Posts Tagged ‘WWI’

Biased Leading Questions Can Be Worse Than Outright Lies. False Contexts Are The Worst.

October 7, 2018

Stupid, even criminal, question found in Quora, an instructive temple of erroneous contexts:

Are the French the primary cause for the two World Wars by having awakened German nationalism after annexing Lorraine, Alsace, and the Napoleonic wars?

As this was a question which naturally arose to those who know a modicum of history… The question is criminal because it is, implicitly, holocaust denying.

This indeed is the sort of leading question a Nazi would ask. Actually the Nazis asked that question, and answered it their way, the same way as in the question above. Nazis thought, and said, that the Jews and the French caused World War Two (so don’t blame us for Auschwitz, the French did it…) Many English readers, following Barbara Tuchman and her ilk, believe, as it is asserted in lying versions of history, that blame has to be spread around for the launch of World War One. Actually, that’s completely false: the German Second Reich attacked (with the hidden support of racist President Wilson of the USA).

The attack was so carefully planned that  that misleading details were carefully included. The German emperor was sent in vacation incommunicado, for the whole world to see, to instill a festive mood of holidays as usual, a false sense of security, among the future victims (France, Russia, Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg). The idea was that, if the commander-in-chief, the Kaiser was solidly vacationing, he certainly was not planning war. Meanwhile, the German High Command prepared for full mobilization as fast as possible, and full attack, concentrating the entire army onto france.

And it is of course not true that plain German nationalism was the main engine of the two world wars: Why would German nationalists risk destroying Germany? Instead there were other engines in the German motivation to savagely attack the world twice: the hatred-against-everybody (French, Slavs, Jews, Danes, Norwegians, British, Russians, etc.) was a solution of the German plutocratic elite to deflect legitimate anger of the German people against the oligarchy towards convenient scapegoats, prepared to take all the blame… That hatred of the French, the Jews, the Poles, the Russians, the Slavs, etc., generalized as a hatred for Human Rights, 1789 style: as demonstrated by the deliberate genocide of the Natives in Africa by the German military. Especially in Namibia.

Nor was that hatred a new mood that the German empire just creatively invented as needed (although there was some of that, as Nietzsche pointed out, as he saw it unfold under his unbelieving eyes); hatred to death made into a religion was the old cement of Christianism, see the very Catholic Roman emperor Theodosius I, who instituted the death penalty against unbelievers in the early 380s; that approach found its full bloom into Islamism which incorporated in its foundational text, the Qur’an, By the 1500s, the right of religion to kill those who disagreed was refreshed, thank to Luther, who, like Saint Louis before him, wanted Jews to die in horrible sufferings:

Luther: Hitler, Unelected.

German nationalism was created deliberately by Prussia, as a cementing mood in the 18th Century (and it also brought income as the Jews were specially taxed). Prussian nationalism involved solid hatred against Jews, Poles, Austrians, and, soon enough, the French (initially France was the model the Prussian leaders followed, especially king Frederik the Great, though…) It enabled Prussia to seize the wealthy, mineral rich Silesia (grabbed from Austria-Hungary, in a succession of wars) and more than double its territory.

Not that the dictator Napoleon, who opposed the young blonde queen of Prussia, who died soon after her confrontation with the tyrant, was anything but a crazy dictator, So right, Napoleon infuriated the Prussians: but not always for good reason: the French removed the racist anti-Jewish, anti-Polish laws of Prussia, and reinstituted independent Polish political power around Warsaw…

Moreover, the war against monarchic and then republican France which caused Napoleon was caused by plutocratic aggression against the Human Right constitution of 1789. Including aggression by Prussia, with holocaustic threats:

How Genocide Starts.

After the break up of the Carolingian empire found in the Treaty of Verdun of 843 CE, it was not clear who got what, as “Francia” was broken in three pieces (later reunited, then broken again, etc…)

The natural border of Gaul ought to be, as under Caesar, on the Rhine. Germania was, in Roman times, naturally, on the other side of that mighty river. The Francia of the Franks itself extended, for centuries, to Eastern Europe. So Lorraine (from Lothar), Alsace? Details. Countries such as Belgium were fabricated to weaken France. The Netherlands itself, a country France created, turned against its creator because of the dictator Louis XIV, and conquered England to use the latter as a weapon against France….

