If not clear, my posting this article is not a ringing endorsement; I found it an interesting point of view. The strong bias against US is (even) superficially evident, but I didn't sense "anti-semitic" sentiments. Point regarding accuracy and self-references are well taken. I agree with you in that regard.

In context of "power proposition", my read of this was simply this:

The author actually very much accepts that DSK very likely did something, with the implication that this was per his usual pattern and nothing out of the ordinary (for him or men like him). What was out of the ordinary was the fact that he was arrested and the manner in which he was arrested (including the treatment in the press). In other words, DSK was a member of the elite and this group typically gets away with murder, but strangely enough, not in this case. Thus: why?

If you recall, the story presented initially to us by media was that he "left his cell phone behind in haste" as he tried to 'get away'. But he apparently had a scheduled meeting with Merkel, and to date no one in the press has produced records of a hasty purchase of a getaway ticket, nor has there been effective corrections (that I have seen). So the question remains as to why the press presented this scheduled trip as a hasty getaway to the public. It wasn't.

He further points out that DSK is very well connected and is a zionist. You seem to have read this as an anti-semitic remark, but I merely read that as an additional establishment credential e.g. this man is very well connected and very much an insider. And given the Zionist influence in US establishment, this is the 3rd nail in the coffin of: things like this simply don't happen to untouchable men like DSK.

I further fully agree that the notion of DSK as an independent actor affecting global change is complete non-sense, but that was never asserted (in such strong terms). My read of this was that DSK is the public face out there pushing for the agenda of a specific power clique who are pushing for certain changes. And, this purported 'surprise! you are accountable to law after all' move was a power play by an opposing power clique. DSK's alleged clique naturally got the message of the level of confrontation they can expect regarding this matter. Power games, effectively. Also please note that the press did in fact use this incident to open a front on IMF itself. What does the IMF have to do with the fact that DSK did or did not attack a maid in his hotel room? Why the linkage in the press?

Obviously, if you are of the opinion that the power elite do not enjoy any special considerations (even here in US), then there is really nothing to see here. I will admit that I do not believe we are all held to the same legal standards. That is not as a statement regarding the judicial process but everything that precedes the actual application of the law. I do support your position that if in fact guilty he should suffer the consequences but I am not holding my breath. In fact, we should revisit this thread when this matter is settled. I would be very surprised if this guy ever sees the inside of a jail cell again.

Finally, the thought that DSk, or any man of his position, is so completely thoughtless -- stupid in fact -- that they would actually openly commit violent crimes knowing that they will be held accountable simply doesn't compute for me. He would have to be a complete idiot, or alternatively lack any self-control.

That then, is the basis of my interest in an alternative view on this story: what would explain this disconnect between status quo treatment of power elite and this specific case? The author -- who has an agenda just like the rest of his kind -- is making the argument that it wasn't personal, and certainly not because we are all held to the same standard, but that this is merely the public tip of an power-elite iceberg involving the matter of U$$ titanic.

IMF, as you correctly point out, is hardly independent of USA and part and parcel of post-war global order. But I think what you are discounting is that US establishment itself may be divided regarding this matter. As you yourself point out, there are certainly voices in this country that support a new world currency. Is it possible that a clique here decided to resort to power available to them to send a message to the other side (whether in US or in Europe) as they have run out of an economic argument?

A recent example of this sort of internal 'dialogue' between cliques in establishment was a couple of years ago: the intelligence power elite decided to throw cold water on the notion that Iran is developing nukes and published an assessment that completely deflated the sky is falling propaganda of another group. (Remember that?) That clearly was an out of band move to undermine the political power elite clique (neocons) that were strongly pushing for a confrontation. And it worked, and the process of reversing the PR impact of that event is still ongoing.

All that said, thank you again for pointing out the red herrings and elephants in the room.