The real history is, all too often, still the secret history.

[This is chapter two of World War One, Patrice Ayme’s version. For the basic fault being Germany’s, see Chapter One]

Real history, all too often, still the secret history? This is so true that I am not the first to think of that. The Mongols did. The main, most revealing, horrors, massacres, and all,  most interesting and educational document we have on the history of the Mongols is called the “Secret History of The Mongols”. It was really secret, and written only for the elite (so they will learn how Genghis Khan did it, and the way he did it is much revealing than, say, the Prince of Machiavelli, or the “Art of War” of Sun Tzu). Another precious Mongol text survived as just one sample… In Japan! (Japan had sent spies to the Mongol court, generations before the Mongols attempted to invade Japan…)

A related truism: Learning history from one’s master is to condemn oneself to perpetuate one’s subjugation.

History conducive to one’s servitude can be subtle. Extremely subtle.

Take three lies about World War One which are viewed as obvious truths by historically minded, college educated commoners:

  1. The USA had nothing to do with World War One’s inception. The USA only got involved in the war, against Germany, in April 1917.
  2. European powers, and only them, all of them, are responsible of the inception of World War One.
  3. Germany was neither fascist nor “Nazi” in any sense (that is prone to mass murdering atrocities akin to holocausts) in 1914.

The three notions above are subtle lies, not apparent at first glance… at least as long as one gets all of one’s knowledge from (what passes for) official history books. Verily, one is often taught history by such good liars, they are the best, they don’t even know they lie. OK, not so subtle, it turns out, and certainly catastrophic. Catastrophic, gigantic lies whose consequences are alive and well as we try to think nowadays. Perpetuating these lies by repeating them like educated parrots, makes one incapable of understanding what is perhaps the main cause of evil in the world.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

German Troops Invading Neutral Belgium, August 1914. More Than One Million Went Through Brussels Alone, For Three Days.

For the third lie, one has just to look at what the Kaiser’s Germany did in Namibia: a deliberate holocaust aiming at exterminating the Natives and replacing them with Aryans. After French civilization was thrown out of Germany in 1815, Jews lost the equal rights they had acquired. The Hep-Hep riots took place throughout Germany, killing Jews, destroying their properties. Many German states stripped Jews of their civil rights. Nazism was a repetition, not an innovation (except in the sense that it got help from IBM; see the book: “IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation for further edification).

Some still insist that the Kaiser’s Germany, a dictatorship, was on a level field with those it attacked, including the French and British democracies. The Kaiser’s Germany deliberately launched a world war in early August 1914, knowing full well it would be a world war, but hoping to take out militarily, in quick succession a whole number of powers, including the French Republic, and later Russia, to force an advantageous peace on Great Britain. Five men took the decision to attack: the Kaiser, and His four top generals. The two admirals present were highly reluctant, but they gained only a delay. Five men: not a democracy in any sense.

If one does not realize the three points above are lies, one cannot understand the causal system which brought World War One. Still historians have written thousands of books on the subject, which more or less treat the three lies above as if they were not the lies they are, but self-evident truths. How come those noble, much honored doctors of history missed the truth so much? Is it because they are called “doctors” and thus doctor history? Is it because they were paid to sell books, and to entertain the ruling paradigm: pro-”American”, anti-European, anti-democratic. In a variant, Germans were crazy militarists (true, but irrelevant for understanding what sparked the German government into action).

Something similar happened with World War Two. One cannot understand the causal system which brought World War Two, if one does not known a number of facts which are completely ignored by (most) “official” history, and, certainly, all plutocratic universities.

Instead the usual causal system used is just to announce that the Nazis were, well, Nazis, stupid, racist, hateful criminals who did not know what they were doing.

The much more frightening truth is the following. Against plutocracy, the Nazis themselves contended in vain. The Nazis were bent to lethal self-destruction, in part because they got carefully manipulated into insanity. Manipulated? The historian Dodd was the ambassador of the USA and his grim assessment of the nature of Nazism was shared by his colleague, the French ambassador. To avoid being listened to, thanks to the omnipresent Nazi microphones, the two ambassadors used to take walks in the “garden of the beasts” (Tiergarten” in Deutsch). Now there is an American book by that title.

Roosevelt replaced the anti-Nazi ambassador by a pro-Nazi one, and did the same in London, or Paris (where Roosevelt went as far as recognizing immediately the unconstitutional Vichy regime established under the Nazi guns; Churchill and the Commonwealth never recognized the Vichy puppets as the legitimate French state or government: rightly so, because it was not)

To come back to the three lies above they create the following moods advantageous to the present rulers (and it helps define who said rulers are!):

  1. The USA is innocent in all matters pertaining to European insanity.
  2. Europeans are crazy, lethal nuts, much inferior to the wise and balanced American sort.
  3. All and any European democracies are not different from fascist, war criminally insane regimes such as the 1914 German dictatorship. It’s all a level playing field. Only the USA stands loftily above that mess.

