The Dreyfus Affair on Trial

Miles Mathis posted a paper I wrote showing that the famous Dreyfus Affair was a manufactured hoax. For those of you coming here from that paper, welcome! Below I have a brief clarification about the goals of the Dreyfus affair plus a bonus outing of another French spook. But first a few preliminaries:

I am a new addition to the blog here along with several regulars who have until now only contributed to the comments section. Mark Tokarski is the captain who prefers to stay out of the limelight. He welcomes thoughtful comments and constructive criticism. But he runs a tight ship, so please be thoughtful and respectful when commenting or you might have to walk the shill plank. (-;

Mark, along with another contributor who goes by straightfromthedevilsmouth (or ‘straight’ for short), has discovered a shocking number of celebrities who we know as a single persona but are actually ‘played’ by identical twins. If you’ve read Miles’s work, you know that Intelligence loves twins, like Paul & Mike McCartney and Elvis & Aron Presley. Well it turns out those ones are just a drop in the bucket. You can find all of the twins uncovered so far in The Honor Roll of Twins on the right sidebar under the Blogroll. We have a working hypothesis that twins can be ‘engineered’ by artificial embryo splitting, but that’s for another day.

And if that wasn’t enough, they’ve also found compelling evidence that many celebrities who allegedly “died” young (many from the Laurel Canyon scene), were reactivated later to take on new roles in the media. Mark and Straight call them zombies. You can find them in The Honor Roll of Zombies and assess the evidence for yourself. Maybe we should start printing out bumper stickers for the proud parents whose kids made the honor roll.

Exposing twins and zombies has been the primary pre-occupation of the blog for the last 6 months or so, and will continue to be a main theme, but with new blood on board we are branching out in new directions.

Now, Mark told me that I could have been clearer in the paper about the purposes of the Dreyfus affair. There was so much detail that it was hard to see the forest for the trees, and I agree. So I want to try to clarify what I view as the chief goals (in what I view as the order of importance):

1. Blackwashing criticism of Jewish bankers and industrialists and their growing political and economic power. They did this by putting all criticism of Jews, both legitimate and ridiculous, under the label of anti-Semitism. Then they created an event that would show how this poor, innocent, honorable patriot was wrongly convicted and punished severely just because of anti-Semitic people in the military and government. Inflaming anti-Semitic passions among the populace was also useful, since many undoubtedly felt badly about their criticism of Jews after they found out Dreyfus was innocent (though many still clung to their beliefs, to be sure). This blackwashing (or black frosting) had the dual effect of helping to protect these wealthy Jews from future criticism and also to bolster the political power and influence of the Jewish-supported Third Republic and disempower and delegitimize the remaining Monarchist and Catholic (“traditional”) power centers of France. In other words, not only were these people set up for a fall, any criticism aimed at anyone who was Jewish was also set up for a fall. But as Hannah Arendt put it, this was only a dress rehearsal for the real show thirty-plus years later.
2. The Dreyfus affair seems to have served as an impetus for the modern Zionist movement. Or another way to say it is that the Zionist movement used the Dreyfus affair to legitimize and justify its goals. I believe this was part of the plan from the beginning, but it might have been something tacked on later. On top of this, the Zionists needed to bring anti-Semitic sentiment to a boil in order to cajole as many European Jews as possible to move to Israel. (We are seeing the same thing today, by the way, with the manufactured Islamic terror hoaxes aimed at French Jews.) The Dreyfus affair itself was not very effective in getting Jews to move, but they were really just getting warmed up. (The pogroms in Russia during these years deserve a closer inspection in light of all we’ve learned.)
3. The blackwashing of anti-Semitism discussed above in point number 1 gained increased important in the wake of the Union Generale and, especially, the Panama scandals. But on top of that, the Dreyfus affair also served as a distraction. And it was a major distraction.
4. Divide and conquer: the affair is described as nearly tearing France in two, with battle lines between drawn between the Dreyfusards and the anti-Dreyfusards. Remember, as long as we’re pointing fingers at each other, we’re not pointing them up at the men behind the curtain.
5. Make lots of money: the newspapers were owned (almost?) entirely by wealthy Jews. They sold a lot of print following every twist and turn of the affair. It was good business. Perhaps not a goal, just a happy collateral consequence.
6. I have to imagine there were more. We saw how the film industry biggy-packed on the Dreyfus affair, and how this was one of the first events, if not the first, where they used film to consecrate a manufactured reality. So it served many purposes. And it continues to serve them since the lessons of the event are constantly rewarmed and rehashed.

Bonus outing: General Georges Boulanger. I didn’t include this in the Dreyfus paper, since it was already so long, and I couldn’t find a natural place for it there. But his story is of a piece with the rest of it. He was chosen to lead the Catholic/Monarchist/nationalist/traditional opposition and help bring it crashing down. Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia entry on him:

Georges Ernest Jean-Marie Boulanger (29 April 1837 – 30 September 1891), nicknamed Général Revanche, was a French general and politician. An enormously popular public figure during the Third Republic, he won a series of elections and was feared to be powerful enough to establish himself as dictator at the apogee of his popularity in January 1889. His base of support was the working districts of Paris and other cities, plus rural traditionalist Catholics and royalists. He promoted an aggressive nationalism, known as Revanchism, which opposed Germany and called for the defeat of the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) to be avenged.

The elections of September 1889 marked a decisive defeat for the Boulangists. Changes in the electoral laws prevented Boulanger from running in multiple constituencies and the aggressive opposition of the established government, combined with Boulanger’s self-imposed exile, all contributed to a rapid decline of the movement. The decline of Boulanger severely undermined the political strength of the conservative and royalist elements of French political life; they would not recover strength until the establishment of the Vichy regime in 1940. The defeat of the Boulangists ushered in a period of political dominance by the Opportunist Republicans.

One thing to realize about the post-1870 period of France is that the French felt humiliated by their defeat to the Germans/Prussians in the Franco-Prussian war. They wanted revenge. They were also whipped into a paranoid nationalist frenzy against the Prussians, who were viewed as a continuing threat. The Third Republic leadership used this manufactured fear to increase the size and scope of the military and intelligence capacities, as well as pushing through more draconian laws. Much like the post-9/11 landscape in the US. When Boulanger was war minister, he played a big role in these developments.

Here are three keys to his outing:

1. He was a graduate of and later instructor at St. Cyr.
2. He began his political career under the aegis of Georges Clemenceau and his party, the so-called ‘Radicals’ (who were anything but). It was through Clemenceau’s influence that Boulanger was appointed War Minister. Wikipedia says that “Clemenceau assumed Boulanger was a republican, because he was known not to attend Mass. However Boulanger would soon prove himself a conservative and monarchist.” Recall that Zola published “J’accuse…!” in Clemenceau’s newspaper. And he was implicated in the Panama scandal. So we know which side he was on. So he went to bat for Boulanger, but apparently he wasn’t a good judge of character, because Boulanger soon switched allegiances. Beginning to sound familiar? I would say that whenever you have a political operative who is batting for one team suddenly switch ideological sides, you’re not looking at someone who had a real change of conscience, but simply somebody who is being payed to play a part. (Yes, ideological change, even radical change, can and does happen to people. Though it is not usually overnight.)
3. Then, just at the apogee of his power, when it seemed a coup d’etat with popular support was within his reach, he was nowhere to be found. More from Wikipedia:”In January 1889, he ran as a deputy for Paris, and, after an intense campaign, took the seat with 244,000 votes against the 160,000 of his main adversary. A coup d’état seemed probable and desirable among his supporters. Boulanger had now become a threat to the parliamentary Republic. Had he immediately placed himself at the head of a revolt he might have effected the coup which many of his partisans had worked for, and might even have governed France; but the opportunity passed with his procrastination on 27 January. According to Lady Randolph Churchill ‘[a]ll his thoughts were centered in and controlled by her who was the mainspring of his life. After the plebiscite…he rushed off to Madame Bonnemain’s house and could not be found.”

So Boulanger was such a horn dog, he couldn’t be bothered to lead the revolt he had been working for years to foment. And we’re supposed to believe that? Come on! And note the date: 27 is 3 x 3 x 3. We’ve seen that number come up a lot in Miles’s papers. Again, just a spook signal to other spooks about what was going on here.

Anyway, the Boulangiste movement collapsed at this point with many supporters left disillusioned. (I expect we’re seeing a similar op with Trump.) I recall reading somewhere, but can’t find it now, that support for the ‘republican’ candidates among the rural working class grew significantly in the following election, so the operation was a success. In any case, it seems clear to me that Boulanger was controlled opposition.