How Washington is Maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge in the Middle East

As we all know, Washington loves nothing more than to interfere with the geopolitical stability in the Middle East.  In a recent example, Washington's moves have led to a potential escalation of future instability thanks to an arms sale to the United Arab Emirates.

Let's start with some background.  Here is a September 2020 news item from Defense News:

As far back as November 2017, the Trump Administration had agreed to consider a long-standing request by Abu Dhabi to enter talks regarding the future procurement of the F-35 joint strike fighter as shown here:

Benjamin Netanyahu had originally made it quite clear that he would oppose the sale of the F-35s to the United Arab Emirates despite the fact that Washington is attempting to negotiate normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and the UAE.  Nonetheless, according to Haaretz (sourced from the New York Times), in private, Netanyahu was taking another position, choosing not to block the deal as shown here:

...and from the Times of Israel as shown here:

All of these geopolitical manoeuverings are related to Washington's long-term commitment/obsession of ensuring that Israel retains its unchallenged competitive military edge aka Qualitative Military Edge (or QME) in the Middle East as shown on this news release from the U.S. Department of Defense:

...and this news release:

According to recent reports, when U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper met with Israeli Minister of Defense Benny Gantz, the two leaders discussed the issue of the sale of F-35s to the United Arab Emirates on October 22, 2020, an agreement was finalized which removed Israel's objection to the transfer of weapons to the UAE after Israel secured promises that it would be able to upgrade its own capabilities to maintain its military edge (i.e. QME) in the region which was actually written into law back in 2008.  Here is the statement from the Israeli Prime Minister's Office:

As a result of these negotiations, a London-based, highly influential Arabic language newspaper announced the following on October 30, 2020:

...as did the Times of Israel:

As you can see, levelling the playing field could, ultimately lead to even more geopolitical stresses in the region as there are now three players in the region that have been well armed by America's military-industrial complex.  At the very least, this move will appeal to the Republican's pro-Israel Evangelical base and make the corner office dwellers in America's defense industry very, very happy indeed.

The Real Solution to Viruses

All of you have probably heard about the unprecedented efforts being undertaken by Big Pharma and governments to create an unprecedented vaccine to combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  Tens of billions of dollars are being spent on vaccine research with two goals in mind:

 

1.) Putting an end to the potentially never-ending lockdown cycle.

 

2.) Maximizing profits for Big Pharma.

Oh yes, and saving humanity.

 

Oddly, enough, given the pandemic panic, it is interesting to note that there may have been a cure for most viral infections based on research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology back in 2011.

 

Here is the article that appeared on MIT News on August 10, 2011:

 

 

Back in 2011, a team of researchers at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory had designed technology that would be capable of defeating viruses that cause the common cold, influenza and other more deadly diseases like Ebola.  The researchers responsible for the study found that their drug was effective against 18 viruses including the following:

 

1.) common cold rhinoviruses

 

2.) H1N1 influenza

 

3.) a stomach virus

 

4.) polio viruses

 

5.) dengue fever

 

6.) several types of hemorrhagic fever

 

Here is an entire list of DRACO's effectiveness against a broad spectrum of viruses:

 

As background, when viruses take over a cell, it takes control of the cell with the purpose of replicating itself.  As part of the process, the virus creates long strings of double-stranded RNA which is not found in human or other animal cells.  Human cells protect themselves by using proteins that latch onto the double-stranded RNA, preventing the virus from replicating itself.

 

The senior staff scientist at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory Chemical, Biological and Nanoscale Technology group, Todd Rider, drew inspiration for this therapeutic ages dubbed DRACO (Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizers) from the defense systems used by living cells.  The drug targets a type of RNA that is produced only in cells that have been infected by viruses meaning that it should be effective against all viruses.  This means that it could be capable of combating outbreaks of the SARS-CoV-1 virus that caused the 2003 SARS outbreak and the current SARS-CoV-2 virus.  

 

Here is a quote from the article:

 

"Rider had the idea to combine a dsRNA-binding protein with another protein that induces cells to undergo apoptosis (programmed cell suicide) — launched, for example, when a cell determines it is en route to becoming cancerous. Therefore, when one end of the DRACO binds to dsRNA, it signals the other end of the DRACO to initiate cell suicide.

 

Each DRACO also includes a “delivery tag,” taken from naturally occurring proteins, that allows it to cross cell membranes and enter any human or animal cell. However, if no dsRNA is present, DRACO leaves the cell unharmed.

 

Most of the tests reported in this study were done in human and animal cells cultured in the lab, but the researchers also tested DRACO in mice infected with the H1N1 influenza virus. When mice were treated with DRACO, they were completely cured of the infection. The tests also showed that DRACO itself is not toxic to mice."

 

Here is a graphic showing how DRACO Antiviral Therapeutics work:

 

 

This invention was so novel that it was named one of the best inventions of the year by Time Magazine (November 28, 2011 "Invention issue") and was mentioned in the White House's Bioeconomic Blueprint in April 2012 as shown here:

You may ask yourself why, in the COVID-19 era, is this treatment not getting wider attention? Unfortunately, Dr. Rider has had great difficulties raising funds for his potentially life-saving invention as you can see from this video which was produced as part of his Indiegogo campaign:

 

...and here on the Rider Institute website:

 

...even though the original research was funded by Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the New England Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases, with previous funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and Director of Defense Research & Engineering (now the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering).

 

Given that DRACO has the potential to save humanity from a very wide variety of viruses, not just a single coronavirus like SARS-CoV-2, it is rather interesting to see how this ground-breaking technology has pretty much been left on the shelf.  But, then again, how could Big Pharma profit if there is a single cure-all for many of the mainstream viruses that impact human lives, particularly since it was not invented in their laboratories?

 

The WEF's CommonPass - Is This the Future of Travel?

For those of us that have been paying attention, there is no doubt that the World Economic Forum and its acolytes are planning to play a significant leadership role in the post-COVID world.  One of the group's initiatives is allegedly being developed so that global trade and global travel can return to pre-pandemic levels.

 

Let's look at some background first.  The Commons Project is a "nonprofit public trust established to build platforms and services to make life better for people around the world".  Here is the lead page of The Commons Project/CommonPass website:

 

The trust believes that "everyone should enjoy the full benefit of technology and data while maintaining control over their digital lives."  They also believe that "communities are stronger when data is open and can be shared for the benefit of all".  Here's more information on the group's beliefs:

 

Here's more information on the Commons Project noting that the project was established with support from the Rockefeller Foundation:

 

Here is the group's leadership:

Not surprisingly, the co-founder and current CEO, Paul Meyer, is also a WEF "Young Global Leader"   and was a presidential speechwriter at the Clinton White House as shown here:

 

Many of the other leaders have direct connections with the WEF, the technology sector or the health technology sector.

 

Here is a list of Common Projects' Global Trustees:

 

Here are the Common Projects projects that are currently in development:

Now, let's focus on the CommonPass project.  Here is the lead page of The Commons Project/CommonPass website:

  

You will notice that the Commons Project is working together with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to initiate the CommonPass framework.  

 

Here's how the WEF is promoting the CommonPass:

 

Here's what the WEF says about the CommonPass:

"In collaboration with The Commons Project,a non-profit public trust building global digital services and platforms for the common good, the World Economic Forum is supporting the development and launch of CommonPass, an initiative which aims to develop a global, interoperable framework to safely restore cross-border travel to pre-pandemic levels.

 

The challenge: As countries around the world work to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and restart their economies and tourism, they all face the challenge of how to reopen their borders and allow international travel to resume while protecting their populations’ health. The current patchwork of policies and ever-changing border entry and health screening requirements has made international travel incredibly complex, leaving airlines and border agencies uncertain about the validity of test results and passengers unsure of what is being asked of them.

 

The solution: CommonPass aims to develop and launch a standard global model to enable people to securely document and present their COVID-19 status (either as test results or an eventual vaccination status) to facilitate international travel and border crossing while keeping their health information private. Recognizing that countries will make sovereign decisions on border entry and health screening requirements, including whether or not to require tests or what type of test to require, CommonPass serves as a neutral platform which creates the interoperability needed for the various 'travel bubbles' to connect and for countries to trust one another's data by leveraging global standards.

 

For governments, airlines, airports, and other key stakeholders throughout the end-to-end travel journey, CommonPass aims to address these key questions:

 

1.) How can a lab result or vaccination record from another country be trusted?

 

2.) Is the lab or vaccination facility accredited/certified?

 

3.) How do we confirm that the person who took the test is indeed the person who is travelling?

 

4.) Does the traveler meet border entry requirements?

 

How it works: In line with protocols and guidelines from international organizations and standards bodies in the aviation and health sectors, CommonPass allows individuals to securely document their COVID-19 status electronically and present it when they board a plane or cross a border.

  

The framework will:

 

1.) Allow individuals to collect and store their health information securely and present their health status in conjunction with border crossing and travel requirements.

 

2.) Support a range of health data inputs, including PCR test results and vaccination records.

 

3.) Support a range of health screening entry requirements that vary from country to country and will evolve through the course of the pandemic and beyond.

 

4.) Protect the privacy of individual health data.

 

5.) Be interoperable across countries and regions.

 

6.) Be based on proven, international standards and open technologies.

 

7.) Be operated on an open, independent, sustainable, not-for-profit basis.

In case you are interested, you can click here to find out when CommonPass is publicly available.   

 

Here is a CommonPass promotional video from the WEF:

Here is a video showing what the application and screening process for the CommonPass looks like and how the system works for travellers:

 

As you can see from this posting and others that I have written on the World Economic Forum, an unelected group of billionaires, oligarchs and politicians who have only their own best interests at heart, wants to be the "answer" or central clearing house to solving the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, most clearly with a vaccine.  We will be trusting them with our lives and most personal data and, given their track record, they simply do not deserve our servitude to their self-serving agenda nor do they deserve to access and store information about our personal lives.

The Unintended Environmental Consequences of Forced Masking

With masking becoming increasingly mandated the politicians among us who have clearly swallowed the COVID narrative, not surprisingly, a recent study shows that there is an unintended consequence to government's actions.

In June 2020, Joana Correia Prata and three other researchers authored a paper which was published by the American Chemical Society.  The paper, entitled "COVID-19 Pandemic Repercussions on the Use and Management of Plastics" looks at the environmental impact of personal protective equipment or PPE being used during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Let's start with some background first.

According to environmentalists, aside from global climate change, the presence of microplastics in the environment is considered extremely serious.  Microplastics are defined as small pieces of plastic less than 5 millimetres long (about the size of a sesame seed) and are found in both terrestrial and marine environments.  When larger pieces of any type of plastic are introduced into the ocean, over time, they break down into smaller and smaller fragments which contaminate the environment.  Here is a quote from the National Ocean Service:

"Microplastics come from a variety of sources, including from larger plastic debris that degrades into smaller and smaller pieces. In addition, microbeads, a type of microplastic, are very tiny pieces of manufactured polyethylene plastic that are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products, such as some cleansers and toothpastes. These tiny particles easily pass through water filtration systems and end up in the ocean and Great Lakes, posing a potential threat to aquatic life."

Microplastics are also sourced from the larger plastic items that we use everyday and are also sourced from plastic microfibres that are shed from textiles in laundry, particularly from synthetic textiles including polyester.  

These plastic fragments are eaten by minuscule crustaceans called zooplankton and are then carried up the food chain as larger and larger animals eat the animals below them on the food chain.  Microplastics are found in all of the world's oceans as well as in terrestrial water bodies and the land itself.  According to the Scientific American, injected micro plastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A to pesticides that can compromise immunity and interfere with growth and reproduction of humans and other species.  

Here is a table showing the common types of plastics found in the marine environment:

Here is a map showing the relative distribution of microplastics in the world's large marine ecosystems from a 2012 study:

Understandably, you might be asking yourself "What does government mandated masking have to do with the global marine environment?"  Let's go back to the study by Joana Correia Prata et al.  In the study, the authors note the World Health Organization estimated that the monthly needs for PPE among healthcare professionals would reach 89 million masks, 76 million gloves and 1.6 million goggles.  In another case, it was estimated that Italy needed 1 billion facemarks and 0.5 billion gloves per month for a population of 60.4 million people.  Extrapolating to a global population, an estimated 129 billion disposable face masks and 65 billion disposable gloves would be used monthly on a global basis.  Over a six month period, this would result in the consumption and discarding of 784 billion face masks over a six month period or 1.548 trillion face masks on an annual basis.  In las you should happen to think that these numbers seem high, keep in mind that the Canadian government, a nation with a population of 36 million people, has ordered 153 million N95 respirators, 18 million non-medical face masks and almost 400 million surgical masks.  The province of Ontario has announced that a company in Vaughn, Ontario has ramped up its ability to produce one million N95 face masks every week.