The historical truth is completely different.

But, to find it, one has to look for those who had interest to launch a war. Clearly the Second Reich plutocracy (top capitalists, profiteers and generals) was aware, and declared, that the French Republic and democratizing Russia were overtaking Germany’s economic might. To the point the evil men who ruled Germany soon would not be sure to win a war against them. War was planned “within 18 months of December 11, 1912.

Moreover the German socialists were getting increasingly agitated, as they wonder aloud why Germany could not democratize too, or, even, become a Republic.

So German plutocracy was culprit. However, by June 1, 1914, no special preparation had been engaged. Three days earlier the Archiduke of Austro-Hungary had been assassinated.

That day, June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the envoy of the president of the USA, the world’s greatest economic power, met with the German dictator, the Kaiser. House did entertain the Kaiser ‘s racial folly and did promise military and civilian aid, which was delivered for the first three years of the war of fascist Germany against (much more) democratic France and Britain.

Colonel House did even more: House proposed to the Kaiser a world government of Britain, the USA and Germany, as long as Germany renounced its project to build the world’s premier military fleet, as it already had the world’s most powerful army.

In the law of the USA, if one drives the get-away car, while a murderous hold-up is conducted, one is viewed as a murderer too (at least by the prosecutors).

In this case the USA’s leadership presented the plan to the Kaiser. The plan of the mass murder hold-up of, not just Europe, but the entire world. With the help of the USA, the Kaiser and his murderous accomplices had a chance. Otherwise they would fall prey to the (German) Socialists. Assuredly.

Hitler and his top Nazis would make the same computation in the 1930s. The Nazis had every reason to believe the USA was playing a double game: claiming to stand against Hitler, while doing everything to help him for real. A bit more thinking would have led them to realize that, as in the First World War, the leadership of the USA (those who pull the strings of US presidents) was playing not a double, but a triple game. But thinking was hard for the Nazis, even when they survival depended upon it…

To come back to World War One, together the French and British high sea fleets had a crushing superiority on the Kaiser’s fleet. They could have blockaded Germany. The total blockade from France and Britain would have starved fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany out of the war in JUST ONE YEAR.

However, that was without counting the USA. Using the “neutral” Netherlands, the USA fed fascist racist holocaust prone Kaiser Germany as if it were a newborn baby. Including with several materials Germany absolutely needed to make AMMUNITIONS.

Ammunition  making materials were provided deliberately to the Kaiser, in spite of French and British protests to Washington. So were the USA and the Netherlands neutral in World War One? NoIf a country helps massively and crucially a mass murdering enterprise as the Kaiser’s Reich, it is an accomplice of said mass murdering enterprise. (Same holds for Sweden in the early years of WW2.)

One could argue that the Netherlands was afraid to be invaded, as courageous neutral Belgium was. That’s a mitigating circumstance, indeed. However, the invasion argument does not apply to the mighty USA.

I view the USA as the Deus Ex Machina of World War One. Or, more exactly, the USA’s corrupt plutocracy. helped make German plutocracy into a democracy destroying juggernaut. Right, France and Britain survived, but barely, and with crushing debts to their last minute ally, the USA. France’s demography would need more than a generation to recover.

US plutocracy would repeat the performance in the 1930s with Nazism (which US American plutocracy more or less instigated, financed, created, inspired, and even fed one-liners to, let alone Harvard songs)

So here we are.

And we are here, with a rising plutocracy (so-called “wealth inequality”), which has transformed the world in a sort of Kabuki theater, complete with elaborate make-up.

We are here because few perceive how manipulated not just the interpretation, but the very nature of the historical universe have been distorted.

Indeed the ambivalent role of the USA’s leadership, having not been suspected, detected, let alone analyzed, went on with its self-promoting ways, still unsuspected, undetected, let alone unanalyzed.

Over-simplistic conventional “anti-Americanism” or “anti-capitalism” is a friend of this cover-up, because it eschews serious, informed, in-depth revelation, and exposition of the profiteer class (now well hidden inside the Dark Pools of faceless money, more than half of the world’s money).

All deep questions ponder what was the logic precedingly involved. Thus the deepest questions are always historical in nature to some extent.

Therefore, the inability, or lack of inclination, to be as critical of history feeds the inability and lack of inclination to tackle the deepest questions… Such as the survival of humanity, presently at play.

