Dominique Strauss Kahn Was "Eliminated" By Threatening The Global Financial Elite.

In a statement, the IMF announced that Strauss-Kahn resigned tonight before the directory of the financial institution.

"It is with great sadness that I feel compelled to submit my resignation to the Board for the post of managing director of IMF," Strauss-Kahn said in a statement. "I mean I deny in the strongest terms all the allegations that were made against me," he said.

Dominique Strauss Kahn was the victim of a conspiracy built to the highest level because it has become an increasing threat to major financial groups worldwide. His recent statements as the need to regulate markets and rates of financial transactions, as well as a more equitable distribution of wealth, frightened those who handling , speculate and rule the world economy.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d53399c4780e.jpg[/atsimg]

Do you remember this event?

At the inaugural meeting of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, co-founded by George Soros, held at King's College in Cambridge, England where John Maynard Keynes used to reign, Dominique Strauss-Kahn spoke as one of the keynote speakers. As his remarks began, anti-IMF protesters had broken into the hall and hung a banner over the stage in front of two hundred or so surprised economic thinkers and writers. I was in the second row and snapped the picture at the side which I quickly fed to Arianna Huffington who in turn had it up as the lead on Huffington Post in about three minutes.

What followed was magnificent. Strauss-Kahn showed no fear at all of these protesters whom he engaged in discussion. He asked them to make clear their concerns -- to use his stage to articulate their core fears and demands and make this time that they had taken count. Unfortunately, the folks hanging the banner were not those most intellectually in tune with the protest and they ran off after he asked them to speak. I had communication with the protest leaders later and have no doubt that they would have done well in responding to Strauss-Kahn, but the key then is that he actually did think they should be heard and that the elite who had assembled in Keynes' former halls should not forget the voices of those worried about the impact of global economic policy making. It was a powerful moment, deftly managed by Strauss-Kahn.

Strauss-Kahn's latest IMF patient has been Greece, helping it to work through its debt nightmares. Virtually everyone gives the IMF Director high marks for his ability to keep in mind human faces when sorting through and dealing with the tough disciplines wrought by globalization.

What is clear is that Strauss-Kahn who is one of the few major economic gladiators in the world to defend the rights and privileges of people is human himself. We sometimes forget that.

Still I have some problems to believe in this alleged rape.

thewashingtonnote

Not worth it give an opinion on the guilt or innocence about the sexual crime of Dominique Strauss Kahn is accused, the MSM already lynched him. Anyway, this criminal case seems too well orchestrated to be true, there are many inconsistencies and it is hard to believe this story.

What is important here to emphasize is: who benefits from the exit from the scene of Strauss Kahn?

Remember when in 2007 he was appointed to be the boss of the IMF, was elected by the club Bilderberg group, which is member. At that time, he posed no "danger" to the global financial and economic elites with whom shared the same ideas.

In 2008, there is the global financial crisis and with it the past few months, the voices of criticism as to the guilt of the banking world and the permissive role of cooperating and even the U.S. government. Little by little, the director of the IMF began to distance themselves from the policy pursued by their predecessors in the field that the U.S. has always had within the organization.

Earlier this month, went unnoticed in MSM the discourse of Dominique Strauss Kahn. He was now far from what has always been the orientation of the IMF. Progressively, the IMF was to abandon part of its main lines: the control of capital and job flexibility. The liberalization of finance, capital markets and was increasingly in the eyes of Strauss Kahn, responsible for the proliferation of the crisis "made in America."

The IMF boss now showing in their speeches via a "softer" financial "aid" to countries in need, allowing a lower unemployment and a sustainable consumption, and therefore would not be necessary to resort to unbridled privatization that only delayed the economic resumption. Of course, the world bankers saw no welcome this change, believed that everything and always had been, namely that the policy followed so far by the IMF had the expected results, ie the profits of large financial groups were guaranteed .

This turnaround was welcome to progressive economists like Joseph Stiglitz in a recent speech to the Brookings Institution, may have given the death sentence while praising the work of his friend Dominique Strauss Kahn. At that meeting Kahn Strauss concluded by saying: "After all, employment and justice are the foundations for stability and economic prosperity, a policy of stability and peace. This is the basis of IMF's mandate. This is the foundation of our program" .