All these wars were caused by the lack of the minimum unification necessary to establish peace throughout Europe. Thus, naturally Europe should be one confederation, a giant Switzerland… Brexit is the wrong turn there, and should be severely punished… Brexit is actually the wrong mood: Britain had to stay inside and fix the system from inside. Francia Occidentalis, later known simply as the kingdom of France made that same exact mistake in the Tenth Century: the Western Franks excluded themselves from the rest of Francia, just as Britain is excluding itself from the rest of Europe. The Western French spurning of Europe brought 10 centuries of wars. 

Many Middle Age most magnificent buildings were destroyed by the German invasion of 1914. In particular the tallest castle was destroyed (still is). Deliberately in Fall 1918. Here the Saint Quentin Basilique being rebuilt in 1919.

One talk a lot about fake news. Worse are outright lies. But the example above (and Quora is full of them) shows that leading questions which posit the wrong mood introduce erroneous contexts.

Erroneous contexts boil down into erroneous moods. Moods are vaguer and more general than contexts, thus more ubiquitous and more effective, more emotionally, hormonally grounded as the foundations of mentalities

Contexts are local logos, local logics, neural networks in AI parlance. They are full of axioms, theorems, corollaries… Refuting one theorem, changes nothing, if one doesn’t refute the axioms. Because any theorem is a consequence of the axioms. So an individual may concede a point out of politeness, politics, convenience, bad faith, craftiness, influence of the moment. But, if they don’t refute the axioms, nothing will change.

For example, in present French society, fearing Islam (Islamophobia) is identified with racism. Funny thing is that fearing Christianism, which is enshrined in French law, is not identified with racism  (so the implicit racist assumption is made that Islam is associated to a “race’, by the very people who identify Isma with racism!)

Only refuting the contexts they are the foundations of, can change the moods. A nonlinear task.

You want to change the world for the better? Change the contexts, and change the systems of thought. From outrageously false to as good as one can make them. Better moods will follow, and sustain the whole enterprise of truth.

And what’s beauty? Beauty is truth, that is, nature. And more beauty is more nature, more truth.

Nazism was ugly, in great part because it was a lie. Nazism was a factory of the most grotesque lies. So let’s quit the habit, that is, the crap.

Patrice Ayme



Note on the irrational mood of condemning Islamophobia: The Qur’an has 124 verses of tolerance, but even more of various horrors (for example, homosexuals are to get the same treatment as in the Bible, a “rain of stones”, and “apostates” those deemed to have stopped believing in Islam are to be killed).

As early as the second chapter of the Qur’an, the “Cow” (the first chapter is just an introduction of one page), one finds:

2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.

2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of unbelievers.

2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.

2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers.

It gets worse in other chapters, including the famous “Verses of the Sword” {“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them…“), which, to boot are the latest verses written in the Qur’an, hence supersedes all the milder stuff… (according to an axiom hidden in the Islamist doctrine idea of abrogation (naskh)…)

All too many statements, axioms of the Qur’an are about killing. “Unbelievers”. Clearly, those not embracing it, should fear such a religion. But, guess what? Those who condemn Islamophobia as “racism” have not read the Qur’an (or then special versions where all the violence was edited away). In other words, they hold an idea, a mood, but not what piece of reality (lethal threats are fundamental axioms of the Qur’an, of Islam, then).



To come back on World War One, the German Second Reich attacked, this is beyond any shadow of a doubt. Anybody doubting that, is a Nazi (somebody sharing the same foundational mood as the Nazis, believing Germany was attacked, when it was actually the other way around…):



Deficit Obsession, an example of false context: The European Union, like the French Republic in the 1930s, has decided that government budgets should be balanced. It’s not clear if this is a theorem (consequence of higher principles) or an axiom (something out of the EU Qur’an). The practical consequence has been that fundamental economic functions found themselves without money, and degenerated.