Ah, and what of the main cause of evil in the world? It’s not, as the trite truth has it, that good human beings did nothing, when they could have. It’s rather that, good people, deciding to know nothing, refuse to check out the details. As everybody knows, this is akin to leaving the Devil alone, free to go on with His machinations and His not-so subtle lies.

US plutocracy helped to manipulate Europe into disaster in World War One, and World War Two. Whether that was a deliberate, conscious plot from major US actors, from US plutocrats and their administrative enablers, is besides the point. It should have been seen, it was not, and it is still not seen. Essay like the present one are ignored, and viewed as the work of silly lunatics (supposing there is more than yours truly).

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

18 Responses to “REAL HISTORY: WORLD WAR ONE INCEPTION From Plutocracy Unchained”

  1. brodix Says:


    The problem is that, as Henry Ford said; history is bunk.

    It is stories being told to construct a reality that supports what people want to hear. No one gets rich, or elected by telling people the truth, but what they want to hear. So your word will mostly fall on deaf ears. That is why the deepest questions are physical. From that rises the layer of psychology and from that rises the layer of history.

    Yes, money runs things. Why?

    When you have small numbers of people, as with the organic tribes homo sapiens evolved in, there was a holistic tendency to function as one organism. As such, people naturally did favors for one another, in order to be part of the group.

    When there are lots of people, a method of accounting needs to exist and this is money. So in reality, it functions as a social contract, a medium of exchange. But because we individually experience it as a store of value, even though it is just promises from the rest of society, we think of it as a form of commodity. Which naturally everyone wants as much as possible.

    The problem is that as a public contract, it functions as a voucher system and excess vouchers will eventually and surely destroy trust in the value they hold.

    So the best way to try and keep them valuable, is to extend the amount of public obligations, i.e. public debt and finding ways to spend it. So costly wars not only burn off excess value, but cut down on the population depending on it and traumatize everyone else into following the leadership.

    Normal budgeting is to prioritize one’s needs and spend according to ability, but instead the government puts together these enormous bills, adds enough extras to get enough votes and the president can only pass or veto them in whole, which congress then can override, given everyone has their piece of the pie they want.

    To actually budget they could have the legislature break the bills into their particular items, have every legislator assign a percentage value to each one, reassemble them in order of preference and then the president would draw the line. There would be little incentive to override his decision, because more would be asked to fund what fewer want.

    Obviously this would seriously reduce spending to local projects, but if banking were treated as a public utility, like the post office, then communities could fund their own projects, with their own savings. Not have it sent off to New York and borrowed back.

    This would completely blow up the current economic system, far more effectively than uncovering the various crimes committed to create and sustain it.

    As a medium of exchange, money is like blood in the body, but as store of value, it is like fat.

    Rather than having to borrow it back out, as is currently done, government could threaten to tax it back out and people would quickly find other ways to store value, than in a bloated rent extraction service.
    Most people save for predictable reasons, such as housing, child rearing, health, retirement, entertainment, etc. If the community invested directly into these needs preemptively, it would create a stronger community, more public spaces, and likely a healthier environment for that community, as real stores of wealth and value. As muscle and bone, not fat.
    Banging your head on the history books is not going to change either history or how it is used.
    Sometimes you need a scalpel, not a hammer.


    • Gmax Says:

      Henry Ford was a NAZI who fed Hitler like a new born baby. He was not just bunk, but a war criminal


      • brodix Says:


        And how is that any different from what is happening today?

        At least Ford was a sensible enough capitalist to pay his workers enough to be able to buy the cars they built. Today, the idiots running things think they can hoard it all and just loan it back out. Which is actually quite useful for those who do want to change the system, since it is being destroyed from the inside.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Yes and no. The “system” has thrived on war. Now it’s war against the biosphere. Or China if it gets dumb enough to keep on piling sand in the sea off the Philippines… So far, the “system” is holding, because the intellectuals are on the side of those who pay them.


          • brodix Says:

            Sometimes it is the very act of “thriving” that leads to war, since growth entails conflict. When one paradigm reaches its terminal limits, it will break down and some other direction, theory, model, belief, etc takes over. It is the fact that we are reaching some very large limits and the threat of the consequences of nuclear war is what is keeping people from the normal reaction to these pressures, that of fighting with others. MAD.

            I’ve tried raising three very basic points; That we look at time backward, in that it isn’t the present moving from past to future, but change turning future into past and this explains reality as thermodynamic/cyclical/feedback/etc, rather than linear. Yet no “intellectuals” in the physics community, or even the philosophy community will give any thought to it, because it goes against groupthink, not because the powers that be won’t pay them.

