Published On: Tue, Nov 27th, 2018

“Post-911 criticism” applied to the events leading to World War I – and the Café Croissant false flag

Share This
Tags

Continuing the World War I series, which will now extend into December, and following on from an introductory article regarding the case to be made for British engineering and instigation of the conflict, this piece sets out topic headings for closer focus in following articles. As previously the case, the source material will be a popular regular history that couldn’t in any way be considered a conspiracy theory treatment of the subject matter (in the manner of many authors now emerging as part of a burgeoning revisionist school of thought). The exercise is to demonstrate that when what might be called post-911 criticism is applied to established history, then a truth can at last be mined from the regurgitation of official narratives.

Post-911 criticism works on the basis of an emergent reality in the affairs of government of men whereby there are two sets of accounts: that which is produced for public consumption, and that which is produced by actual events. It is the modern experience of the attack on the World Trade Centre at the start of the 21st century, and many subsequent false flag and psychological operations, that informs of the nature of history as perceptive observers witness impossible and implausible storylines being laid down in the records to thereafter constitute incontestable fact. The student applying post-911 criticism for a reappraisal of knowledge based on firsthand accounts from sources qualified by their proximity to, and influence on the history as it is created, should realise that the version of events for appearances’ sake will extend into memoirs of officials who will have instinctively understood  – or had been made to understand with some persuasion – that even in works nominally intended for posterity, the official account cannot be contradicted by loose ends of evidence. One can no doubt read the memoirs of US Government officials detailing their reaction to 911, and the attack on New York by men armed with box-cutters, and the part that they may have played in paving out a route to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that happened as a supposed consequence – thus reinforcing the historical narrative that is meant to draw a connection. However, what one would be reading, essentially, is a whole world fabricated upon a fantasy: the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, and the attack on them came neither from Baghdad the Afghanistan countryside from whence bin Laden was directing asymmetric warfare on a superpower. As aforementioned, there have been many incidents subsequent to 911 that demonstrate that it is most definitely the fabricated world constructed for public consumption that becomes official history, and there is no degree of implausibility that prevents it from doing so.

In a work on the start of the First World War, such as July 1914: Countdown to War, by Sean McMeekin, the one single feature that leaps out as incredibly unbelievable is the casual attitude to incompetence that must have been prevalent in the British Foreign Office at the outbreak of the conflict. Moreover, the stellar ineptitude, which apparently rendered major events on the continent invisible to the British Government, hardly causes the ruffling of a single feather in the plumage of McMeekin’s coverage, whereas, in contrast, the supposed bungling by Austrian and German officials and diplomats by which those countries apparently came to create a war is a circus of riot. However, this is probably to be expected in works by orthodox English language historians who we can imagine are confronted by a distinct lack of evidence by which to account for British behaviour (because it is hidden) and, on the other hand, an open book by which to read the motivations of the Germans and Austrians – who, at the very least that can be said of them, acted in ways that are believable, even if they were flawed (and even then accusations of bungling are arguably not justified). It is only by deciding that British Foreign Office personnel and ambassadors lied into their diaries, as well as at their desks while on the job, that a way emerges by which one can properly understand their activity: the British who helped form a world war were indeed competent – as the results clearly show – but they were constructing a fabricated world for public consumption that made them appear otherwise. Of course, this phenomenon will be explored in articles ensuing from this introductory piece as part of a proposal, based on the regular, orthodox history presented in the book abovementioned, that in the years and months prior to the First World War, the British Government was in cahoots with France and Russia for the purpose of engineering that major conflagration.

