Well, there it is... the alleged sexual assault case against former head of the International Monetary Fund and French Presidential candidate Dominique Strauss-Kahn is beginning to fall apart - less than a week after right-winger and pro-Chicago school Christine Lagarde is confirmed as his replacement at the IMF, and after his Chicago-school IMF deputy and former JP Morgan insider John Lipsky managed to force through the stiff "national asset confiscation" austerity plan on the hapless Greek people.
But what just happened? And why?
During his tenure at the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn committed two cardinal boo-boos from the point of view of the world's corporate bankster cartels. First, he suggested that in the current climate of bailouts and endless money printing, perhaps it was wrong to expect the taxpayers of the world to lose their homes, savings, and jobs to pay off *all* the gambling debts of the big international banks themselves. Perhaps, he suggested, some of the bondholders of the banks should pay *some* of the cost, too. After all, this is capitalism, and it was they who'd decided to gamble their money, and the value of your investment may go down as well as up.
Well, that's not how the banksters see it. If the value of their investment goes up - hurrah! They're the masters of the universe, and they make shedloads of money and take massive bonuses for their great knowledge and talent. But if the value of their investment goes *down* - nooo! It's not their fault - they just lost a bet, why should they have to pay? No, in that case, the taxpayers of the world should have to borrow loads of money to pay off the banksters' debts now, then spend the next 20 or 30 years paying it off. If not - the banksters assured us - the sky would fall, and the world as we know it would come to an end. It's a classic gangster protection racket: "Give us your money, or the economy gets it!" That's what 21st century capitalism is!
So, strike one against DSK. You never, ever, tell the banksters they're going to lose money.
Second, DSK had begun to suggest - in response to cries of "foul!" from China, Russia, Brasil, India, and a host of other countries, that the IMF might be able to create a kind of "virtual world currency". The reason for this was that the Bush and Obama administrations, in introducing QE, or "quantitative easing", had been rapidly devaluing the *current* global reserve currency, the US dollar. This meant that all those nations (like China, Russia, Brasil, etc, etc) that kept lots of their money in dollars were losing out hand over fist - effectively they were footing the bill for the US dollar's devaluation. DSK was a firm supporter of what's called "Strategic Drawing Rights", or SDRs, which are a kind of virtual currency composed of a basket of other international currencies. If the rest of the world agreed to accept SDRs as a replacement for the US dollar to keep all their foreign reserves in, the US government (and the banksters) would be seriously compromised in their ability to devalue the dollar and force other nations to effectively pay off their debts.
Strike two. You never, ever, tell the US govt or the banksters the dollar is not the global reserve currency.
But what was the third strike?
This is where current French president Nicolas Sarkozy comes in. It's widely reported that Sarko's administration has a huge intelligence gathering network (paid for by French taxpayers) gathering dirt on his political opponents and often conducting smear campaigns against them - the recent bouts against both former French PM Dominique De Villepin *and* former French President Jacques Chirac are good examples of this. Dominique Strauss-Kahn was / is a popular, left-leaning member of the socialist party who was widely expected to oust Sarko and become French president in 2012. Over the weeks and months leading up to the DSK / IMF scandal, DSK himself indicated he was being targeted in smear campaigns by Sarko, and even warned that someone might try and ensnare him in a "honey trap" or sexual scandal.
Today, 1st July 2011, the case against DSK is starting to unravel. The political assassination hatchet job has been done: he has been removed from the IMF, and somebody *far more* compliant to the bankster pro-dollar lobby has been installed in his place. Christine Lagarde belongs to the "Chicago school" of economic thought, the same school whose proponents and ideas were largely responsible for the current economic collapse in the first place. She can be relied upon to give countries like Greece a hard time, and ensure that the IMF doesn't cause problems for the US dollar devaluation or bankster bailouts and widening austerity throughout the western world.
But there's still a window in the French presdential campaign. Theoretically, for the next 2 weeks, a released and acquitted DSK *could* conceivably still announce his candidacy for the French presidency. Remember that number: 2 weeks. After Bastille Day, the race is closed, no more bets, rien ne va plus.
Manuscripts Don't Burn believes this is where we see how much of a role Sarko played in the political assassination. If he's able to stall the case for another 2 weeks - keep DSK in the USA, even if released and bail returned - until 14th July, with a shadow hanging over him, then he'll be unable to run for the presidency. In that case, it's reasonable to conclude that Sarko has been a leading player in the assassination. If *not*, and DSK is released unconditionally in the next few days, all charges dropped, and is able to announce his candidacy, then Sarko hasn't been strong enough to call the shots, and it looks like the IMF lobby had the upper hand in the assassination.
We wouldn't like to put money on it.
Either way, the hatchet job is done. Greece is stuffed, the bankster riches are increasing hugely, and the rest of us are slated to foot the bill. Expect more of the same.
What a darker place the world has become over the past ten years. Those of us raised in the latter part of the 20th century still like to think of our governments and the authorities as benevolent and well-meaning. But we shouldn't forget: governments can change. Countries can change. And very quickly: in 1926, Weimar Germany was a vibrant, liberal society with a sparkling and progressive culture; by 1936, the darkness of Nazism was strangling the life out of the country. In 1912, Russia seemed to be moving towards liberal democracy; by 1922, it had been decimated by war, revolution, and civil war, and faced decades of totalitarianism.
Manuscripts Don't Burn imagines people in those countries didn't believe it could happen to them either.