Before diving into this post, readers are encouraged to first familiarize themselves with the mainstream narrative on the The Dreyfus Affair of late 19th century France via the following History Channel documentary. Some takeaways are also sourced from a 41-page work by “Josh G” published at Miles Mathis’ website. For those seeking more detail on anomalies, it’s a good rendition.
The Dreyfus Affair received non-stop, blanket news coverage, mostly by the tabloids, and the story absorbed France and the world for years. Then, as now, most French newspapers were owned and operated by wealthy bankers and industrialists, who were predominantly Jewish. In the ensuing brouhaha, French society was polarized into two camps: The Dreyfusards and the Anti-Dreyfusards (aka “anti-Semites”).
Jewish author Albert Lindemann in “The Jew Accused” writes:
“The political situation in France [at that time] might be usefully presented in terms of two large, opposing clusters: one that was republican, secular, left-wing, modernist, and on balance friendly to modern Jews; another that was monarchist, Catholic, right-wing, anti-modernist, and thus not friendly to modern Jews. (p.90)”
As you go through this astonishing sequence, keep in mind that the secular modernists were the ones in power, as the 3rd Republic was established in 1870. There were 10 Jewish generals in the French Army at this point, which is an over-representation given than only 0.2% of France’s general population were Jewish. We suggest that the Republicans, and not the right-wing, held the Deep State operational levers to pull this “Affair” off. Thus the notion that a clique of alleged anti-semites in the intelligence apparatus had the means and controls to set Dreyfus up is improbable on its face.
The history of the affair has been regurgitated countless times. Dozens of books and hundreds of academic articles have been written on the topic, usually presented in a consecrated, intricate and multi-layered tapestry. Today, the tale is unquestioned and largely unrevised.
The gist of the story (or script) goes like this: Capt. Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935), an assimilated Jew and loyal Frenchman, was picked out and falsely accused of espionage by unscrupulous “anti-Semite” French officers and subsequently imprisoned on Devil’s Island, French Guinea. Further, when “evidence” later emerged that the real culprit was one Ferdinand Esterhazy, these officers continued with a cover up. They also charged with forgery “the hero,” George Picquart, who “solved the crime.” Eventually, Dreyfus was pardoned and rehabilitated. The rest is history — or rather hidden history.
Without a doubt, then and now, The Dreyfus Affair is a wild tale full of twists and surprises. One peculiarity is how the story broke. Allegedly, French intelligence had an agent functioning as a maid working in the German Embassy. We are also asked to believe that the Germans would willy nilly toss sensitive, secret documents into wastepaper baskets for said maid to pick through and send to her spymasters.
Among the scraps of paper were torn pieces of a report called “The Bordereau” addressed to German intelligence Col. Von Schwartzkoppen. The good colonel also conveniently tossed away a letter to his lover, an Italian military attache named Maj. Allesandro Panizzardi. This just so happened to freely reference “the scoundrel of a D.” The letter ended with “Don’t exhaust yourself with too much buggery.”
Emerging at last in 2013 were contents of the “secret dossier” used in the behind-closed-doors military trial of Dreyfus. In it was another incredulous exchange between the lover boys. Alessandro supposedly informed his lover that “if Dreyfus is brought in for questioning,” they must both claim that they “never had any dealings with that Jew. … Clearly, no one can ever know what happened with him.”
At left is “The Bordereau.” As an experiment, take a piece of paper and rip it into six parts. What are the odds that the end product would look like this, with a straight, clean rip exactly down the center?
The ripped document then passed into the hands of the wicked anti-Semite henchman Maj. (later Lt. Col.) Hubert-Joseph Henry (1846-1898). Henry then determined that the spy must be an artillery officer whose name started with the letter “D.” After handwriting analysis, it led to Dreyfus and he was arrested.
Take note that when the case flipped against the “plotters,” Henry was supposedly jailed and found the next day in his cell with throat slashed. Henry was with SR counter-intelligence, a unit we discuss later in this article. In the hours before his “death,” he wrote to his superior, General Gonse (Deputy Chief of Staff- French Army), “I absolutely must speak to you. You know in whose interest I acted.” Next, we are asked to believe, while halfway through a bottle of rum and midway through another letter to his wife, Henry wrote, “I am like a madman” and proceeded to slit his own throat with a shaving razor. Was Henry an actor, or was he the patsy set up for this agit-prop?