The plan, as we shall see, would call for deals, secret or otherwise, between the UK and France, and the UK and Russia, on top of the pointedly anti-German Franco-Russian alliance. Also required would be secret mobilisation of forces, principally by Russia, in order to gain an advantage on Germany, and at the same time as the Russian motivation was building into its fullest and most accelerated form, there needed to be a pretence by the British that it wasn’t happening for the purposes of framing Germany as an aggressor. Moreover, the Germans had to be offered diplomatic reasons to delay their own mobilisation in reaction to the Russian threat (so that it could become most effective), and Britain would exploit an appearance of its own neutrality – and a tantalising promise to maintain it – in order to play on a genuine German desire to keep the peace. Finally, the supposed neutrality of Belgium would be utilised as a public excuse to bring the British swiftly into the war when required, although a pact made with France designed to specifically entangle Britain in conflict with Germany provided the hidden trigger for warmongering British politicians to execute their designs.

A prime piece of evidence that suggests that there was indeed nothing organic about the descent into war in 1914 was an assassination so meaningful and timely that it screams of being an act, willed by the same steering hand, to ensure that there could be no outcome other than the intended conflict. The assassination in question is not that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, as important as that triggering incident was. The event being referred to was crucial for the completion of a journey that had begun with the outrage in Sarajevo. On Friday, 31st July, 1914, just three full days before Germany would mobilise by battle plan necessity into Belgium – and hence provide the British Government (that is, in its fullest sense) with what it had evidently wanted – a French politician named Jean Jaures, the leader of the Socialist Party, was shot dead as he dined in a Parisian eatery: the Café Croissant. Jaures was a doughty opponent of hostilities with Germany, and had just returned from an anti-war congress in Brussels where he had shared a platform with the leader of the German Social Democratic Party, Hugo Haase. Jaures was ever-so influential, and he framed prospective French war on Germany in terms of malign Russian influence. According to previously stated plans, he was set to be involved in the staging of a general strike to try and stave off European war. Obviously, such activity would hamstring French military efforts; the Government could not wage war confidently when faced with such fragmented national unity.

The assassin was called Raoul Villain – McMeekin notes that he was “improbably named” to note the extraordinary coincidence. Well, the name is certainly significant in those terms when it is considered as an English word, which is why the assassination suggests a sick British joke†: a French word that looks familiar is not one to describe a “bad guy” or the person responsible for all the harm. In a note pertaining to this incident, McMeekin relates how

Villain apparently aimed to murder Caillaux next. He had inscribed two pistols, one marked ‘J,’ for Jaures and one ‘C,’ for Caillaux.

Caillaux was the leader of the centre-left Radical Party, and a political ally of Jaures. Together, on taking office, they had planned to “press for a policy of European peace”. Caillaux was evidently such a fly in the ointment that he was prevented, after a May 1914 election victory, from becoming the premier of France by a scandal. His  wife – previously a mistress, and thus central to the whole affair – decided that she would shoot dead the editor of the “nationalist” Le Figaro newspaper, a man who had set out to blacken Caillaux’s name. Obviously, this incident in itself stinks to high heaven, but in any case, the scandal meant that Caillaux’s ability to influence events was somewhat already retarded by the time Villain murdered Jaures.

From the post-911 perspective, Caillaux as an intended victim smacks of being a device by which to provide a patsy – a man described as a fanatical nationalist – with the required degree of apparent psychopathy to commit a pair of unhinged atrocities.  In reality, we should suspect, Villain was part of a targeted removal of a clear and present danger to plans for war; i.e. Jaures. In fact, the discovery of conveniently inscribed pistols denoting particular limits to Villain’s derangement reminds of the infamous 911 passports, or Mohamed Atta’s Quran which had been abandoned in a pub (where he had been drinking, despite being a radical Muslim) – according to witness account that clearly was meant to provide hearsay verification of the identity of the hijackers. There is no question that the Jaures murder was an incident that appears very modern in terms of false flag modus operandi, and it is extremely fitting that this article, which deals with post-911 criticism of history, should round off with it.

 

† The reader will no doubt be totally unsurprised to discover that, prior to the assassination, Villain had lived in England. He was also eventually acquitted of the crime. According to Wikipedia.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>