It was unthinkable to the global financial power to accept such speech, the IMF could not become an wealth distribution organization. Dominique Strauss Kahn had become a big problem.

Recently had declared: " The job is only half done, as he has been leading the fund through a fundamental rethinking of its economic theory. In recent remarks, he has provided a broad summary of the conclusions: State regulation of markets needs to be more extensive; global policies need to create a more even distribution of income; central banks need to do more to prevent lending and asset prices from expanding too fast. 'The pendulum will swing from the market to the state"

Last week, Dominique Strauss Kahn, at George Washington University, went further in his statement: 'Globalization has delivered a lot ... but it also has a dark side, a large and growing chasm between the rich and the poor. Clearly we need a new form of globalization' to prevent the 'invisible hand' of loosely regulated markets from becoming 'an invisible fist.'"

Dominique Strauss Kahn here, signed his death sentence, stepped onto the red line, so He was trapped and crushed.

Thanks for your time.

Ps: Sorry for the grammar that has not been reviewed, but I'm having some problems here and rush is the enemy of perfection.

reply to post by RUSSO


I would appreciate your comments about this subject.

Thanks in advance.

he is being used for show, why else would they show his hearing on BBC?

He may well have commited the alleged rape,but i find it very hard to believe that such a high profile man,on the verge of running for the French presidency,would be so foolish to risk all at a pivotal point of his career!

Hopefully the truth will out,either way!

Originally posted by yourmaker
he is being used for show, why else would they show his hearing on BBC?

I think this is almost the same issue we saw in the Assange's case.

reply to post by RUSSO


Maybe. At least of all the "DSK is innocent" threads you took time in your OP to actually lay out a case why they would want him out of the IMF.

But I have some serious questions about that.

IF he had made a presidential run, he would have been stepping down anyway. Why take the risk of setting him up, (And there is ALWAYS a risk when you frame someone that it will blow up in YOUR face instead of in the intended victims) when in a month or two he might have stepped down anyway?

Secondly, does the top guy really have the kind of power necessary all on this own that would make taking him out crucial? If he had those leanings, surely people have been aware of them for a while. He is a socialist, after all. Somehow, he rose in the ranks to even become head of the IMF. That tells me that he cant be alone in the organization in terms of his feelings, or why would he have been allowed to attain that position? And if he is not alone in the organization in having those leanings, what good is really done by getting rid of him?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by RUSSO

 

Maybe. At least of all the "DSK is innocent" threads you took time in your OP to actually lay out a case why they would want him out of the IMF.

But I have some serious questions about that.

IF he had made a presidential run, he would have been stepping down anyway. Why take the risk of setting him up, (And there is ALWAYS a risk when you frame someone that it will blow up in YOUR face instead of in the intended victims) when in a month or two he might have stepped down anyway?

Secondly, does the top guy really have the kind of power necessary all on this own that would make taking him out crucial? If he had those leanings, surely people have been aware of them for a while. He is a socialist, after all. Somehow, he rose in the ranks to even become head of the IMF. That tells me that he cant be alone in the organization in terms of his feelings, or why would he have been allowed to attain that position? And if he is not alone in the organization in having those leanings, what good is really done by getting rid of him?

Exactly because of this. Sarkozy should be very pleased with this events. No more strong opposition to his re-election.

Link

Secondly, I think because of this:

Recently had declared: " The job is only half done, as he has been leading the fund through a fundamental rethinking of its economic theory. In recent remarks, he has provided a broad summary of the conclusions: State regulation of markets needs to be more extensive; global policies need to create a more even distribution of income; central banks need to do more to prevent lending and asset prices from expanding too fast. 'The pendulum will swing from the market to the state"

Last week, Dominique Strauss Kahn, at George Washington University, went further in his statement: 'Globalization has delivered a lot ... but it also has a dark side, a large and growing chasm between the rich and the poor. Clearly we need a new form of globalization' to prevent the 'invisible hand' of loosely regulated markets from becoming 'an invisible fist.'"

Dont forget that when you are in power, its easy to put someone in your place with te same ideas.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Besides that, For "Le monde" 57% of people living in France believe that DSK is a victim of a conspiration. I don't want to comment that. But there are some really strange and dark spots on this affair.

reply to post by RUSSO


Well, I will point out two obvious problems with that statement.