The ‘Bordereau’ Story is Contrived, But by Whom?
The operation of military counterintelligence [alias the “Statistics Section” (SR)] should be noted. In 1894, it was headed by Lt. Col. Jean Sandherr (1846-1897), a graduate of Saint-Cyr and an Alsatian from Mulhouse. It just so happened that Mulhouse is the hometown of Albert Dreyfus and his wealthy family. Sandherr did not live to see the end of the Dreyfus Affair, as he was conveniently “struck by a general paralysis” (at 51). He had to leave active service in December, 1896, succumbing to his sickness before the scandal came to light.
The SR was supported by the “Secret Affairs” of the Quai d’Orsay at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Virtually all observers characterize these operatives as deep state, often utilizing dirty tricks and misdirection. SR usually had four officers. One of the notable features of the SR was that it was outside the military chain of command, reporting to and taking orders from the Minister of War. Thus, the SR was under direct civilian control, making it a kind of a political mole burrowed inside the French army. Did they operate on behalf of “anti-Semites” as the conventional narrative claims or for others, say the interests of the hyper-wealthy Zionist Rothschilds, who were a major presence in Paris in this era.
Jews were already over-represented among the military officer corp in France and especially in intelligence, at around 3% from the 1860s to the eve of WWI. With Jews constituting 0.2% of the total population in those years, that means it was an over-representation of 15 fold. Far from a suppressed minority, they had plenty of presence and clout in government and otherwise.
Who was Albert Dreyfus?
There are certain hidden facts in the case. One was that Capt. Dreyfus was no longer an artillery officer as claimed. Indeed, Dreyfus revealed in his 1901 memoir “Five Years of My Life” that he was working in military intelligence (Deuxième Bureau) the entire time he was in the general staff. The bureau had a tight-knit, select staff of 20 to 30 officers. He entered St. Cyr War College in 1891 and started with the general staff on Jan. 1, 1893. St. Cyr (covered by Miles Mathis elsewhere) has major red-flag deep-state history, and not just involving Frenchmen. In October 1893, Dreyfus was transferred to the infantry. Yet, to this day, the false narrative claims he was just another artillery officer at the time of the affair.
Dreyfus’ account of his imprisonment on Devil’s Island is farcical. He whined incessantly about the extreme heat. In his published prison diary for Nov. 4, 1895, he wrote, “Terrific heat, over 45° Centigrade (113° Farenheit).” Did they give him a thermometer on Île du Diable? In today’s day and age, we have a little thing called the Internet, so “facts” like this can be checked. According to Weather Underground, French Guiana’s highest-ever recorded temperature was on Nov. 3, 2015. It was 37.9° Celsius (100°F). In fact, the weather, especially on the sea coast, is balmy and breezy, with maximums in the 80s.
Incredibly — and Winter Watch would say conveniently — a special law was passed on Feb. 9, 1895, restoring the Îles du Salut in French Guiana as a place of fortified deportation. “Devil’s Island” actually refers to several islands and locations. The tiny isle where Dreyfus was alleged to have been held never housed more than 12 political prisoners at one time, and Alfred Dreyfus was the first. Apart from his guards, he was the only inhabitant of the island, and he stayed in a stone hut that was 4 meters by 4 metres.
Our takeaway: Was anybody really on that rock? Oddly, in 1896, the drama continued with a story of Dreyfus escaping and being spotted. To cover for this, Alfred’s brother Mathius inexplicably claimed to have planted the “escape” subterfuge.
As Lindemann wrote, “Anyone who reads Dreyfus’ memoirs or his letters to his wife can hardly avoid the sense of reading a bad novel, filled with mawkish and self-congratulatory passages.” Much of it is filler in which he’s just writing in his diary to complain about waiting for the mail to come. If Samuel Beckett had written a play about Dreyfus’s years in prison, he probably would’ve called it “Waiting for Mail.” This hokey-looking soap-opera photo (with an early version of a set screen) was alleged to be Dreyfus (apparently dressed for a cooler day) on Devil’s Island and was put out for public consumption in 1899.
At right is a photo of Alfred Dreyfus posing with his brother Mathius shortly after his reunion in France. The media described him as a wrecked, frail man health wise, as a result of his Devil Island ordeal. You decide.
This suggests the whole story was a concocted victimization stance to build a fake canard against those questioning the Jewish agenda. Dreyfus was never a spy or a traitor, but he was a subterfuge misdirection agent. The villian Esterházy may have been a double agent. The publication of notes by Schwartzkoppen in 1930 suggests that they were receiving material from Esterhazy. Esterhazy himself later confessed in a British newspaper that he had indeed authored “The Bordereau” and passed it along to the Germans as disinformation. Who knows, as this is secondary to the larger picture of what The Dreyfus Affair was about.
Who was Ferdinand Esterhazy?
Esterházy (1847- 1923) benefited from special treatment by the upper echelons of the army. He was the son of a general, an intelligence operative, descendant of royalty and a Rothschild classmate who was protected his entire life and well rewarded for doing his shabbos goy part in The Dreyfus Affair. Esterhazy also worked in the “Statistics Section” (SR). Source: The Return of the Rothschilds. When he was “busted” the villain was able to easily escape to England where he lived the rest of his life in comfort and undisturbed.
According to Wikipedia, “Through the medium of Zadoc Kahn, chief rabbi of France, Esterhazy obtained “assistance” (aka money) from the Rothschilds in June, 1894, right before Dreyfus’ arrest. At the same time he was on good terms with the editors of the anti-Semitic newspaper La Libre Parole, which he supplied with information.” So was he just an opportunist playing both sides against each other? Esterhazy, by the way, didn’t need Zadoc Kahn: he was on good terms with the Rothschilds, having attended high school with Edmond (From The Return of the Rothschilds, pp. 116-17).
With Esterhazy, the Shakespearean scoundrel as William James called him, there is no end of interesting material. For instance…if in the years before The Dreyfus Affair you were a Jewish officer in the army who had been insulted by a professional anti-Semite, say Edouard Drumont, in the press, the thing to do was to challenge your insulter to a duel. Ah, but that was difficult. You had to find someone to assist and to serve as your second in a duel—not so easy, preferably a non-Jew to vouch for your honor. Well, it turned out that there was such a man who set up a concession; he could be hired out to serve as a second for Jewish officers whose honor had been doubted in the press, questioned in the press, attacked in the press. That man who was none other than Ferdinand Esterhazy, the future villain of the Affair. Esterhazy stood for a Jewish officer Andre Crémieu-Foain in a faked, soap opera duel with the notorious “anti-semite” Drumont.
Incredibly when suspicion fell on Esterhazy, he insisted on and was granted a trial and was quickly acquitted. We didn’t realize military court martials are handed out by request. A suspect demanding a trial sounds like hogwash, that’s not how “justice” works.
Who was George Picquart?
George Picquart was cast as the hero of the Affair. After trying to clear Dreyfus he was accused of forging the note that had convinced him of Esterhazy’s guilt. Even though he was head of counter-intelligence he was later arrested for forgery and convicted in yet another secret trial. Post Dreyfus he experienced a meteoric career advancement. In 1906, General Picquart entered Georges Clemenceau’s first cabinet as Minister of War. He held that position for the entire duration of the Clemenceau Cabinet, from 25 October 1906 to 24 July 1909. Picquart then returned to military service as an Army Corps commander. Curiously Picquart was yet another Alsatian.
Who was Edouard-Adolphe Drumont?
Edouard-Adolphe Drumont (1844-1917) is sometimes called the “Pope of Antisemitism.” He was instrumental as the character who the SR tipped off about the investigation of Dreyfus and subsequently “broke the story” in his rag.
There is a curious entry on him from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:
“French anti-Semitic author and former deputy from Algeria; born at Paris on May 3, 1844. Drumont’s ancestry is not Jewish, as has been sometimes asserted.”
So apparently it was necessary to try and claim this, given that some in that era suspected Drumont of being Jewish controlled opposition. Whodathunk? Some might think he looks Jewish? You decide.
Drumont is famous — or rather infamous — for writing one of the most anti-Jewish books of all time: “La France Juive,” or “The Jewish France.” The book sold 150,000 copies in its first year. He started working on it under the encouragement of a Jesuit priest, Father Stanislas Du Lac, who he met in 1879. Du Lac bankrolled Drumont’s newspaper, which was launched on April 20, 1892. His genealogy page states that Du Lac “converted” him to Catholicism. Converted from what? It’s left unsaid. DuLac hailed from a village 20 km from Dreyfus’ hometown of Mulhouse in — you guessed it — Alsace.
