STRAUSS-KAHN: Hell hath no fury like a liberal proved wrong

Mary Riddell…had DSK ‘disgraced’ within 48 hours of his arrest

The pc cadres are convinced DSK is finished. But French research today suggests they’re wrong.

While this site is in danger of turning into the Strauss-Kahn Museum of Stitch-Up Artefacts, I feel I must return to a theme I’ve been trying to develop since the start of this fiasco: the wider issue in terms of socio-political views about sex and gender. (See The PSK after DSK yesterday).

The poor-loser bitterness of those who wanted Dominic Strauss-Kahn flayed alive four weeks ago has been awful to behold since the case of attempted rape against him fell apart last Thursday. Journalist Jon Swaine still has the former IMF boss ‘swaggering into Court in a crisp blue suit’ on Friday, and most Left-leaning papers and journals have indulged themselves in a man-hating frenzy of ‘Well I think he did it anyway, so there’. A major New York hip magazine despised his ‘celebrating in a $300 a head swanky restaurant’. The bloke just got his life back: what do they want him to do, go to Subway for an egg and tomato roll?

A classic example was Anne-Elizabeth Moutet’s piece in the Telegraph this morning – sticking the knife into Strauss-Kahn’s political chances now….and of course headed ‘All smiles in Manhattan but….’. Her point was that DSK was finished in France. But then she would say that – six weeks ago she wrote there that he would prove to be ‘ the first French politician whose career imploded because of a sex scandal, not a financial one’. Well, she was wrong. Any sign of contrition? Not a bit of it. But within two hours of her post, Le Parisien released a survey of attitudes to DSK after last week’s astonishing events. This too showed Moutet’s view was completely atypical.

In a Harris Interactive poll of 1,000 French people aged 18 and over, 60% of left-leaning French voters wanted former IMF chief  Strauss-Kahn to return to French politics immediately. Unsurprisingly, attitudes are polarised: among the total sample, 49% want Strauss-Kahn to return to the French political scene, while 45% are against it. But this is within two days of the latest revelations…..before the 36-day stitch up by Cyrus Vance’s office would’ve been known inside France. Sexual misdemeanours are quickly forgotten in France; attempts to frame Frenchmen aren’t. This is hardly a career ‘imploding’: Strauss-Kahn is back big-time, and both Sarko and Lagarde will know this perfectly well.

However, I truly do not believe the significance of this case lies either in Geithner’s geopolitical economic scheming, or internal French politics. Rather, I would refer those educated before 1980 to the infamous Dreyfus case of the 1890s and beyond.

Captain Alfred Dreyfus was a Jewish French general staff officer accused of spying for France’s bete noir, Germany. He was convicted on evidence forged by anti-Semitic fellow-officers and sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil’s Island. Even though the Government knew the identity of the real spy – a Major Esterhazy – they protected him….because the prevailing ‘pc’ view was that Jews held no real loyalty to any nation.

Today we face a similar madness – a ‘correct’ disease particularly prevalent in New York that I attempted to analyse in an early DSK post. This is the classic herd-instinct of wanting, not to be right, but to be on the winning side: to be ‘not wrong’. Nafissatou Diallo represented, for liberal feminists everywhere, the classic victim: black, a woman, devout Muslim, harmless, forced into sex by a male rapist. Dominic Strauss-Kahn, on the other hand, was the classic preying pervert – white, fat, a Jew, rich, a banker – and the worst kind of exploitative elite sexual predator.

To be honest, you could play out this same mad v sane contest on a dozen Progressive v Conservative issues across the globe. One that particularly springs to mind is the Israel v Arabs shtick, in which liberals will defend the bomb-building mendacity of the headcase regime in Iran as an important bulwark against wicked Israel’s imperial ambitions – such ambitions remaining undefined by a single person I’ve ever engaged in argument about it.

There are significant elements of both Dominic Strauss-Kahn and Israeli policy that I find repugnant. But were you to ask me who I’d rather have as an ally, I would prefer DSK to the US Fed (see Sterling machinations) and Netanyahu to Ahmadinnejhad. Quite frankly, the choice for anyone who understands Realpolitik from a democratic viewpoint is a no-brainer.

The historical significance of the Strauss-Kahn affair will be, I suspect, its role in the beginnings of a backlash against progressive fantasies – and a return to the radical realist empiricism we so badly need as the global economy careers towards disaster. Be it in the fields of social, racial, gender, fiscal, globalist or economic propaganda, the overriding failure of the Establishment since 2008 has been in the ability to have free and fresh thoughts about what to do.

The stale dogma applied to the investigation of the DSK/Sofitel/Diallo encounter has much to teach us. For a while there, the Left tried to depict the former IMF boss as – literally – the King in the Altogether. It is their distorted philosophy which now stands, naked and deformed, before us.

 

 

 

 

 

25 thoughts on “STRAUSS-KAHN: Hell hath no fury like a liberal proved wrong

  1. Hi – your posts are compelling reading and a great bullwark against sloppy and misguided journalism elsewhere. I would really like you to do so more in depth predictive analysis of the world economic situation: it’s easy to talk about the economic situation careering towards collapse – but I wonder if you could elucidate further in a wider perspective than you already have? It would be most welcome. Thank you.

  2. Way to go AWOL from a powerful message John.

    How did you end up bringing Iran and Isreal into the DSK saga?

    You claim he was a classic victim because he is a …. fat, white, jew etc… But this is the first time I have heard any define him as a Jew – in any blog, article, comment section on either side of the Atlantic. You say he is stitched up like Dreyfus. Even though DSK is 100 years old, head of the IMF, leading opposition candidate etc etc. For the stitchers, they have really left it late in the day. He has been a Jew for a 100 years and been very successful. He has been a pain to the banks and Sarko more recently and seems to have been targeted.

    You say you have never had Israels’ imperial ambitions defined to you – strange no one has heard of West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

    I sound annoyed. I am. Everything else in your blog I could almost say happily as “Exactly. That is spot on”. But I don’t understand your Jew/Israel/Iran issues – needs to be lanced as a boil on your clear intellect.

  3. If DSK’s case was a stitch up then it’s difficult to see who did the stitching. The Left? hhmmm, not sure because DSK is himself a socialist.

    It’s worth mentioning, as you have, that he’s Jewish, but Jews permeate every nook and cranny of American politics and much more and many of them are on the Left – or further Left (eg: several of Bush’s neocons were Jewish who jumped ship from the Dem Party and were followers of Leo Strauss – an international socialist).
    Jews have a lot of influence/power in the US, so whoever might have done the stitching would have needed to be very careful.

    As you can probably guess, I’m puzzled by the whole affair and believe it was nowt to do with his race or politics but that he had an agenda that someone in the US didn’t want implemented, so he had to be taken out …metaphorically.

    • BT & Social Trappist
      I think we need to distinguish here between stitching up a perceived enemy of Fed economic imperialism, and the pro-Arab ‘anything Jews do is wrong/pernicious’ thing that permeates a great deal of radically Leftist thought.
      Most Jews I’ve known are liberal to Left, but there is a hard-Left apparent in Europe (and especially the UK) which is anti-Semitic in the same way the USSR was.
      We should never forget that Goebbels demonised the Jews with his
      classic ‘All Jews are Communists and vice versa’ line. Yet at the same moment in history, Stalin was as murderously anti-Semitic as Hitler.
      The mistake is to ascribe logic to dogma. The average Jew’s preference for liberal ideas is entirely rational, given that illiberal thought tends to result in them being thrown down wells when the crop fails. The average SWP nutter’s preference for psychos like Ahmadinnejhad seems to me without any rational basis whatsoever.
      But maybe that’s just a boil I need to lance. Given the opportunity to lance Iran’s corruptly elected leader, I’d do it without a moment’s reflection.
      Sorry, it’s what my experience and analysis teaches me.

      • Sorry to intervene in this Iran/Israel/Jewish bit but it seems to me that those of Jewish descent are like everyone else, some are nice people some aren’t-that makes them pretty much normal in my book.
        The difficulty Israel has, is that it was originally seen as European, sort of a bit of the West in the Middle East, but has now become a bit of the Middle East in the Middle East.
        As Matthew Parris said, why should we care about the Middle East? Israel can look after itself more than adequately-the problem is that the West (for the moment) needs oil so we need to be friends with those who have it-quelle surprise! The West won’t need their oil for ever, in which case the Middle East will be left to work out its own destiny-best of luck on that one boys!
        Iran is NOT run by Ahmedinajad, he is the scarey puppet to frighten others. In my view, Iran is run by more coldly calculating people intent on placing friends in neighbouring countries, particularly oil rich countries, and the West is falling for this in believing in the “Arab spring” which is unlikely to result in any meaningful democracy, let alone one friendly to the West. The aim is to use the oil weapon to detach the West from Israel.
        With regard to DSK, no matter what his “racial/religious?” heritage, he obviously had to neutralised, presumably for his economic views, and was. In any event, he seems eminently dislikeable as a person, his “use” of women being a weakness which was duly taken advantage of.

      • “The average SWP nutter’s preference for psychos like Ahmadinnejhad seems to me without any rational basis whatsoever.”

        The attraction to people like Ahmadinnerjacket is explained in a couple of books such as “True Believers” (going back a few years) and much more recently “United In Hate”. Both worth reading…
        Briefly: there’s a large Left section of society who hate the world we live in, hate western values & capitalism, hate themselves and hate everybody around them. Most of all they hate America. They want to cleanse the world and turn it into some sort of nice socialist utopia. They become apologists for evil men like Ahmadinnerjacket, the old USSR, Chavez and every other socialist-fascist despot. When one of the evil men gets knocked out or exposed for what he really is, the Left herd of misfits finds a replacement and it starts over.

        IMHO the Labour Party is stuffed full of True Believers…people like Harriet Hatemen and Ed Milipede.

  4. It really is not clear what the real motive behind this was, except that a major strand was to get DSK out of the IMF, no one could have assured a French succession.

    The stich-up was blatantly incompetant however, and the repercussions will be gross. Heads will roll. I agree the French will be, rightly, outraged and that may point directly to Sarkozy.

    The real point is that Obama, Geithner, Clinton and Bernanky are in deep deep political trouble, and this will only compound their difficulties. They have, essentially, no way out and the campaign season and 2012 polls are almost on us.

    Unless the economy recovers the Democrat support will implode.

    • Not necessarily. The inmates are in charge of the asylum in the US, especially on the Republican side. I expect the US to descend further into trouble and then look for a strong man by about 2016. Enter Gen. Petreaus.

  5. While DSK was clearly stitched up by someone (I still think it was in some way directed by certain French interests) he is perhaps the easiest of all people to sew into a winding sheet. His previous behaviour, not as far as I know denied, would only be tolerated in France, and only there because of his high position. Vive la France!

  6. Yes what do they want Dominique Strauss-Kahn to do, “go to Subway for an egg and tomato roll?”. And I am happy you mention the infamous “Dreyfus case”. We do face today a similar madness – for liberal feminists, Nafissatou Diallo (when will her name be printed in the New York Times, The New Yorker, or other newspapers in the States?) represented the classic victim (a black woman, devout Muslim, forced into sex by a male rapist) and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the classic preying pervert (a white, fat, rich banker, and a Jew). I would also prefer, as an ally, DSK to the US Fed and Netanyahu to Ahmadinnejhad.
    Bravo.

  7. I’ve read comments on other threads, these bloody liberals piss me off. Feminists and gay lobbies. Health and safety, political correctness. The world has gone mad. It seems that most Western countries try and outdo each other with these stupid laws. We now have no smoking beaches in Bournemouth, never mind motor pollution which is much more harmful. There is a 10 minute rule bill going through parliament outlawing smoking in your own car if a person under 18 is in it. Yet these people claim to be liberal. They never put this sh*t in their manifesto’s before elections. As for DSK, I am willing to bet he will make a comeback. French people were never to concerned about sex scandals like we brits.

    • Hear, hear Mike! You forgot to mention those lovely human rights laws which allow Somalian (and others) criminals to be forgiven of their heinous acts and continue to live amongst us because to send them back would infringe their human rights and, God forbid, they might be imprisoned and/or tortured. So what? They come here on false pretenses, with false passports, commit disgusting crimes, but, hey, we are supposed to forgive them and put up with it. The West have gone collectively loopy, see also the lack of any kind of reaction to the ludicrous anti-terrorist “conference” held in Iran, of all places, a few weeks ago. Amazing how the irony of that has totally escaped our MSM. Wafting away from the DSK topic, but you get the picture. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but the Left are cunning and dangerous (and immensely stupid) and will go to any length to achieve their aims.

  8. Does any one know the position with the DSK DNA – has DNA and sperm been officially confirmed. The prosececution claim they have forensic evidence – do they mean DNA ? The whole issue seems to have been clouded over a bit.

    • He, supposedly, did have sex with Nosferatu, hence the DNA, which she promptly took to be examined. Stupid of him yes, but then, hey, he is French and a serial womaniser. However, I have heard that she is HIV positive, has anyone else heard this? In which case he is truly screwed.

    • The DNA has been confirmed, the sperm bit hasn’t…which suggests to me it isn’t sperm.
      I understand there is none of her DNA under his nails, and vice versa. Also a bruised clitoris/vaginal entry, but no sign of intercourse.
      Remember that DNA is anything with the subject’s cells in it. It proves only contact usually, not the nature of it.

      • Wow John, you are well informed! Whatever went on he did “play” with her didn’t he? I did read somewhere that there was sperm involved, but then there have been crazy stories flying all over the place. As for her bruised nether regions, knowing her history, that was probably already there before DSK put his own paws on them!

      • John and Tanya, Thanks for the reply. I feel an ambivalence from the prosecution on the DNA. Regarding the sex – Brafman, as far as I can recollect, has never confirmed concensual sex. He has always stated ” If sex did take place, then it was not coerced” I implied from this that perhaps sex had not been involved, that he was just keeping Thompson on the hop – wrongfooting him. A honeytrap doesnt add up. It was 12am – not evening after cocktails – DSK was in a hurry – she must have known he was checking out. Not the best time to propose sex – in all probability she would have been rejected and she would have known this. Yet, she was casing the suite over, so she was deliberate and sure of what she was doing. Could the whole sex thing be just one big smoke screen. She could have stolen the cell phone or laptop with confidential IMF information – and hid it in the room next door. What ever way it turn out, this saga gets more fascinating by the day – Im totally hooked

  9. I wouldn’t waste any time on Ward’s obsession with Jews and Israel.
    Reply
    John Ward
    July 4, 2011 at 11:42 am

    Then why do you come here?

    To read some of the other stuff.

  10. You are making the great North American mistake here of confusing feminists and other sundry members of the shriek-first-think-second mob with liberals. This endlessly repeated error has to rate high on the contemporary bollocks scale. It’s like stating that every patriot is necessarily a fascist or a Nazi. Or that anyone who criticises Israel is an anti-Semite. Or who criticises the AU is a racist.

    Calling someone a liberal, and meaning it as an insult, is just bloody ignorant. I expect it from the USA where almost half the population are creationists, and most of the other half don’t know the boiling point of water in degrees Celsius and don’t care that they don’t know.

    But liberalism is a British invention for God’s sake. Learn some UK history. Read and understand John Stuart Mill’s brilliant Essay on Liberty before you start using liberal as a pejorative. Nothing wrong with being a liberal per se, any more than there’s anything wrong with being a conservative or a reactionary or a progressive per se. And one can be a liberal conservative, or a liberal reactionary or a liberal progressive – indeed, many of us are all of these things at different times. Some of us at the same time.

    Now “feminist” on the other hand. There’s a real insult worth throwing at someone.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s