One, polls can say whatever you want them to say depending on how you acquire the participants, and how you phrase the questions.

Two, a majority can easily be wrong.

Now dont get me wrong, Im not saying he ISNT being set up. He might well be.

But consider this. IF he really did what he is accused of, and no one set him up, can you think of any motive the French press might have to make it look like it was all Americas doing? I can. In an article just days before the assault there was speculation that an American would be moved to number one of the IMF (the guy from JP Morgan) if DSK stepped down to run for president.

Spinning this whole arrest thing to look like some American plot to seize control of the IMF could very well be a way to increase European opposition to an American head of the IMF.

Not saying that IS the case, but I can see possible motive on both sides of the fence, which is why I am highly skeptical of the "non biased" people who only seem to be really considering evidence that would indicate DSK was innocent.

Originally posted by scobro
He may well have commited the alleged rape,but i find it very hard to believe that such a high profile man,on the verge of running for the French presidency,would be so foolish to risk all at a pivotal point of his career!

And who would've thought that Clinton would have taken that same risk in such a point in his career? Many politicians are sleazy and sex scandals are actually not that hard to believe.

Honestly though, I think it's too early to say whether he's guilty, falsely accused and/or set up. We really need more information.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by RUSSO

 

Well, I will point out two obvious problems with that statement.

One, polls can say whatever you want them to say depending on how you acquire the participants, and how you phrase the questions.

Two, a majority can easily be wrong.

Now dont get me wrong, Im not saying he ISNT being set up. He might well be.

But consider this. IF he really did what he is accused of, and no one set him up, can you think of any motive the French press might have to make it look like it was all Americas doing? I can. In an article just days before the assault there was speculation that an American would be moved to number one of the IMF (the guy from JP Morgan) if DSK stepped down to run for president.

Spinning this whole arrest thing to look like some American plot to seize control of the IMF could very well be a way to increase European opposition to an American head of the IMF.

Not saying that IS the case, but I can see possible motive on both sides of the fence, which is why I am highly skeptical of the "non biased" people who only seem to be really considering evidence that would indicate DSK was innocent.

Not at all. Im glad to see some point of view in this issue. Thanks.

Im just trying to see the "other side of the coin" on this. You can be right but this issue bring some points like why this guy was so quickly put in jail and why MSM is painting him guilty without a proper judgement.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by scobro
He may well have commited the alleged rape,but i find it very hard to believe that such a high profile man,on the verge of running for the French presidency,would be so foolish to risk all at a pivotal point of his career!

And who would've thought that Clinton would have taken that same risk in such a point in his career? Many politicians are sleazy and sex scandals are actually not that hard to believe.

Honestly though, I think it's too early to say whether he's guilty, falsely accused and/or set up. We really need more information.

Agree, we need more info, but this whole thing was very strange.

Originally posted by RUSSO

Im just trying to see the "other side of the coin" on this.

And I applaud that, so am I. I prefer to look at evidence for both arguments. You really have to to be truly unbiased.

Originally posted by RUSSO
You can be right but this issue bring some points like why this guy was so quickly put in jail and why MSM is painting him guilty without a proper judgement.

[

And, again, Im not saying he is guilty, but he is not being treated differently than we treat any celebrity that gets in trouble. IF we treated everyone else with kid gloves, and it were ONLY DSK that we were parading around in handcuffs, THEN I would suspect that this was a plot against him.

However, the simple fact is that from Clinton to Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi to Micheal Jackson, and OJ Simpson to Bernie Madoff, we parade everyone around in front of the press before their trial and a media feeding frenzy ensues. Its just what we do. The fact that it is happening to DSK really doesnt indicate to me that anything nefarious is happening.

But, that doesnt mean that this wasnt a set up. It could be. I would say that as I see it, (opinion) the evidence leans slightly in favor of his guilt. But only slightly at this point. And only because at this point while I can conjure up plausible scenarios for the maids motive to lie, we at this point have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she has been bribed. And it could well tip in the other direction in my opinion at any moment if someone could show real evidence that she has been bribed or in contact with anyone who might want him out of the picture. So I personally would not call it at this point. I have to remain agnostic until we get more input.