But before he published his rabidly anti-Semitic book, Drumont worked at a newspaper run by the Pereire brothers, who were wealthy Jewish financiers. In 1875, he gave the eulogy for Jacob Pereire, who he compared (favorably) to Napoleon. In 1880, he gave a eulogy praising Jacob’s brother, Isaac. According to the Encyclopedia entry (and elsewhere), we are to believe that he quit his job at the newspaper in 1886 after (suddenly) realizing newspapers were unduly controlled by Jews. Even though the book was published in 1886, Drumont is said to have started working on it in 1880. So he was on the Perieres payroll in the six intervening years.
Drumont studied at Lycée Condorcet. According to the Lycee Condorcet’s Wikipedia page, notable alumni include Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, as well as a couple Rothschilds. Drumont was born in 1844 and Edmond de Rothschild in 1845.
As mentioned above, Drumont and his associates were involved in highly publicized, staged-deception drama duels with Jewish military officers, where Esterhazy play acted as the second to those officers. This was part of the buildup strategy of tension, a ploy used to this day.
On the Lycée Condorcet’s webpage, it states (translated from French):
“Since the mid-19th century a large number of Protestant and Jewish students were accepted. The school has played a prominent role in the emergence of ‘Franco-Judaism,’ in the creation of the Dreyfus network, and in the history of the League of Human Rights.”
That league, by the way, is said to have been founded in reaction to The Dreyfus Affair. What a cohencidence.
Drumont’s most surprising admirer was Theodore Herzl, who was in Paris in the early 1890s as foreign correspondent for the Neue Freie Presse of Vienna.
Herzl wrote in his diary, “I owe Drumont much for my present freedom of conception, because he is an artist. ”
The admiration was mutual. When Herzl’s “Judenstaat” (“Jewish State,” his description of a future national-state for Jews) appeared in 1896, it received what Herzl himself described as a “highly flattering” review in a paper edited by Drumont.
Also among Drumont’s friends was Emile Zola.
What was Emile Zola’s Role?
As you go through the History Channel documentary (above), you will realize that Emile Zola, who was a famous writer, was the actor who at the precisely right time levied the anti-Semite accusations against the military plotters. “J’accuse” implicated leading French politicians in a deliberate fabrication of documents to frame Dreyfus and cover up their actions. His coup de grace letter was spread to virtually all western media throughout the world.
Zola also was able to play the victimization card as he was tried for libel. Wikipedia tells us that he “was convicted on 23 February and removed from the Legion of Honor.” Rather than go to jail, Zola fled to England. But first he was still walking around Paris for five months. How was Zola able to escape? Why wasn’t he put in jail? Did they put inspector Clouseau on the case? He only returned to France “after Dreyfus was pardoned,” which was on Sept. 19, 1899. Of note: It was Dreyfus who was pardoned, not Zola.
What was the Purpose of the Manufactured Dreyfus Affair?
The Dreyfus Affair kick started the Zionist movement. Before Dreyfus, Theodor Herzl claimed he supported Jewish assimilation into gentile society. But The Dreyfus Affair shook Herzl’s view of the world, and he became completely enveloped in a tiny movement that called for the restoration of a Jewish State within the biblical homeland of Israel. Herzl quickly took charge in leading the movement. He organized the First Zionist Congress in Basel held on Aug. 29, 1897.
From Herzl’s Wikipedia entry:
“Herzl came to believe through the trial that the officer was wrongly convicted. It may have been witnessing the trial of Colonel Dreyfus that converted him to the Zionist cause.”
But we know that can’t be true, because the trial was held in secret, in a closed courtroom. In any event, the evidence for his innocence would only be discovered (or revealed) many years later. Dreyfus was pardoned in 1899. Herzl launched Zionism in 1897. The trial — sham though it was — might never have even taken place. The entire degradation ceremony could have simply been made up
What better way to get the ball rolling than to frame a Jewish officer for treason and whip the crowd into a frenzy with all sorts of anti-Semitic propaganda put out by Drumont’s controlled opposition paper, among others.
Another goal of the Dreyfus agitprop, and perhaps its chief goal, was utilizing the victim-hood stance to delegitimize (or “blackwash”) any and all criticism of the behavior of certain Jews as “antisemitism.”
It also allowed wealthy Jews a more direct pathway into political power and set of justifications for undermining the existing sources of power (the church, the aristocracy).
In politics, another winner was the triumph of the Third Republic. It was during the affair that the term “intellectual” was coined.