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.

13 thoughts on “The Dreyfus Affair on Trial”

  1. Thanks for a nice contribution. For regular readers used to shorter offerings, this piece is more in tune with those used to the Mathis style, longer pieces with lots of details to absorb, usually needing a second or third look. Some regular Mathis concepts:

    Wikipedia as a primary source: It’s full of lies beginning to end, but that is why it is a great source. It is the lies that are telling us the truth. And as Straight has noticed, it often signals with their numerology nonsense in the footnotes.

    False leaders as the norm: These people like to keep us on the main highway by controlling all the traffic in every direction, still true today with the two major parties are under common control, but also the seeming alternatives too. Democracy Now! and Prison Planet with Alex Jones, just to name two, are spook outlets run by two Zombies, as noted in the Honor Rolls. So whenever you see a supposed opposition personality getting lots of media attention, like say Edward Snowden, Julian Assange or Michael Moore, think controlled opposition. Otherwise you don’t hear about them.

    Genealogy: Daddieuhoh did not take us down that path in this piece, but he and Mathis both emphasize that most of the major players in our landscape are related, be it politics or entertainment. Straight has found that with just about every notable person he has researched, royal blood is coursing in the veins. Would it surprise you to learn that Matt Damon is related to just about everyone famous you know, even Jewel and Sarah Palin? That is how it works.

    I look forward to much more from this author and the other two who have posted so far, with still two more in the wings who may or may not jump in, their call. It allows me to step back and spend more time staring at the faces of people like Katy Perry and Kim Kardashian, cuz you know I like that.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Ha! Yes, that’s me. In fact I’ve already edited it again, but no need to post another link. I drive Miles nuts with all my drafts.

        Like

        Reply

  3. daddieuhoh, I just read your paper. One hell of a job you did there. I think this was the first guest paper MM published where he didn’t feel the need to add his footnotes or make public corrections. That alone says something.

    There were a couple points in the paper where you really nailed it. The obvious one is where Dreyfus himself admits he was intelligence. The photographs are awful fakes, and I love how they start Drumont’s biography by stating that he is not Jewish, as if that’s normal. “Re-converted to Catholicism” is another classic.

    Another purpose for the creation of the state of Israel may have been to create conflict in the region and around the world. Don’t doubt how far ahead these people plan. Israel’s creation has led to many wars, tension, 9/11, and all the “terror” we see today. Rather than have intense World Wars that last 5 years, Israel’s existence leads to a steady and consistent high baseline state of stress, fear, and worry for the rest of the world. Like the Cold War, they prefer chronic to acute. They want to kill you slowly and indirectly with anxiety.

    My only disagreements rest on the financier vs aristocrat theme MM has been pushing over the last year. My opinion, and I think MM will discover this as he goes further back in the past (he seems to stop at the 15th-17th centuries), is that the aristocrats and financiers have always been the same people. Always crypto-Jews. Why were Jews the only ones allowed to practice usury? Because the aristocrat’s agents were Jewish. You said yourself in the paper that they ALWAYS control the opposition and ALWAYS control both sides. Well there you go.

    I see the truth as a hidden layer of a painting, and consensus reality we are taught as a top layer painted over it. MM, and all of us, have been clearing away the top layer of paint to discover the long-hidden bottom layer. Well as we clear the paint from this gigantic painting, we start to make out pictures. But until we clear all the paint, some of the images may not be what they appear, and in my opinion that includes the Aristocrat vs Financier theme.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Straight! Your thoughts here are very incisive. They make complete sense. I don’t know why the conflict angle never occurred to me. Or I’d like to think it did but I just forgot about it. And as for the banker v. aristocracy thing — also makes complete sense. I think you’re definitely on to something. Though I don’t know that it’s all of the aristocracy. But wait…something just occured to me. The implication is that the conflict between the wealthy Jews and the traditional Catholics and Monarchists was not a real conflict — that they were on the same team all the time? I’m not sure I agree with that. Have to think it over…

      Hope you’re weathering the storm OK, man. Hard to tell from here how much the hysteria is fear-mongering and how much is legit.

      Like

      Reply

      1. A lot of fear-mongering to be honest. Right now it’s gloomy, a little rainy, and 20-30 MPH gusts here or there. We were supposed to get hit a few hours ago but now it’s been changed to night time. We’ll see, Wilma was really serious from what I heard, but that was a direct hit and this one isn’t where I am. They could have easily faked those Caribbean deaths so they can spray “Deadly Hurricane” all over the news. I expect a lot of the damage or damage totals to be faked.

        As for Jews, Catholics, and Monarchists, I’m not sure how it was done. Not well read enough on those subjects.

        I will say this, if the Jewish takeover of the aristocracy started in the 15th-16th century, then the genealogy of today’s celebrities should stop around there or at least point towards merchants and traders prior to that, rather than Lords and Ladies. I found the opposite. Genealogies of people like Jim Henson and Beyonce get more and more royal once you hit those centuries. Counts, Countesses, Knights, etc. Back further than Theodoric I, and entire lines of kings and queens of the Goths, Visigoths, Franks, etc. The genealogy stops around the 1st century when you start seeing mythical names, which hints to me that this power may have been in place further back than Ancient Greece.

        To play devil’s advocate, you can say that the Jews infiltrated the Aristocracy completely, and that is why you see these bloodlines in today’s elite. The Jewish lines are scrubbed or unknown prior to the infiltration, and we only see the Aristocracy genealogy lines. All non-infiltrated Aristocratic bloodlines are no longer in power. That could be an explanation, but my gut leads to my former conclusions.

        Like

        Reply

        1. It also makes you wonder how much of Rome’s conflicts with the Franks, Goths, Visigoths, etc. was fake.

          Like

          Reply

        2. “if the Jewish takeover of the aristocracy started in the 15th-16th century, then the genealogy of today’s celebrities should stop around there or at least point towards merchants and traders prior to that, rather than Lords and Ladies.”

          I’m not sure about this…. Let’s say the lords and ladies were banging away for centuries having offspring. Then over the course of 100-200 years these bankers slowly start slipping their own sperm and (esp.) eggs into the business by buying aristocratic titles and worming their way in — wouldn’t the genealogy still point to those lords and ladies of yore, with an occasional blip of some other lord or lady with a shorter and whitewashed/stubbed genealogy?

          I don’t know the answer, and I think you definitely have a point. Of course, there is really no reason to think that any of these blocs (even the Jewish financiers) are monolithic. It could be that some powerful and influential aristocrats and clergy formed alliances with the bankers, or that they bankers were able to exert influence on some of them. But there could still be internal division. If we take Miles’s paper on the French revolution — even if Louis XVI and his ‘brother’ were under the thumb of the bankers (or were blood relatives), it doesn’t mean all the aristocrats in France were on his side or were similarly influenced.

          It is interesting to revisit ancient history such as Rome to imagine how long this fakery has been going on. I’ve wondered if perhaps Jesus (said to have died at age 33 as mentioned in another thread)–assuming that any such historical person really existed at that time (as I believe Tyrone would tell us was not the case)–was controlled opposition. Think of how similar his story is to, say, Gandhi. Preaches non-violence and love, turning the other cheek, etc. Sounds like a good enemy for the Romans to have.

          Anyway, glad to hear you and yours are safe and sound.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Yes they would. You are correct. It does not discredit the theory. But I still have suspicions everybody was always on the same team. To be researched at a future date, I guess.

            Thanks for the kind words. It missed pretty much all of South Florida. It looks like it’s battering Daytona Beach pretty bad on TV, but with all the scare tactics I saw the last few days, who knows how bad it is (or if it ever was going to be as bad as they said).

            Like

            Reply

  4. I’d heard of the Dreyfus affair in high school but never inquired as to what it was about- Instead, I spent many, many years researching JFK- We know how that turned out- Thank the gods I did not bite on Dreyfus as well- One quarter century lost to phantom rabbits is enough-
    One thing that did catch my eye within your epic was the invention of motion pictures and its immediate commandeering by the unseen powers to sell BS- Look at The Sidney Street Siege by Pathe’ for one of the earliest filmed psy-ops- (1911 and Winston Churchill co-stars) The incident was a small part of a larger plan to help mount the Russian revolution from London, but that is another massive subject altogether-

    Perhaps the development of motion pictures was monitored closely by certain investors for such purposes and the smoke and mirrors of Méliès, et al was just part of the R&D phase ordered by military intelligence-
    If motion pictures, then what about earlier photography? It is said that Matthew Brady, the most famous of Civil War photographers, had staged some of his pictures by moving dead bodies around for more emotionally charged compositions- Can we say for certain those were even dead bodies? Like all other wars, the Civil War was certainly a sweep and clear of populations with no accountability for the reported details of alleged armed conflicts- Brady and his ilk could have easily been employed to sell massive casualties where none existed-
    Nicéphore Niépce (1765-1833) is said to have invented photography- He did, sort of, but his bio is draped with red flags- His father was a wealthy lawyer- His first name is an alias- He was a staff officer under Napoleon and after the restoration was a district administrator, so no harm, no foul because, well, Napoleon wasn’t what he was supposed to be either-
    It all makes me wonder if the invention of photography was commissioned by TPTB to improve upon paintings as an effective propaganda tool- It seems motion pictures would be a natural follow-up if that were the case- Niépce evidences no artistic ambition that I could see but was, along with his brother Claude, an inventor- One of their inventions was the first internal combustion engine- It’s possible Niépce was tapped by some connected investors to come up with something that could record “reality” in picture form that did not require artistic interpretation- It just had to look like unedited “life”- The script writers would take it from there-
    This is speculation that needs a lot more work but I think it would be worth it-

    Like

    Reply

    1. Great sniffing around! You are absolutely on the right track, I think. I really skipped over this in the paper, only remarking that “intelligence would want to master and take control of these new media early on—just think of all the history they’ve manufactured by manipulating photos and film. I suspect they were most likely the driving force behind the development of these media as well, and the biographies of many of these pioneers suggest they were assets or fronts.”

      I looked a bit into Melies and also Edison’s film company. Edison sounds more and more like a Steve Jobs/Elon Musk type front, and Melies’s bio is fishy (and I suspect he was Jewish). Somewhere along the lines one of these early film companies morphed into a provider of ‘newsreels’ for movie theaters. But I absolutely agree that it goes further back to photography, as with Nadar. So many of the people he was photographing were involved up to their necks in the Dreyfus affair and other questionable activities. Actually the quality and look of his photos reminded me in many ways of the photos of the alleged conspirators against Lincoln that Miles looked at in his Lincoln paper.

      I think it would definitely worth looking into in more depth. I would definitely encourage you to do so!

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment