America’s Dreyfus Affair

America’s Dreyfus Affair

Part 1

The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster

by David Martin (all rights reserved)

In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.
–Abraham Lincoln

But the Dreyfus Affair…is not fixed in space and time. The combat of the individual against society, truth against deception, is specific neither to France nor to the end of the nineteenth century.
–Jean-Denis Bredin

a-dreyfusWith the study of history in America’s schools and universities being replaced with “social studies”, “multiculturalism”, and other pseudo-scientific and “sensitive” approaches to the study of the human condition, one of the time-honored features of the traditional history course is also likely to go out the window, and it will be a pity. That is the challenging “compare and contrast” essay question that we never had enough time to do full justice to on final exams. A well- crafted “c&c” allowed us to show what we did or didn’t know about at least two historical events and, at the same time, forced us to think and to put things into perspective. Our only regret is that our professors seemed to leave almost all such analysis to callow students, engaging in much too little of it in their all-too-linear lectures.

To demonstrate the strength of the “compare and contrast” method in elucidating history, I propose herewith to apply it to the Dreyfus Affair, which began with the arrest of Captain Alfred Dreyfus in France on suspicion of treason in October of 1894, and the Vincent Foster case, which began with the discovery of the deputy White House counsel’s body almost a hundred years later, on July 20, 1993. As the Dreyfus Affair disrupted France, the Foster death, and its handling by the authorities, has shown signs that it will haunt the U.S. government into the next century.

Perhaps too much has been made of the relationship between the official framing of Captain Dreyfus and French anti-Semitism. By

The "anti-Semitic" misdirection

The “anti-Semitic” misdirection

regarding it so, we are able to distance ourselves from it, treating it as just one more example of the irrational behavior that mindless bigotry can engender or, alternatively, we are tempted to dismiss it as an episode which has been kept alive in history by the same powerful and influential people who keep reminding us of our collective guilt for allowing the Holocaust.

In either case we would be greatly in error. It is indeed true that Dreyfus was a relatively low-level, anonymous officer in the French army, and mistakes and miscarriages in the imperfect world of jurisprudence, especially military jurisprudence, happen all the time. But the way in which the case unfolded–and unraveled–did in fact almost tear France apart, actively polarizing virtually the entire society in ways seldom experienced in any country except on occasion during the prosecution of an unpopular war. It may have started as a relatively small case, but it grew into a gigantic affair, “one of the great commotions of history,” for the same reason that the Foster case has the potential to do the same. The French government, and virtually the entire French ruling establishment, including the press, put its prestige on the line in defense of a blatant injustice, an eventually provable lie.

The fact that Dreyfus was Jewish was no more than incidental to the original suspicion. An act of treason had demonstrably taken place. Pressure mounted quickly to find the guilty party. German espionage success had been a major contributing factor in the humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. The country was already beset with a general paranoia. The stab-in-the-back explanation for military defeat after World War I was not original with the Germans. Now, a document divulging military secrets was discovered en route to the traditional enemy. Dreyfus was in a position, or at least almost so, to have been the sender, and he seemed just the right type of quiet, unsociable, stiff, cold, generally disliked person to be capable of the dastardly deed. That he was of an ethnic group generally suspected of being insufficiently loyal to Mother France was just one more factor persuading the military accusers of Dreyfus’ guilt, and some of his key accusers were indeed openly and fiercely anti-Semitic. We can best relate to the situation, however, by recognizing that Jews in France at the time were among the demons du jour, along with Germans, foreigners in general, and Freemasons, much like our current ruling establishment has its militia members, far-right Christian extremists, and even angry white males.

Convinced though they were of his guilt, they were not convinced they could convict him in an open court with the evidence in hand. But too much political capital had already been invested, partly on the basis of strategic leaks to a sympathetic press who puffed the story up, for an innocent verdict to be permitted. A trial was held in secret before five military judges, and a unanimous verdict of guilty was duly rendered upon the basis of a dossier assembled, and to a degree, manufactured, by the prosecution. The defense was, quite illegally, never permitted to see–in fact, was at the time unaware of–the essential evidence against the accused. The death penalty for political crimes having been abolished in 1848, Dreyfus was condemned to life imprisonment on Devil’s Island off the coast of South America. Newspapers across the political spectrum all hailed the swift guilty verdict.


Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy

Further nailing down the case, the false story that Dreyfus had actually confessed was soon published, and reprinted, in various organs sympathetic to the government. That, the unanimous verdict of the military panel, the opinion of the newspapers, and the natural tendency of the populace to accept the word of authority, was enough to satisfy almost the entire country, at least initially.

For the next three years, the case stayed largely out of the public eye, though a few individuals, uneasy about the closed trial and the excessive zeal with which it had to be sold to the public, began probing into the matter, discovering some of the weakness of the case against Dreyfus and uncovering evidence that pointed to another officer by the name of Major Ferdinand Walsin- Esterhazy, a bon vivant of dubious character who was unmistakably a gentile.

Ironically, in his memoirs published in 1930, German Military Attache Maximilian von Schwarzkoppen revealed that the traitorous major’s first overture was made on July 20, 1894, ninety-nine years to the day before the Foster death. Other parallels to the case are striking. One of the largest is the similarity of the national mood. As it neared the end of the century, France was having trouble coping with what was perceived as the decline of traditional values. The following quote refers to the election of 1893:

Above all, one ought to note the troubling lassitude of the voters–out of ten and a half million who were registered, fewer than seven and a half million votes were cast. Do the abstentions indicate that the regime was perceived as a system of impotence and corruption by a segment of the population?

And a contemporary observer, Jacques Chastenet, wrote, “The French malaise is above all moral.”


Read the entire essay (including all 6 parts) at DC Dave’s site.

Follow @BuelahMan


Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Multiple links will automatically relegate your comment to the spam section, so keep that in mind as you post.

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or

13 thoughts on “America’s Dreyfus Affair

  1. “And a contemporary observer, Jacques Chastenet, wrote, “The French malaise is above all moral.”

    Yes, it was moral but it was not “malaise.”

    n. noun
    • 1. A vague feeling of bodily discomfort, as at the beginning of an illness.
    • 2. A general sense of depression or unease.

    The reason that there was was only 66 percent voter participation back then and there is 50 percent U S registered voter participation now I submit is not malaise at all, but rather the admiral active morality of rejecting “establisment authority” by the stealth strategy of passive aggression.

    I do not feel the least unease about abstaining from voting.

    It was interesting and puzzling to me how the author relayed descriptions of the mentality of the general French population in the late nineteenth century.

    “France was having trouble coping with what was perceived as the decline of traditional values.”

    “…and some of his key accusers were indeed openly and fiercely anti-Semitic.”

    “Jews in France at the time were among the demons du jour, along with Germans, foreigners in general, and Freemasons, much like our current ruling establishment has its militia members, far-right Christian extremists, and even angry white males.”

    It was interesting and puzzling to me how the author relayed descriptions of the mentality of the French Jews of that time.

    “an ethnic group generally suspected of being insufficiently loyal to Mother France”

    The reason that I find these ideas puzzling is that the French Revolution had taken place just one century before the Dreyfus Affair and the Judeo-Masonic engineers of the French Revolution must have had a profound permanent affect on the minds of the French people. Jews and Freemasons are not really common enemy bedfellows.

    Exactly what French traditional cultural values were perceived to be in decline? Those values were totally obliterated by the Revolution.

    There is nothing suspicious about the minority faction of French Jews not being loyal to the dominant culture. It has been likewise throughout the millennia.


    • furthermore :

      white men whether in France, Scotland, Germany , Sweden
      or even Russia would kill a rabid dog mauling their children not because
      they are allegedly “Anti-Semitic” but simply the natural instinct…
      some might call Love…

      it is only in a surreal world of a stool sculpture deity cult compound
      of “JEW” worshipping idiots that a father would ignore the screams
      of his own children to placate the “FEELINGS” of two legged snakes who
      FREAKING……”Print the Currency”…FREAKING….
      “Own the Media”, and ….FREAKING….
      operate a Crack House called Congress…!

      I watched the film
      Waco : A New Revelation
      yesterday for the umpteenth time…the part about the MURDER of
      Foster should be a MUST WATCH for all “Americans”…!

      love the Jackass Whisperer….toon

      Why SATURDAY….is for Cartoons

      life ain’t no rosebud dream but the cesspool is optional


    • Many of your points are well taken. One should bear in mind that I wrote this essay almost 20 years ago and I have since learned a lot about the general emptiness and meaninglessness of the “anti-Semitism” term, and we have all seen from hard experience how general is the lack of loyalty to the home country among at least this country’s Jewish leadership. One should also note when the words are those of the author “Bredin” and when they are mine. I don’t think I would have chosen to describe the general unease over the state of political affairs with the words that he chose. Finally, although French traditional values might have received quite a blow from the Revolution, I think that it goes a bit too far to say that they were “obliterated.” I will admit that I might be overly influenced by the fact that I just finished a guided tour of the various shrines to Saint Therese (The Little Flower) in her home town of Lisieux.


      • “I just finished a guided tour of the various shrines to Saint Therese (The Little Flower) in her home town of Lisieux.”

        Yes, “obliterate” is too strong. There will always be a remnant of the faithful French and the Little Flower is keeping her word to this day. “”After my death I will let fall a shower of roses. I will spend my Heaven doing good on earth.”

        I believe her last name is the same as yours and wonder if you may be distantly related.


        • I wonder as well about my possible distant relationship to Saint Therese. My family of Martins, which I have traced only back to the mid-19th century, is from Halifax County, Virginia. Most of the Martins in the county at that time, I understand, were the descendants of a French Huguenot who was one of the original Jamestown settlers. “Martin,” I was told by the guide, though, is the most common surname in France, and as a Protestant, my possible ancestor’s family would have been on the other side of the religious divide from Therese’s. Since this guy was an ancestor of George Washington, I stand a better chance of being a distant relative to our Masonic first president, alas.


  2. This is a great, great short book! I still think that the Jew was probably guilty, but a brilliant expose of the filthy Clintons and fake Left-Right puppet show.


    • When there’s political treachery afoot, I have found that “cherchez la juif” is generally a good rule of thumb, but I am convinced that in this case it was a mistake. The Zionists at the time, led by Theodor Herzl, himself, didn’t give a damn about Capt. Dreyfus. Only later after the “Dreyfusards,” both gentile and Jew, had done all the heavy lifting did they cry big crocodile tears about it and exploit the hell out of the episode for their own typically self-serving and, yes, treacherous reasons.


  3. The objective of the Dreyfuss Affair was to further weaken France main conservative institutions: the Military and the Catholic Church, soon after the Dreyfuss Affair came the Law of separating the Church and State.

    Jews came out stronger after the Dreyfuss Affair, France first Socialist Prime Minister was the jew Leon Blum in 1936.


You Got Something To Say? Please keep your maw respectful and gab on topic.

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s