Single-use disposable face masks are made of melt-blown fabric consisting of plastics including polypropylene, polyurethane and polyacrylonitrile.  The majority of disposable face masks have two outer layers with a third filter layer made of nonwoven polypropylene.  N95 masks are made of plastics including polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate.   Other disposable PPE such as surgical gowns and masks are made of non-woven materials which incorporate polyethylene, polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate.

There is one additional aspect to microplastics that should concern all mask wearers.  In 2019, researchers found that humans consumed between 39,000 and 52,000 microplastic particles per day.  This increased to between 74,000 and 121,000 when inhalation of these particles is included.  This means that human beings are ingesting roughly 5 grams of plastic (or the weight of a credit card) on a weekly basis. An August 2020 release on the American Chemical Society website found the following:

"…the researchers used another method called mass spectrometry to analyze 47 human liver and fat tissue samples. No materials were spiked into these samples. The team found plastic contamination in the form of monomers, or plastic building blocks, in every sample. Bisphenol A (BPA), still used in many food containers despite health concerns, was found in all 47 human samples." *my bold)

This begs the question; what is happening to mask users when they securely fasten a plastic-based facemask over their mouths and noses and wear it for hours on end, day after day?  A 2005 study found that workers in a Turkish polypropylene processing plant experienced significant respiratory symptoms resulting from exposure to synthetic polymers which were inhaled as microscopic particulates or "flock".  The flock was created as a result of the cutting process of the polypropylene which releases particulate material which is then inhaled by the workers and retained in their lungs.  This resulted in occupational interstitial lung disease, termed "flock worker's lung" or FWL which has also appeared in similar manufacturing settings in Canada and the United States.  Here is a quote from the Canadian study on flock worker's lung:

"The natural history of FWL includes the following patterns: complete resolution of symptoms (once the worker has left their occupation); radiographic and pulmonary function abnormalities; permanent, but stable symptoms and restrictive pulmonary function deficits; and progressive decline in pulmonary function, causing death from respiratory failure and secondary pulmonary hypertension. A low baseline diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide is associated with the persistence and progression of FWL. (my bold)

Just in case you think that you are not inhaling these plastic microfibres because you are using washable, reusable face masks, all that you need to think about is the lint trap on your clothes dryer after you've washed and dried a load of laundry.  As well, since friction releases these microscopic fibres, it is likely that the continuous friction of breathing, talking and facial movements on the inside surface of a mask is releasing microscopic polypropylene and other plastic fibres into humans' lungs.

As is the case when governments get involved in a "project", there are often a series of unintended consequences.  In the case of the unprecedented government-ordered universal masking, the release of microplastics into both the greater environment and our bodies could prove to pose a risk to both the global ecosystem and our personal health.  While some PPE is being properly disposed of, even the World Economic Forum is admitting that COVID-19-related PPE waste is problematic for the world's oceans as shown here:

...and here:

America's Missile Defence Agency - Is Protecting the Homeland Leading to a Nuclear Escalation?

A recent announcement by the United States Missile Defence Agency is most interesting but has received almost no traction in the mainstream media given that it doesn't have any link to either the U.S. presidential election or the seemingly never-ending COVID-19 narrative.  Nonetheless, the announcement is of particular interest given that it will have a significant impact on Washginton's view of a unipolar world and how it is perceived by its two main competitors, Russia and China.

 

Here is the announcement:

 

                                                                                                                

For the first time, a test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System or BMD, officially referred to as the Flight Test Aegis Weapon System-44 or FTM-44 (codenamed Stellar Lancer) has successfully intercepted and destroyed a "threat-representative" Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) during a flight demonstration held in the Pacific Ocean to the northeast of Hawaii.  The missile was launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defence Test Site or Kwajalein Atoll and the intercepting missile was lancuhde from the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, John Finn which is equipped with the AEGIS Basline 9 system.  This is the sixth test flight of an Aegis BMD-equipped vessel using the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) Block IIA guided missile.  It was originally scheduled for May 2020 but was cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on personnel and equipment movements.

Here is a quote about the test from Vice Admiral Jon Hill: 

“We have demonstrated that an Aegis BMD-equipped vessel equipped with the SM-3 Block IIA missile can defeat an ICBM-class target, which is a step in the process of determining its feasibility as part of an architecture for layered defense of the homeland.”

 

Here is a YouTube video showing the test as filmed by Mark Wright of the Missile Defence Agency from the perspective of Raytheon Missile & Defense, the manufacturer of the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) Block 2A ballistic missile defence interceptor:

 

If you click here, you can see a Missile Defence Agency animation of the test.

 

Here is a screen capture showing the SM-3 Interceptor's webpage:

 

The SM-3 interceptor does not use an explosive warhead to destroy its target, rather, it uses the force that it builds during flight in a "hit-to-kill" technique which it likens to hitting a target with a 10 ton truck travelling at 600 mph.  The SM-3 interceptor is both land- and sea-based.

 

Now, let's look at what Russia thinks about this test from the perspective of a writer on RT, Russia's state media outlet:

 

"Russia has long held that the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe represented a major alteration of the strategic balance of power, insofar as it empowered a potential US/NATO nuclear first strike scenario, in which US nuclear-armed missiles would be launched against Russian strategic nuclear forces in an effort to preemptively destroy them. Europe would then avoid the certainty of mutually assured destruction by hiding behind the US missile defense shield, which in theory would be capable of shooting down the handful of Russian missiles that might survive such an attack. 

 

The SM-3 Block IIA interceptor represents a great threat to Russia. When deployed from aboard Baseline-9 equipped Arleigh Burke-class destroyers integrated into the C2BMC network, the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor becomes the anchor of a potentially global missile defense shield capable of nullifying the ICBM strike potential of all would-be adversaries–including Russia…. 

 

By putting the SM-3 Black IIA interceptor to the test as an anti-ICBM weapon, the US has made the New START treaty irrelevant overnight, testing the willingness of Russia to agree to an extension. Even if Russia does allow the New START treaty to be extended, there is little doubt that it will insist on meaningful and verifiable limits to US ballistic missile defense capabilities, including the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor, before Russia could sign on to a new follow-on strategic arms reduction treaty.

 

More critically is what the new SM-3 Block IIA does to the current Russian nuclear posture, which is already being re-evaluated in light of the decision by the US to deploy low-yield nuclear warheads onboard US missile-carrying submarines. 

 

The combination of low-yield nuclear weapons on board US submarines lurking off Russia’s coast with US destroyers equipped to shoot down Russian ICBMs is the stuff of any Russian nuclear planner’s worst nightmare. Russia will most likely be compelled to reexamine its alert posture to account for the increased possibility that the US may seek to launch a preemptive decapitation attack using low-yield nuclear weapons."

Here's what China's leadership has to say about this test from the perspective of the Global Times, a media outlet of China's government:

 

"While the ICBM is a mock one, it could have serious consequences, as the test could break down the mutual nuclear deterrence maintained by the world's nuclear powers for decades, Forbes magazine said on Wednesday.

 

Citing US experts, the report said that the test will lead China and Russia to believe the US could contain their nuclear retaliatory capabilities in the future, and it will be harder to limit missile defenses in an arms control agreement.

 

While the test showed the US' advanced level in ballistic missile defense, it will not yield such significant impact to the current balance in nuclear deterrence in the world, Chinese experts said.

 

The test used only a mock missile, and was done under an optimal scenario in which the defending side knows where and when the missile would come from, so it is very questionable to what extent the test could represent a real-battle scenario where the missile could be launched from unpredictable locations and at an unknown time, given both China and Russia operate road-mobile ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, a military expert who asked for anonymity told the Global Times on Thursday.

 

A traditional ICBM, which is not hypersonic, was used in the simulation so it does not have the capability to actively change trajectory in mid-flight. That means it is much easier to intercept, the expert said, noting that China and Russia are developing and commissioning more advanced missiles, including hypersonic ones.

 

Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Thursday that the US ballistic missile defense technology should be considered advanced, but ballistic missile technologies are also changing.

 

Since the US is seeking to enhance counters, countries like China and Russia are forced to improve their traditional missiles, which in turn brings about more challenges to the defending side, Wang said."

I do find it interesting that China is focussing on the fact that the ICBM was a mock model and that the scenario was staged which allowed the defending ship's AEGIS system to know where and when the missile would be launched.

 

From the perspective of both Russia and China, the successful test of the Aegis system November 17, 2020 is an escalation of the ongoing geopolitical tension that has grown over the past half decade.  Unfortunately, in the case of a nuclear exchange, there are no winners, only billions of overcooked human beings.