Dymphna and I had a trial subscription to STRATFOR for a while back in 2003, right at the beginning of the Iraq war. It seemed like a great site: lots of information, extensive reports, and detailed maps. But they were so wrong — embarrassingly wrong — in their “expert” predictions about what would happen as the war unfolded, that I lost interest, and quit paying attention to STRATFOR.
Vlad Tepes is not so easily deterred. However, STRATFOR’s “reporting” on today’s events in Poitiers got Vlad’s attention:
STRATFOR, not as neutral as they claim.
I have been a subscriber to STRATFOR for a number of years now, and they make quite a fuss about their non-partisan policy and how they are a geopolitical intelligence forecaster with no judgement on events or groups.
You can imagine my disappointment when I read the following SITREP on today’s stunningly peaceful demonstration in France, were 100 people asked for a national referendum on mosque construction and Islamic immigration. Perfectly reasonable requests given the actions of religious Muslims in France, and the effect immigration is having on French culture. In fact, one could argue that immigration as Europe is doing it might contravene the UN definition of genocide via population replacement. Yet STRATFOR elected to go father than the French media even who referred to the protestors as, “Far-Right” and added ‘extremist’ to the description even though they committed no violence, did not incite violence and gave zero indication of any desire for violence but merely for long-overdue democratic process and an enforcement of the French laws of secularism, ‘Laicité’.
The excerpts from the SITREP are in screen shot images. Go over to Vlad Tepes to see the full details about STRATFOR’s blatant toeing of the PC party line concerning the French opponents of Islamization.
Pay particular attention to the contrast between the “extreme right-wing” demonstrators in France and the “Islamist militants” who bomb and mutilate people in Nigeria.
I just took a look at the StratFor article in question, and yes it’s smear job. It’s reads like something from the Los Angeles Times.
It’s clear that they do have a political agenda and it isn’t favorable to nationalists or those who are against Islamization of the West.
Now doing a bit of on the political background of it’s founder, George Friedman. His views are rather odd. He actually thinks the threat from Islamization of Europe is a joke and the real enemy will be Japan who will ally with Turkey and attack the U.S. Even Tom Clancy doesn’t have the fevered imagination of Friedman. He doesn’t think the U.S. is suffering from a massive wave of illegal immigration. Doesn’t think China will be a up and coming global power. He equates the Tea Party with Hitler and Stalin.
He was also educated by the same people who taught the NeoCons, such as Werner Dannhauser. Which makes him no friend of the West and explains why he holds such absurd views on various subjects.
In terms of delivering quality information, Google can do better and give higher quality for free. But it doesn’t have the cachet of coming from a ex-CIA analyst.
What Friedman is good at is marketing himself and convincing people in power he is worth listening. For the average person he offers nothing of value.
Not worth the time especially for the money. Asked for a refund back in 2004 and never went back.
Too wrong, pc, middle of the road too much of the time.
The site is a big ‘smear site’ for moderation, political correctness, diversity and multiculturalism.
Likewise Baron….I stopped reading Stratfor some time ago due to what I perceived as its very partisan nature.
It’s worse than merely partisan, much worse. Their predictions were grievously inaccurate. Given the hype surrounding them, that’s devastating to an org like theirs.
I’ll take Wretchard any day.