For example the French railways degenerated, saddled by a huge debt, for years. In Germany, a similar debt was reimbursed by the government. After years of crisis, the French government decided to imitate the Germans and pay the debt of the railways…

Under Obama the US deficit was above 10% for years. It even reached 15%… Trump is running a 6% deficit officially. More in truth because of secret military/intelligence budgets. Guess what? USA GDP is growing at 1%… Every quarter. Unemployment: 3%… The point: there is enough money for running economy in the USA. There is even enough to give to GE, so GE could buy Alstom, its French competitor…

In the 1930s, France practiced monetary austerity, thus starving her economy, and her armed forces (thus an other factors in not intervening in 1936, when germany went on the attack in two places). Meanwhile Britain, the USA and Germany went into full deficit spending. Conclusion: Britain had a superlative Navy and Royal Air Force in 1940 (including long-range bombers which would ruin Germany), the US had a 24 fleet carrier fleet by 1941, more than double what the Japs had, and Hitler had enough tanks to slice France in two…

Frankfurt School of Philosophy As Nazism Unexamined

May 31, 2017

Unexamined until now, that is…


Was The Frankfurt School of Philosophy Disguised Nazism?

By 1946, it dawned even on the most obdurate, that German philosophy, viewed as a mass movement, had been a disaster. Its reasons turned out to follies of the greatest infamy, with an appearance of polished intellectual superiority, which foiled the superficially minded, as long as they had a cold heart. This very infamy made those infamous “German” reasons a strong social bond, binding the German masses together, to commit mass murder, and wars of massive aggression,  twice in a generation, under the enlightenment, the sun, of Satan.

Thus, unsurprisingly, some German mini philosophers reached the same conclusion in their Fort of the Franks (Frankfurt). They “wanted to break free from the past“(Adorno). Assuredly. Their past. By denying it. (My point of view on the Frankfurt School of Philosophy will be viewed as an outrage, a counter-sense, by the traditionalists. The present essay is a reply to “How the Frankfurt school diagnosed the ills of Western Civilisation” in Aeon, May 31, 2017. In essence, I believe the Frankfurt School did not have the courage to look at the main discourse of German history. They accused the imperialism of sliding doors (!) and Hollywood movies. I accuse Luther, traditional racism, intellectual fascism, and the plutocratic effect, in other words, Germany.

The German Enlightenment was dominated paradigmatically, pragmatically, and politically, and militarily,  by one state, Prussia, which was hyper militaristic, brutally expansionist, and successful at it, outrageously racist, and a dictatorship.

Berlin In Ruins, 1945: German Philosophy’s Crown of Creation!

The top philosopher of Prussia,  Kant, didn’t just believe in slavery or the tradition of enslavement, he wrote publicly to the highest authorities to encourage them to stand firm, while enabling slavery. Kant also believed that the highest morality was to obey the authorities unquestionably, a theory Nazis were enthusiast to enact while exterminating the sort of people Prussia, and then all of Germany, as early as 1815, discriminated against grotesquely, and criminally.

Herder, another piece of German Enlightenment, sang the praises of tribalism, to a point so extreme, he rejected French style Enlightenment, wholesale (although French style Enlightenment was just a modernized version, as far as eradicating exaggerated tribalism, of the one inaugurated by imperial Rome).

With (German) “Enlightenment” like that, who would not want to reject it? The Nazis?


The “European” Wars of the Twentieth Century were not European wars. They were German wars. That’s a dirty little secret which does not want to be faced, especially in the USA, for obvious reasons (twice the USA stood by, watching, for years, its parents, France and Britain, suffer the brunt of mass murdering German infamy). Germany deliberately ambushed humanity in August 1914, and again by electing an exterminationist racist fascist dictatorship, and obeying it enthusiastically. OK, it was a particular type of Enlightenment, under the Sun of Satan. But it was very German, in the sense “German” had taken after the rise of the satanic Luther (who wrote about torturing the Jews for pleasure) and the monstrous Prussian State. The mass murdering aggressiveness of Bismarck, the Kaiser and Hitler, were no accident, but the fruit of generations, even centuries of very specifically German evolution of the worst type.