            I also point out that a spiritual absolute would be the essence of consciousness from which we rise, not an intellectual ideal from which we fell. Also the “intellectuals” are not going to consider it, maybe because it doesn’t put the intellect up on the pedestal that an all-knowing God, or platonic ideals put it.

            I make the argument that money is a social contract, as a voucher system, not a commodity and to treat it as a commodity only leads to “manufacturing” enormous excesses of notational value and gives power to those who take advantage of it, but again, I can’t seem to get any “intellectuals” interested in the concept.

            So personally I think most intellectuals are just more sheep and are simply running to the feed bucket, rather than being bribed to support the powers that be. Most of those who bleat about how unfair it is, just got there after the food ran out.

            So as I see it, there will come a time when the current paradigm finally reaches its terminal limits and we go to war, or somebody starts asking if there are other models and theories to explain how reality and society function. I’m not holding out much hope though.

            I have the horses. There is little pretense there.


        • Gmax Says:

          How different today? We do not have millions dying every month, as in WWII.

          Right now, evil is gathering in the distance, like a giant tsunami, but the wave is not yet here. But when it strikes OMG, it is going to make WWII a walk in the park… Except if the West learns from WWII…


          • brodix Says:


            Lol. We learned to be the Imperial force.

            It really isn’t that tough to figure out that flooding the financial system with excess currency, then sustaining it by the public borrowing it back and paying interest only enables further private ownership of public space, but obviously those in control are not going to point this out and the general public, even the supposedly smart set, are not going to question the wisdom of the “mainstream.’

            That’s why I try making points such as time is an effect of action and thermodynamic cycling is a much deeper part of reality, than temporal sequencing, as well as that a spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell and that top down theology mostly is used to support a top down sociology, because they are the sort of ideas the “intellectuals” presume to examine, but as with the financial system, no one will truly take the chance of going against the crowd.

            We all want to be part of something larger, even if it is all headed toward a cliff. So maybe, when the few remaining are huddled at the base of the cliff, when all this comes to pass, they will look a little deeper into reality and figure out that mistakes were made, but it is more likely they will pick themselves up and start over, doing the same things, based on believing the same things.

            We all have that little spark of the eternal, lighting our physical path. It makes us both courageous in seeing and fearful of losing.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Excess currency only by the dearth of worthy government socio-economic programs. Krugman always mention the former, not the latter, showing his true colors (plutocratic).


          • brodix Says:


            When Paul Volcker raised interest rates, one of the methods he used was to sell government bonds the Fed had originally bought to create the money in the first place.
            Who did he sell them too? Private investors. So by that logic, the excess currency was in the hands of those with an excess of wealth.
            Now inflation really didn’t go away until ’82, by which time the deficit had hit 200 billion dollars, which was real money in those days. So the Treasury was issuing fresh bonds and selling them to who? The same private investors the Fed would be selling to. Not to mention the Treasury was selling far more than the Fed.
            So what should they have done with all the money they collected? Spend it on social programs, more weapons, infrastructure? Frankly what really matters isn’t the broad sweep of spending, but how wisely it is spent. Whatever it is spent on, if there is no long term return, it will be a form of bubble and anyone depending on it will eventually get hurt and those most likely to profit from it will be the contractors who will be more concerned with their own profits, than the quality of the services.
            There is much deeper issue here and that does go to the nature of how money functions as a social contract, but quickly also becomes a rent extraction process, for both governments and financial companies. As you point out, governments which grow beyond their social mandate are plutocracies and they only think of the general population as cannon fodder for the schemes of the elites. So giving them the tools to do so, on the expectation they will only be used for good is not wise.
            A functioning society requires a strong organic connectivity, not just some very broad based monetary medium to tie it together.
            You could create a successful large society, but it would still require a strong local foundation. Such as how our democratic system is supposed to work, with local, regional and a national government. We need a financial circulation system which is built around the same premises, so that local communities can fund their own structural foundations and seek strength as part of larger coalitions.
            The monetary medium would be understood as a broad social contract, involving both rights and responsibilities. Such that excesses would be taxed out, not borrowed out. Then people would learn to invest directly into their normal needs, from childcare to retirement, as broad social functions, not privatized and atomized expectations, supposedly funded through an omnipotent financial mechanism.
            Its one freaking planet and its all we have.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Excellent analysis, John! However, unreadable because too nestled down. I am displacing it to yesterday’s essay which it can viewed as answering.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      And sometimes you need an atomic bomb, not a scalpel.

      Germany became racist, fascist, holocaustic, hyper nationalistic, demented, sado-masochist on the grandest scale, because young Germans had read completely erroneous history books.

      History is the sum of all stories. It gets mentally imbalanced when the most factual, significant, impactful accounts are silenced unknowns.


    • EugenR Says:

      Dear Patrice, i agree almost with every point you wrote in your essay. Definitely the Germans were paranoid about the Russian economic development, that they felt threatened their leading position in the lands east to Rhine. I am not sure how much the Americans influenced their decision to start WWI. Probably they would start the war even without American support. As to Britain’s hesitant position, that gave to the Germans impression that they will not enter the war in spite of the invasion to Belgium, it was a different mater. I am quite sure, if the British were more clear about their position, the war would never start. And then it is easy to criticize today all the decision makers. No one knew, that in the very first weeks of the war more than a million soldiers will die, without bringing victory.
      My opinion as to the very partial blame of US in the outbreak of WWI is based on the understanding, that it was very hard for Yankees, who even in their civil war fifty years before had difficulty to feel real animosity against the South, to understand the motives of the German leaders, full of psychopathic paranoia, racism, and hate.
      The good has always difficulty to understands the evil, and even more the total evil. This is why the European Jews, who considered themselves as law abiding citizens, (no thieves and no murderers so who could harm them?). Of course they were not prepared for the Nazi thieves and murderers.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Thanks Eugen. A few clarifying points:
        1) I have no direct evidence that the propositions from the American presidency moved the top 5 Germans to start world war one. However, the indirect evidence is strong, as proven by the fact the USA was a de facto ally of the Kaiser, and this extended the war by at least three years.

        2) we have direct evidence that the top 5 criminals leading Germany knew that Britain would join the war. But they also knew that Britain had no army (total British army was worth just ONE French Army CORPS… Army group in other linguo.) So they expected to defeat France in a month, and then go full bore against Russia. After finishing Russia, they were to propose peace to Britain (Wilhelm II was the grandson of Queen Victoria). Evil philosophers such as Bertrand Russell thought this was all a grand, very worthy, highly philosophical scheme.

        Britain was on Hitler’s side in the period 1933-1936. HOWEVER, Britain was NOT, repeat, NOT, on the side of the Kaiser, and made that plenty clear in the period 1890-1914.

        3) Both Britain and France were taken by COMPLETE surprise by the fascist racist, criminal Kaiser attack. The entire French government was in vacation, except the SOUS SECRETAIRE A L’AGRICULTURE, the only government official in the Ile de France, and it is him who decreed General Mobilization (several days after the Germans had secretly launched theirs).

        4) The USA was extremely anxious that France and Britain would recognize, and trade, with the CONFEDERACY. So the argument that the USA DID NOT REALIZE THEY WERE DOING WRONG BY SUPPORTING A RACIST, WAR CRIMINAL EMPIRE TRYING TO CONQUER EUROPE BY FORCE… makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, the crazy racist fascist mass murdering criminals had attacked France, the mother of the USA. So, NO excuse. It’s high time Americans come revisit their own history with a more critical eye.

        5) Don’t forget that in 1914, much of the USA was in the hands of fascism, racism, terrorism onto the Blacks, and deprivation of civil rights to whomever they felt like torturing… To believe that the USA was “the good” is to believe the Nazis were wrong when they took the USA as a model, the Jews for Indians, and the French for slaves…


  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    Tangentially related to this text, at least the WWI and pre-WWII Germany part down the text. YMMV (Présent, Dualpha, plus Dedefensa), but interesting nonetheless :


  3. Munich 1938, Or: Britain Helped Hitler | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] (I have mentioned this, in details, many times). Mostly, and hidden behind Hitler, was the USA (for the USA, Germany was a small state, easy to manipulate as a tool against mightier France…) This is nothing new: Sparta was the tool of Persia against Athens (it backfired on all concerned […]


  4. Sartre and De Beauvoir Were Nazis. Is Existentialism A Euphemism For Nazism? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] […]


  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [To Attali]
    Real history of the Twentieth Century? There was an underlying conspiracy. It’s in plain sight. It’s a conspiracy of Pluto moods, fundamentally. The “American Century” was no accident. Not seeing its onset (1914-19) prevents seeing present & gloomy future

    How does Mr. Macron explain selling Alstom power & grid to General Electric for 10.6 billion? GE profits in 2010: 14 billion, zero taxes. In 2009, Obama gave 25 billion in grants to GE. So US public money was used to buy French company needed for European solar & battery power.

    GE was part of a 100 billion Obama green tech public policy


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: