02 October 2015

Strauss-Kahn and the Strategy of Tension

While Dominique Strauss-Kahn can hardly be considered a paragon of moral virtue and probably represents the type of lifestyle not a few of the world's elites engage in, he nevertheless possesses a certain amount of knowledge, even wisdom.

This does not in any way excuse his behaviour or way of living. People can be incredibly immoral and yet still be committed to larger social ideas. People are complicated and inconsistent.

When examining his 2011 arrest and subsequent tribulations, there's something to be noted with regard to the way narratives are framed and events are interpreted.

Christian Right leaders like Mohler praised the fact that he was humiliated and subjected to the ridiculous American practice of the 'Perp Walk'.... probably a violation of the US Constitution. As usual Mohler like most Christian political commentators totally missed the point and the issues that were really at stake. For Mohler, a Christo-American idolater who hates Europe and wantonly bashes it every chance he can get, the arrest of Strauss-Kahn was fodder for many a moral pontification and denunciation of all things European. He didn't have to wait long for another opportunity. When the Costa Concordia went aground less than a year later, and the pilot abandoned ship, Mohler proclaimed this exemplified the difference between American and European values. In other words, the captain abandoned ship and behaved in a cowardly manner... because he's European.  

Others who possess a little more knowledge of the world and a degree of cognitive sophistication looked beyond the actual arrest of Strauss-Kahn and questioned the timing of it all. Here was a very powerful man, head of the IMF and shortly slated to be president of France... who came suddenly and stunningly crashing down into ruin.

One need not be a conspiracist to wonder if there was something more to the story.

The following linked commentaries were available in the days following these events but I've always struggled to understand why Strauss-Kahn was brought down. To what end? After all, it wasn't as if Sarkozy retained power. Hollande took over the following year. So it wasn't as if a huge swing to the Right or a retention of Pro-Right/Pro-NATO/Anti-EU power remained in place. In fact it's quite clear the US would like to see Hollande gone and Sarkozy or someone like him back in power.

That said, Hollande has been far more of a team player when it comes to NATO than anyone would have imagined. Embracing nationalism and expansion he has turned out to be less than a Leftist when it comes to foreign policy.

Strauss-Kahn's 2015 comments regarding the European crisis are enlightening. Could his downfall be about Europe? Strauss-Kahn is critical of the present state of the project and the applied agenda that we've seen unfold just over the past couple of years. We see France and in particular Germany no longer 'leading' the EU but dominating it and all but subjugating the weaker states. The parameters which govern the EU and the regulated market economy which it mandates has been exposed as rigged and really something of a mechanism for control. The weak countries have been all but subjugated and not a few ideologues believe this is a betrayal of what the EU was supposed to be all about.

Strauss-Kahn believes, and he's probably right, that in the end this will lead to the breakup of the EU and a return to a multi-polar Europe, the traditional paradigm that historically has bred endless conflict.

Was the fall of Strauss-Kahn yet another example of the 'Strategy of Tension' at work? We would be foolish, yea blind, to think this ended with the conclusion of the Cold War. The US has a mixed relationship with Europe. On the one hand it wants a strong and loyal ally. But it doesn't want a rival.

When it comes to Russia, the US wants a strong EU. They like the EU partnering on military projects and providing a geographical and strategic platform for US power.

But on the other hand when Europe becomes a rival, whether economic, ideological or moral, then the US likes to work against Europe. But as it works against Europe it must hide its hand.

The EU represents a massive economy and an overall population significantly bigger than the US. The former colonial powers of Europe still wield a great deal of influence around the world... influence that can be positive if it aligns with the US interests or if opposed can prove quite obstructionist and detrimental.

The US has long employed a Strategy of Tension. It helps Europe and works with her but at the same time manipulates and on occasion works against her. During the Cold War the US through operations such as Gladio sought to undermine European political structures. There's a long history of manipulating politics and elections beginning with Italy in 1948. The US provoked fear, often through false flag operations that were blamed on Leftist groups but were in fact conducted by Neo-Fascist paramilitaries connected with the CIA. The effect was to drive European politics to the Right.

An American Right-wing advocate might say this has failed but this is to misunderstand the Left/Right divide in European politics. In terms of European politics, the American push to the Right has (for the most part) been successful. In terms of the NATO/EU expansion to the East, it has been nothing less than a smashing success.

Surveying from a distance, US policy and actions toward Europe seem schizophrenic. Rather they should be understood as self-serving and multi-faceted. The US works against Europe through Britain and other means of manipulation, but at the same time aids Europe through the auspices of NATO... again largely benefitting American interests.

In the end the US wants a compliant EU, one that holds all of Europe under an umbrella. They don't want any rogue states like Serbia for example. The interventions of the 1990's were more about consolidating the power of the EU and NATO than they were about any kind of humanitarian interests. The timing was also right (which in itself is interesting) due to the fact that Russia was totally out of the picture at that point in time.

While we cannot be dogmatic, nor can it be proved (at this time) there's a good reason to be suspicious that Strauss-Kahn was brought down because the US and other allied European interests did not want to see him ascend to the presidency of France. He represented a threat to the overall project of power-consolidation and the subjugation of wayward European states that are reluctant to follow the NATO (US) line, not to mention the aspirations of globalist bankers behind organisations such as the IMF and World Bank. It is interesting to note both Spain and Greece have chequered histories on this point with several marks against them, at least from the perspective of the Establishment. They were slated for rebuke and the hand that's fallen on them has been a heavy one.

The CIA has two main prongs or functions. One is active operations, the things that are most often portrayed in movies. The other and perhaps in the long run the more potent is intelligence gathering. As we've known for years they (with NSA) gather information on everyone including allies. This is a means to manipulate. Knowledge is power. It can bring people down, influence them, blackmail them and if necessary destroy them. When one considers the extensive nexus between Corporate America and the Intelligence Establishment, intelligence gathering can be understood as a weapon in and of itself.

When the Strauss-Kahn story broke I was reminded of the scene in The Godfather II when the Nevada Senator insults Michael Corleone but then later is caught in a very compromising situation in a brothel owned by the Corleone family. They clean up 'the mess' for him but now he's their man.

Strauss-Kahn wasn't blackmailed. He was marked for destruction. He's been pulled from the fire but politically he's ruined. I'm sure he knows the score but he must be incredibly bitter. His reputation is destroyed along with his credibility but like Eliot Spitzer he perhaps more than anyone knows what's actually going on. Today he's active but in circles that the EU establishment would frown upon.

Many also believe Spitzer was a man marked for destruction. There are some good reasons to believe he was set up. In one sense it's hard to feel sorry for men like this. Drunk on power they feed their egos in perverse ways. But their fall and removal hardly represents some sort of moral triumph. It's just the struggle for power on display. But as truth-tellers and witnesses we can learn something even from episodes like these... things about the nature of power and the complicated motives and struggles of fallen man. We can see the hand of Common Grace at work even among those who at the same time are infected with depravity.

Here are some links to the Strauss-Kahn story including one by M Chussodovsky which offers a 'conspiratorial' interpretation of the events.

And finally a link to Strauss-Kahn's recent statements regarding the state of Europe.