To believe that Europe became crazy in 1853-1945 is to confuse “Europeans” (sane and victimized) and Germans (culprit and insane). Nietzsche pointed it out before me, and well before German folly reached the highest heights. So it’s to confuse victims and perpetrators. Nothing to build a deep philosophy on.

To believe that “reason” caused the German atrocity of the period 1853-1945 is inaccurate: what was viewed then as patriotic German reasons caused the German atrocities. It had nothing to do with the Enlightenment in the style of Montaigne, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Sade Lamarck, or even Rousseau.

Aeon claims that:Far from humane liberation, 20th-century Europeans had plunged into decades of savage barbarism. Why? The Frankfurt School theorists argued that universal rationality had been raised to the status of an idol. At the heart of this was what they called ‘instrumental reason’, the mechanism by which everything in human affairs was ground up.

When reason enabled human beings to interpret the natural world around them in ways that ceased to frighten them, it was a liberating faculty of the mind. However, in the Frankfurt account, its fatal flaw was that it depended on domination, on subjecting the external world to the processes of abstract thought.”

To say that the cause dominates the effect is silly. To brandish “abstract thought” as a flaw is also silly. “Abstract” and “thought” have to be defined. If “abstract” means a model the brain created, then most thoughts, defined as neurological activity, are abstract.

In the visual system, modern neurology has revealed more than 90% of the circuitry as re-entrant. Thus abstract, calling on what the brain views as memories of what was experienced. This is assuredly typical.

“The rationalising faculty had thereby become, according to the Frankfurt philosophers, a tyrannical process, through which all human experience of the world would be subjected to infinitely repeatable rational explanation; a process in which reason had turned from being liberating to being the instrumental means of categorising and classifying an infinitely various reality.”

One would expect that Germans brought, educated, and mentally created under dictatorship, would be incapable to perceive what tyranny is, and how one gets there. This is exactly what happened under the Frankfurt School.

Far from being “rationalizing”, reason, in German culture prior to the last few years at best, was extremely irrational. German reason was irrational reason, because it tended to miss all the reason of the heart. Attacking the world in 1914 was a deliberate insanity: the German High Command thought that Russia would be slow to mobilize, and that Great Britain would come to full force no sooner than a year after France, and most of continental Europe had been defeated and occupied.

Moreover the High Command and the Kaiser decided to believe the soporific insanity of a world racial government which President Wilson had offered to share with them. (While not thinking for an instant that the US president and his colonel House may have had an “America First” agenda!)

And, somehow the very “rational” Germans naively believed that the Americans would help circumventing the British and French naval blockade (which they did, for a while, as long as it made them richer).

That set of reasons for launching all of Europe, in the atrocious infamy of World War One was not reason, it was a mad logic. And it was even more insane for average “rational” Germans to goose step behind those six men who had decided to destroy Europe… Just to save their version of German plutocracy.

From there on, it got even worse: because thousands of German war criminals had not been hanged after World War One, they felt free to do it again: surely, it would work better, on an even larger scale. Literally. A war criminal such as Ludendorff, de facto commander of the German army in 1918, never got prosecuted for his mass murdering in Belgium (in particular, Liege). So Ludendorff was probably the most important founder of the Nazi Party, and certainly the most prestigious.

Well, there was a reason: the Anglo-Saxon plutocracy had been very supportive of its German colleague in the Paris negotiations of 1919. Surely, it would happen again? (It did, but not to the same extent!)

Many are the reasons, that’s why we need a heart.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: Instrumentalized rationality consists in adopting specific axioms to get a logic to the ends one wants to achieve… and scrupulously restricting oneself to them. (As it is, that’s not saying much: Euclid did just that, more or less, with plane geometry!)
What the Frankfurt School wanted to express was “Instrumentalized” Reason, not “Instrumental Reason“. Now generally reason is instrumentalized, that’s why we brandish it. So, per se, it’s not saying much. A better notion maybe “Intellectual Fascism“, a type of thinking where an all too-small axiomatic set is used to animate’s one’s logic, while ignoring obviously related and more impactful axioms.

