Session 17 August 2024

In fairness, both Britain and France had perceived the Bolshevik USSR as the greater threat until Hitler grabbed Czechoslovakia and Austria.
Britain and France planned to attack the USSR in 1940 (Operation Pike), even after the German annexation of both Czechoslovakia and Austria in the years before. Britain and France vastly underestimated the Soviet power after Stalin "lost" the Finland war, which he apparently ended quickly because of the looming British/French attack threat:

From the earliest days of the Bolshevik Revolution, the Allies had been intensely hostile to the Soviet Union and became even more so after Stalin attacked Finland in late 1939. That Winter War went badly as the heavily outnumbered Finns very effectively resisted the Soviet forces leading to an Allied plan to send several divisions to fight alongside the Finns. According to Sean McMeekin's ground-breaking 2021 book Stalin's War, the Soviet dictator became aware of this dangerous military threat, and his concerns over looming Allied intervention persuaded him to quickly settle the war with Finland on relatively generous terms.

Operation Pike
Despite this, the Allied plans to attack the USSR continued, now shifting to Operation Pike, the idea of using their bomber squadrons based in Syria and Iraq to destroy the Baku oilfields in the Soviet Caucasus, while also trying to enlist Turkey and Iran into their planned attack against Stalin. By this date, Soviet agriculture had become heavily mechanized and dependent upon oil, and Allied strategists believed that the successful destruction of the Soviet oilfields would eliminate much of that country's fuel supply, thereby possibly producing a famine that might bring down the distasteful Communist regime.

Yet virtually all of these Allied assumptions were completely incorrect. Only a small fraction of Germany's oil came from the Soviets, so its elimination would have little impact upon the German war effort. As subsequent events soon proved, the USSR was enormously strong in military terms rather than weak. The Allies believed that just a few weeks of attacks by dozens of existing bombers would totally devastate the oil fields, but later in the war vastly larger aerial attacks had only limited impact upon oil production elsewhere.

Successful or not, the planned Allied attack against the USSR would have represented the largest strategic bombing offensive in world history to that date, and it had been scheduled and rescheduled during the early months of 1940, only finally abandoned after Germany's armies crossed the French border, surrounded and defeated the Allied ground forces, and knocked France out of the war.

The victorious Germans were fortunate enough to capture all the secret documents regarding Operation Pike, and they achieved a major propaganda coup by publishing them in facsimile and translation, so that all knowledgeable individuals soon knew that the Allies had been on the verge of attacking the Soviets. This missing fact helps to explain why Stalin remained so distrustful of Churchill's diplomatic efforts prior to the Hitler's Barbarossa attack a year later.

However, for more than three generations the remarkable story of how the Allies came so close to losing the war by attacking the USSR has been totally excluded from virtually all Western histories. Therefore, when I discovered these facts in the 1952 memoirs of Sisley Huddleston, a leading Anglo-French journalist, I initially assumed he must have been delusional:
The notion that the Allies were preparing to launch a major bombing offensive against the Soviet Union just a few months after the outbreak of World War II was obviously absurd, so ridiculous a notion that not a hint of that long-debunked rumor had ever gotten into the standard history texts I had read on the European conflict. But for Huddleston to have still clung to such nonsensical beliefs even several years after the end of the war raised large questions about his gullibility or even his sanity. I wondered whether I could trust even a single word he said about anything else.

However, not long afterward I encountered quite a surprise in a 2017 article published in The National Interest, an eminently respectable periodical. The short piece carried the descriptive headline "In the Early Days of World War II, Britain and France Planned to Bomb Russia." The contents absolutely flabbergasted me, and with Huddleston's credibility now fully established — and the credibility of my standard history textbooks equally demolished — I went ahead and substantially drew upon his account for my long article "American Pravda: Post-War France and Post-War Germany."
If all our World War II history books can exclude a fully-documented story of such enormous importance, they obviously cannot be trusted about anything else.
Why Everything You Know About World War II Is Wrong
 
Perhaps the C's gave a clue here:

Q: (L) Yes, they are circles. The next thing we come to is that I discovered that alfalfa, in fact, a very particular type of alfalfa, does, indeed, grow in the German highlands. And, in fact, this alfalfa was brought via a route that you described... as France, Spain, Canary Islands, Morocco. I was asking about this story of the purported travels of Mary Magdalene, and you said that the people were not important, that the message was. You then said that the ‘artifacts hold the key’ and listed this sequence of places. I found a paper on the subject of alfalfa which described this exact route of the spread of alfalfa and its value in farming because it literally replenishes the ground it is grown in. So, it seems that you were describing the route of the alfalfa plant. Can you comment on this?

A: Now that you have found this out, perhaps you should research the properties of this mineral rich alfalfa and what it does for the body of homo sapiens?!?
When posting this, I missed the fact that the C's gave the answer to their own question in a later session:

Q: (L) Do the properties of alfalfa tend to enhance the non-physical effect, or vice versa?

A: Maybe it enhances the “psychic effects.”
 
Ive been taking a micro mineral supplement, and when I do I generally tend to feel way better. Never thought of munching on alfalfa, tho. How would one intake alfalfa? Tea? Powdered? Fresh? Its super easy to grow.

Side note, in case of apocalypse and the need for minerals, Ive heard stinging nettle is one of the best of the plant sources for minerals. Very easy to grow (just sow seeds or transplant seedlings near a creek or in a moist shady spot, or irrigate, it loves water). Stinging nettle energetically enhances good boundaries, too!
 
Never thought of munching on alfalfa, tho. How would one intake alfalfa? Tea? Powdered? Fresh? Its super easy to grow.
Geez, are you serious? I thought you hung out with “back to the Earthers types?”
Sprouts!
I’ve been growing and eating alfalfa sprouts for my family for years.
Easiest sprouts to maintain, in my opinion.

Here’s some more info on them:
“Nutrient content of alfalfa
People typically consume alfalfa as an herbal supplement or in the form of alfalfa sprouts.
Because the leaves or seeds are sold as herbal supplements and not as foods, no standard nutrition information is available.
However, they are typically a fair source of vitamin K and also contain many other nutrients, including vitamin C, copper, manganese, and folate.
Alfalfa sprouts contain the same nutrients and are also very low in calories.
For example, 1 cup (33 grams) of alfalfa sprouts contains a mere 8 calories. It also contains the following (2Trusted Source):
  • Vitamin K: 8% of the Daily Value (DV)
  • Vitamin C: 3% of the DV
  • Folate: 3% of the DV
  • Thiamine: 2% of the DV
  • Riboflavin: 3% of the DV
  • Magnesium: 2% of the DV
  • Iron: 2% of the DV
  • Copper: 6% of the DV
A cup also contains 1 gram of protein and 1 gram of carbs, which comes from fiber.
Alfalfa also has a high content of bioactive plant compounds, including saponins, coumarins, flavonoids, phytosterols, phytoestrogens, and alkaloids (1Trusted Source).”
[…]
 
Britain and France planned to attack the USSR in 1940 (Operation Pike), even after the German annexation of both Czechoslovakia and Austria in the years before. Britain and France vastly underestimated the Soviet power after Stalin "lost" the Finland war, which he apparently ended quickly because of the looming British/French attack threat:


Why Everything You Know About World War II Is Wrong
Interesting article, did not know that. It seems Hitler was not so bad as he was propaganised by west and zionists, and the history repeats itself with same western tactics with whole of Europe vs Russia, with US on sidelines, just this time it is due time for some justice.
 
Another article by the Good Citizen wherein he states that the Poles goaded on by the British, forced Hitler to attack Poland. Corroborates the article at Sott.net cited above. - Why Everything You Know About World War II Is Wrong

 
Just an FYI on the trace mineral subject:

"Does Himalayan salt have trace minerals?"

"Both table salt and pink Himalayan salt consist mostly of sodium chloride, but pink Himalayan salt has up to 84 other minerals and trace elements. These include common minerals like potassium and calcium, as well as lesser-known minerals like strontium and molybdenum.Feb 9, 2023"

I imagine that other sea salts are similar.
 
Just an FYI on the trace mineral subject:

"Does Himalayan salt have trace minerals?"

"Both table salt and pink Himalayan salt consist mostly of sodium chloride, but pink Himalayan salt has up to 84 other minerals and trace elements. These include common minerals like potassium and calcium, as well as lesser-known minerals like strontium and molybdenum.Feb 9, 2023"

I imagine that other sea salts are similar.
With regards to salt, I've been under the impression that Himalayan salt also contains less microplastics than sea salt, but there seems to be conflicting studies. For example these ones:
Overall, MP (microplastics) contamination was higher in terrestrial salts (such as black and Himalayan salt) than the marine salt.

but while sea salts may be more contaminated with microplastics than other salts, Yang et al. (2015) suggest that microplastics < 100 µm are more prevalent in lake and rock/well salts than in sea salts. From a human perspective, microplastics < 150 µm are likely of exposure concern due to their potential to translocate from the digestive tract into the body

A lot of it seems to have to do with where the salt is extracted from, the extraction process, and also particle size.

Another article that compares Himalayan vs different sea salts:

While sea salt comes from evaporated seawater and can vary in terms of mineral composition, Himalayan salt is derived from a single ancient sea bed. For this reason, its mineral content is more uniform, and it is generally higher in various trace minerals when compared to sea salt.

However, emerging research revealing the prevalence of microplastics in various sea and terrestrial salts suggests that it may be wise to ignore the pink Himalayan salt hype and choose low-toxin sea salts, especially Celtic sea salt from France and sea salts from Japan and Portugal.

According to some sources celtic sea salt contains 34 trace elements, so it could be an alternative to regular sea salt at least, although Himalayan salt definitely has the most trace minerals. Considering that we get microplastics from pretty much everywhere, including the air, I don't know how worried one should be about any one particular source like salt.
 
Just an FYI on the trace mineral subject:

"Does Himalayan salt have trace minerals?"

"Both table salt and pink Himalayan salt consist mostly of sodium chloride, but pink Himalayan salt has up to 84 other minerals and trace elements. These include common minerals like potassium and calcium, as well as lesser-known minerals like strontium and molybdenum.Feb 9, 2023"

I imagine that other sea salts are similar.
I was looking up alternative therapies for relieving congestion and ran across the benefits of salt therapy. Two therapies that peaked my interest were salt pipes or inhalers and sole water. Both use Himalayan salts. I was planning to check in with the forum to see if anyone has tried these therapies and the results they have found. I started a batch of sole water, which is dissolving one cup of Himalayan salt in a quart jar of water and using it daily by putting a teaspoon of the brine in another quart of water and sipping it throughout the day. The sole water is suppose to be cleansing for the body, while adding trace minerals. The salt inhaler had good reviews for clearing the sinuses and lungs. I ordered a salt inhaler but wont be able to give it a try until I have a chance to pick up my amazon later this week. I will check in on my progress once I have used it. The Himalayan salt used to start the brine is very slow to dissolve. The salt should be dissolved within 24 hours or so. The brine should be ready to use later today. I will read the information on micro-plastics which is something I hadn't considered. Thank you Adobe for posting your question and others for posting the information on Himalayan salt vs sea salt, perfect timing for me!
 
Back
Top Bottom