Now that the Newcastle Fertility Centre has received a license, the HFEA must approve each applicant for treatment. [2]

Professor Sir Doug Turnbull, who has led the team at Newcastle in developing the new IVF therapy, says:

“This will allow women with mitochondria DNA mutations the opportunity for more reproductive choice. Mitochondria diseases can be devastating for families affected and this is a momentous day for patients who have tirelessly campaigned for this decision.” [1]

Last fall, a team of U.S. doctors announced that the world’s first three-parent baby had been born in Mexico on 6 April 2016 to a Jordanian couple. The team held off on the announcement for five months to make sure the child didn’t have the same condition that killed his siblings, Leigh syndrome – a fatal disorder that affects the central nervous system.

Read More At:


[1] The Sun

[2] Scientific American

Daily Mail

Science Magazine