In particular, axiomatic sets ignoring the questions, and solutions of the heart, like basic human love, are symptomatic of Intellectual Fascism. That was, overall the Achilles heel of most German philosophy. Cogent, but blind to more significant alternative logics.
When the Frankfurt School speak of “Instrumental Rationality” in a derogatory way, it really speaks of “Intellectual Fascism” the ends of which are deplorable…






Wilson A Racist; Exploding Seas

November 23, 2015

A quickie today, I have to go dive with the Manta Rays:

The Architect of USA Policy In The Twentieth Century Was A Frantic Racist Disguised As An Apostle Of Peace:

A scandal is surfacing at Princeton University, as the president and founder, Wilson, is found by the student body to be a racist. The official view on Wilson is that he was a saint, an apostle of peace, and the gentleman who, to his regret, had to intervene in World War One.

My vision is the exact opposite. I  have explained that Wilson, after he became president of the USA, and because he was a racist, encouraged the Kaiser and his top generals to attack the French Republic. So doing, Wilson invented the American policy of using fascist Germany to destroy the world, and, in particular the world order imposed by democratic European power.

During World War One, American trade, with the active collaboration of the Netherlands enabled Germany to keep on fighting (otherwise the Franco-British blockade would have forced it into surrender within 18 months).

It is good to see the student body, and even some of the administration of Princeton University, is rising a piece of the veil covering up American racism, and its far-fetching consequences…


How the USA explodes seas:

One far-fetched consequence has been that, as the USA was made by oil, the fossil fuel industry has had a tight grip on American policy. Just a few weeks ago the American Secretary of State was claiming the Paris Climate Conference would not be bidding. He was rebuffed by the French president (they are friends, and speak in French together as Kerry is bilingual). If COP 21 is not binding, seas will explode beyond the comfort level…

Vast mounts have just been found in shallow seas off Siberia, some 1,000 meters across. They are probably caused by global warming, which is much more pronounced up north.

From university of Tromso:

….these newly discovered subsea pingos may be quite recent. This lends support to another hypotheses, the one that states that mechanisms that form pingos on land and mechanisms that form mounds on the ocean floor are completely different.

“The subsea-pingo like formations are significantly larger than the ones on land. Gas leakage from one of the ocean floor pingos offshore Siberia shows a specific chemical signature that indicates modern generation of methane. We suggest that the mound formed more recently, moving material physically upwards.”

Dissociation of methane ice

On land pingos are mainly formed when the water freezes into an ice core under soil, because of the chilling temperatures of permafrost. However, subsea pingos, may be formed because of the thawing of relict subsea permafrost and dissociation of methane rich gas hydrates.

Gas hydrates are ice-like solids composed of among other things methane and water. They form and remain stable under a combination of low temperature and high pressure. In permafrost the temperatures are very low and gas hydrates are stable even under the low pressure, such as on shallow Arctic seas. Thawing of permafrost leads to temperature increases, which in turn leads to melting of gas hydrates, therefore, releasing the formerly trapped gas.

“ The methane creates the necessary force that pushes the remaining frozen sediment layers upward, forming mounds.” says Serov.

Quiet explosions beneath the Arctic shallow seas

Subsea pingos can potentially blow out, without massive attention, as was the case with the highly visible Yamal craters, but with massive expulsions of methane into the ocean. For petroleum companies these areas may pose a geohazard. Drilling a hole into one of these subsea pingos, can be not only expensive but also catastrophic. During a geotechnical drilling in the close by Pechora Sea, an industry vessel unknowingly drilled a hole into one of these mounds. It triggered a massive release of gas that almost sunk the vessel.

“We don´t know if the methane expelled from the subsea pingos reaches the atmosphere, but it is crucial that we observe and understand these processes better, especially in shallow areas, where the distance between the ocean floor and the atmosphere is short.” says Serov.

Reference: “Methane release from pingo-like features across the South Kara Sea shelf, an area of thawing offshore permafrost”,  Journal of Geophysical Research.

Yes, the situation is serious. Even more serious than when American racist were supporting, enabling, instigating German racists, a century ago. Let no one say it was not clear. The racists failed, in their attempt to impose their order worldwide. However, the destruction of the biosphere, once it has gone too far, will be self-feeding. That’s what the tipping points are all about.

Patrice Ayme’

REAL HISTORY: World War One Inception

November 10, 2015

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

This is so true that I am not the first to think of that. 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).

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 are responsible of the inception of World War One.
  3. Germany was neither fascist nor “Nazi” (that is prone to mass murdering atrocities akin to holocausts) in 1914.

The three notions above are subtle lies. 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 criminals who did not know what they were doing.

The much more frightening truth is the following. Against plutocracy, the Nazis themselves contend 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 from 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: 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. 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 democratic France and Britain.

Colonel House did even more: he 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. They had every reason to believe the USA was playing a double game. 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 presidents) was playing not a double, but a triple game.

Together the French and British high sea fleets had a crushing superiority on the Kaiser’s fleet. They could have blockaded Germany. The embargo 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 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? No. If a country helps massively and crucially a mass murdering enterprise as the Kaiser’s Reich, it is an accomplice of said mass murdering enterprise.

One could argue that the Netherlands was afraid to be invaded, as courageous neutral Belgium was. That’s a mitigating circumstance, indeed. However, it 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.

It would repeat the performance in the 1930s with Nazism (which it more or less American plutocracy 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. It’s rather that, deciding to know nothing, they 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.

Patrice Ayme’

Those Who Know History Don’t Need To Repeat It

May 28, 2014


Moods are everything. They are the epigenetics of ideas. They don’t just color them all sorts of ways, they originate them. Homo is not just about mental capabilities, but also the hormonal system motivating to develop them

Putin was stopped in the Ukraine, because he was handled by the USA in a completely different mood than the mood the USA applied to previous European tyrants, such as the Kaiser and Hitler.

In the Twentieth Century, formidable European tyrants, such as the Kaiser, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were approached as business, and even imperial opportunities, by the USA. Those tyrants became the tools the USA needed to break the European hegemony on the planet.

There is an exhibit number one here: the abominable attitude of the USA in September 1939. Instead of flying to the rescue of the French Republic, which had declared war to the mass homicidal dictator Hitler, who had already killed hundreds of thousands of Germans, the USA applied sanctions to France and Britain (which, with the Commonwealth had joined France in declaring war to Hitler, to its honor, overruling the despicable bleating of Gandhi, Hitler’s self-declared”friend“).

Not only that, but the industry of the USA allowed Hitler’s Luftwaffe to keep on flying while it crushed Poland, and kept France at bay.

I said: exhibit number one in 1939. The paradigm of the USA’s bait and switch was the USA’s conspiracy with the Kaiser, from June 1, 1914 (bait and trade), to sometimes in 1917 (switch!)

Forget about the genius of free enterprise. This bait and switch of the USA was about raw empire, comprised of countless conspiracies of major plutocrats, and details nobody even knows about.

Details of enormous consequence, though, such as the decision by Roosevelt, in 1933, to build 24 fleet aircraft carriers. That was not just as an enormous economic stimulus… And puts a lie to the commonly entertained fantasy that the USA was not ready to fight a world war in 1939.

The day fascist Japan attacked treacherously, the USA had seven carriers, and five were in advanced construction. Only one survived the war, the Enterprise (and it was holed by Jap bombs more than once, including off Okinawa).

Embracing European dictators, while getting ready to stab them in the back, worked beyond the wildest dreams of the American nationalists.

The way the strategy worked was always the same: under the guise of “isolationism”, and loving to know nothing about everything, the USA would let its top business men established profitable trade with the worst.

A massive war would ensue, and the USA would fly noisily to the rescue of victory, preventing the victors to enjoy victory without Uncle Sam splurging, and dictating.

A recent example of this has been the Coltan war in Congo. The USA long supported Kagame and company (the “liberators” in the Rwandan holocaust… Or maybe perpetrators and instigators, too).  Electronic businesses wanted the Coltan without paying taxes. Result: Rwandan supported warriors caused a mess in Congo, bringing five million dead, and lots of tax free Coltan. (Susan Rice was involved in this circus.)

Yet, in Europe, the USA has changed strategy.

How come?

Simple: the European Union. The EU’s democratization paradigm changed everything. The European Union forced the de-fascization of Portugal, Greece, and Spain. These dictatorships had been established with the help of the USA, direct or not. The EU’s might deconstructed the American empire.

Direct French (and then British) intervention in Bosnia (under UN mandate) forced back pseudo-nationalist Serbian racial fascism.

Confronted to all this, Bill Clinton joined the Franco-British effort (well after the French had used lethal artillery and air force violence in Bosnia). At this point the USA changed paradigm: instead of doing its usual switch and bait, it just collaborated with the EU, or France and Britain, right from the start.


Simple. The switch and bait tactic used with the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin, while still unobserved so far,  has come very close to being revealed to all. One more blatant case, and even well paid pseudo-intellectuals from the pseudo-left, would be forced to admit that they noticed it.

When the European Union enforced the de-fascization of much of southern Europe, the USA could not really oppose that frontally.

Then of course, there were the eight year of plutocrat Bush. Bush decided to better embrace Europe to lead it into military-imperial adventurism.  However France got in the way.

Obama had decided that the Iraq war was a stupid war, and, thus, proved himself an authentic ally of France. (He could not advertise that, as Wall Street induced Francophobia runs rampant in the USA; if anything, he did not want to antagonize his sponsors.)

Obama, Clinton, and, of course, Kerry-the-French, seem to have perfectly understood that the old bait and switch strategy is unbecoming the USA. And that’s right. The USA is now so mighty that it can get a better mileage from a higher morality.

This is why Obama has become the best friend the European Union ever had since president Kennedy.

Why Kennedy? Kennedy was no peasant. He was the scion of a top plutocrat. Yet he was also someone who had travelled in Europe, and, even more important, was an authentic war hero (so was his elder brother, who died piloting a sort of giant early version of a drone in a quasi-suicidal mission).

Obama has an extremely variegated experience as a child, not just in Hawai’i, but also in Indonesia, confronted with people  with very different attitude and religion, and even suffering the occasional brunt of their hostility, just because he was different.

Enough to appreciate the transnational splendor of the European project. And that is why Obama found the wisdom and power to stop Putin in a timely manner (instead of the bait and switch FDR played with Hitler; Obama could have very well done this; instead, sanctions that bit were applied, and even the Swiss got motivated enough to entertain Putin with the vision of the bank accounts he and his friends have in Western Europe).

Those who know history don’t need to repeat it.  

American plutocrats are too mighty to be opposed directly. After all, they made Clinton and Obama. The best those chaps could do was to short their main overseas strategy, planetary bait and switch. It’s much more than it looks.

Now what we need is a real left in the West. And it should, it has to start, with intellectuals (it’s no accident that Elizabeth Warren is an ex-Harvard professor).

As Obama has long said , he can’t do the entire job by himself.

Patrice Aymé


August 15, 2008


Ours is not the first age of globalization. The percentage of trade that was international in nature as a percentage of global trade was as high around 1900 as it is now. Our argument is that the juxtaposition of globalization, democracy and tyranny made an explosive mix that caused W.W.I. And something similar may happen today.

Russia rolled tanks into the heart of Georgia. Georgia started as the kingdoms of Colchis and Iberia, about three thousands years ago, making it three times older than Russia in any sense (and six times older than the state that Ivan the Terrible started in Moscow). The breakaway pieces of Georgia artfully amplified by Russia recently did not exist then. Curiously, Russia has been doing extremely well economically in recent years. What is it afraid of? Well, we will argue that it does not feel afraid enough, and it needs fear to buttress itself.

It’s a great illusion to believe that the sheer evocation of profitability from commerce with a country can stop tanks rolling from that country. The experience of the USA with Hitler is very clear in this respect: in spite of tremendous trade with the USA, Hitler declared war to the USA.

Lenin used to say that capitalists were so greedy that they would sell him the rope to hang them with. (This is roughly what happened; for example, at least one US capitalist helped Stalin develop Caucasus oil in Baku, and became “Hero of the Soviet Union”.)

Arguably, “selling the rope that will hang us” is exactly what we (in the West) have been doing recently, on a much larger scale. By displacing more and more crucial economic activities to anti-democratic countries, the capitalist masters of the West have been allowed to be much more greedy than basic safety requires. Should this process be allowed to persist, a World War is unavoidable. Let me please explain this.

The present World Order is strictly military.  The economic aspect of the World Order is mostly an illusion. Diverting more and more crucial industries to anti-democratic countries makes them ever stronger.  As soon as the antidemocratic countries feel stronger, militarily, than the democratic countries, they will strike militarily.

Why such a gloomy assessment? Why will strength, far from bringing democratization (as the Bush administration erroneously believed), bring war instead? Why will it even trigger war? Because when people feel threatened, they accept to be led by mean, vicious leaders. The removal of the threat economic expansion leads to makes the situation worse.

Indeed, the antidemocratic countries started weaker. That weakness is itself perceived as a threat inside an anti-democratic country. So, as long as the anti-democratic country is weak, its own anti-democratism is justified (by its own perceived weakness). This is a stable arrangement, until the day when most of the people of the anti-democratic country feel so strong that they do not feel threatened anymore. At this point the mean, vicious leaders on top cannot justify their mean, vicious rule with their old excuse of being leading a weaker, hence threatened, country. They have to invent something else, because the anti-democratic leaders, their class, their companions, their children, and the fascist structures that support them will naturally want to keep power. (One can see this mechanism at work in Russia since the collapse of the USSR, with various transmogrifications of communists into oligarchs, and of KGB officers into statesmen.)

How will the mean, vicious leaders stay on top although their rule is not justified the old fashion way anymore? How to keep power? How to keep on having a fascist system in place when the justification for it, that perceived threat that weakness provided it with has now disappeared? Only one way, the ultimate way to justify total fascism, namely total war. Since the old threat has disappeared, the old, mean, vicious leaders create a new, all too real one. This mechanism of fascism graduating to outright war against exterior enemies has happened many times in the last three millennia. There are literally thousands of examples.

In the present world, the anti-democratic countries did not strike yet, because they do not feel strong enough, yet. Yet, each factory transferred to them makes them stronger.

Can we extract a practical lesson from all this? The West should sit with itself, and think about all this in depth. A solution will be to restrict trade with non democratizing countries, while rewarding more those that are going the right way towards real, irreversible democratization (in a similar process as the one for entering the European Union). For example the strongly democratizing countries of the Americas or Europe should be rewarded, and trusted ever more, diverting trade to them.

Technology and economic transfers towards dangerously nationalistic, non democratizing countries should be reduced immediately (one should not forget that giant transfers of dual use technologies to Nazi Germany allowed for Hitler’s aggression in W.W.II).


Patrice Ayme.


P/S: How did W.W.I start? Global trade was as high around 1900 as it is now, and going higher. That was the entire problem: development brought instability. The (mildly) fascist system in Germany felt surrounded. Feeling threatened by the economic rise of a newly democratic Russia, and of republican, imperial France, German generals with US encouragement (from “Colonel” House, Wilson’s right hand man) plotted an attack on their quickly ascending rivals. This exposes another twist: in the end, democratic countries develop more durably, and in much more stable way. So the fascist regimes feel ever more threatened. In Germany, the fascist structures felt threatened by Russia, France (that helped develop Russia) and last but not least, by the Reichstag, which wanted ever more powers, and was wondering why Germany could not be democratic, like France (or… Russia…).