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-partizan policy and how they are a geopolitical intelligence forecaster with no judgement on events or groups.

You can imagine my disapointment 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 vioelnce but merely for long-overdue democratic process and an enforcement of the French laws of secularism, ‘Laicite’.

Then, just a couple of hours after I received this one, another SITREP came in describing an attack by Boko Haram today in Nigeria where they murdered 23 people at minimum. Check out the description below:


Get it? A hundred French citizens peacefully demand their democratic rights as specified under French law and disperse without any objection and are “far right extremists”.

But a blood thirsty Islamic supremacists group that has mass murdered hundreds if not thousands of non-combatants especially Christians worshipping peacefully in their churches, are “Islamist Militants”.

I must go over my old articles and see if they refer to the shootings at Fort Hood as “work place violence” because from where I sit, STRATFOR has eaten the Obama pudding.


About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “STRATFOR, not as neutral as they claim.”

  1. Shotly after the 9/11/01 attacks Friedman started writing articles about how we needed to cut a deal with Iran and let them take care of the problem in Afghanistan. After taht I never have trusted him, he as great sources of info but his analysis betrays his politics.

  2. Stratfor often reminds me of that damp rag Psychic character on Star Trek The Next Generation who did her job by constantly stating either the obvious or what experienced officers would already know.

    I recall that the guy behind Stratfor started out by making predictions about the next century (the exact sort of prediction that is so often shown to be laughable) and said that we are supposedly watching the death throws of Islam.

    It looks like they get their “intelligence” the same places everyone else does. I’ve not seen a report from them that wasn’t based upon what can be read in the newspapers, and have seen very little actual analysis in them, despite the well chosen titles of the clips.

  3. And ya “right wing extremist” is subjective political language and not an accurate or objective way to describe any political organization that’s still an unknown quantity. Merely being opposed to religious fundamentalism or the dissolution of national soverignity does not make you “right wing”.

    All these people seem to ignore the simple truth that being assertive about being moderate is not the same thing as being “right wing” or “extremist”.

    Aside from islamists, the only group that qualifies as “right wing” is the Golden Dawn. That’s the only group I know of besides the muslims that displays the same sort of beligerance, militarism and thuggery as 1930’s fascists.

    The rest only seem to be moderates, centrists and Small C conservatives. Being moderate is not synonymous with being passive.

  4. I’m not sure. Just by that isolated example you cannot accuse Stratfor of being biased.

    Bloc Identitaire is, indeed, extreme-right wing and nationalist. Wait a minute ! It’s distinctly to the right of the far-right Front national…

    Of course, you could say that France is massively tilted towards the left, that the so-called mainstream right wing parties are not right-wing at all and even arguably socialist, but that’s the realm of political bloggers and otherwise biased writers.

    A supposedly neutral website has to stick, more or less, to the received denominations. Front national is far-right. Front de Gauche is far-left. UMP is right-wing. PS is left-wing.

    Beyond that, you could argue that being far-right is a very bad thing, or a good thing. But that’s opinion, not fact.

  5. How many examples would you like? from the last 6 hours or so alone I can give you probably 10. They use the Obama terminology for Muslims commiting acts of terror against soft targets and using very neutral and cautious language but for any European that is protesting population replacement or Islamic supremacy they can’t string enough negative-weighted adjectives together. Want more? Ill provide:

    OK lets compare this one below:

    Thousands are marching in the United Kingdom on Oct. 20 to protest austerity measures, BBC reported. The biggest march is in London, while others are occurring in Glasgow and Belfast. Labour Party leader Ed Miliband will address the London march. The protesters are calling for an end to public service cuts and the implementation of policies that create growth. The government says the austerity measures are necessary for cutting the deficit. The protests come amid rising anti-EU sentiment in the United Kingdom.

    With the odd one they have done about the EDL. I don’t think I need to tell you how Stratfor described the EDL. But do you see ‘far left’ left wing extremists’ or any such adjective here?

    Nearly daily they use the Obama narrative about ‘blue on green’ assaults in Afghanistan as opposed to Muslim orthodoxy who infiltrate US and allied orgs which attempt to be inclusive and slaughter unwitting personnel. They refer to it exactly as Obama directs with all the bias they asked for.

    I have been a STRATFOR subscriber for years now but I have seen it grow steadily worse over the past few years. I dont know if it is because they are biased towards Obama or if it is a threat or bribe the admin offered them but something is clearly tilted. They describe the exact same event in radically different ways depending on who is doing the action. A peaceful demo by an anti-Islamic supremacist group is far right extremist etc, etc. while far left groups are presented with cold neutrality leaving the impression of a general sentiment by the population.

  6. Robert Marchenoir:

    Bullpucky. Ask yourself this- Who calls themselves Right Wing? Any descriptor that can be applied to both the Nazi Party and to Douglas Murrey is inherrantly meaningless.

    The term right wing is used to lump vastly dispareate political organizations together for the purposes of marginalizing opponents.

    It’s used as an indirect way of calling your opponent a Racist Warmongering Nazi – thus indirectly labling oneself a good guy.

    The Right Wing / Left Wing dichotomy was cooked up by Stalinist Russia so the stalinists could differentiate themselves from the Nazis before and during WWII. If you ignore the right/left dichotomy then there was little to no actual difference between the Soviets and the Nazis. Indeed many historians such as Norman Davies have argued that Stalin had killed more Russians before WWII than Hitler did during WWII.

    There may have been economic differences but they pale in comparison to the relationship the individual had with the state, how much authoirity the state had and how the state excercised that authority.

    It was first used to differentiate Communism and Nazism.

    Then to lable the opponents of Communist conquest.

    Now it’s used to lable those who are opposed to conquest and encroachment by extreme right wing religious fundamentalists who are opposed to the rights of women, gays, and freedom of concience. How the F itty F ing F does that work?

    It is also used to describe those who are opposed to the loss of their individual rights and national soveregnity to a superstate that doesn’t appear to function as a democracy.

    From it’s inception its been used by totalitarians and authoritarians to tar those who believe in individual liberty and democracy as somehow being even more totalitarian than they are. It allows totalitarians to present themselves as champions of freedom and liberality.

    Lewis Carroll would have been impressed.

  7. Robert: Here is a great one. By which I mean a typical one:

    Jordan: Major Terrorist Plot Foiled
    October 22, 2012 | 0236 GMT
    The General Intelligence Department on Oct. 21 foiled a major terrorist plot that was in the planning and preliminary stages, Petra reported. A group of 11 militants associated with al Qaeda was planning to carry out attacks against vital targets in Jordan, including shopping centers, residential areas, diplomats and foreign nationals. The group had intended to take advantage of what they believed was the intelligence department’s “preoccupation” with other files. The militants had plans for executions using explosives and submachine guns and mortars.

    Notice that they describe a terrorist act, a plan to do killing and destruction at a shopping mall, yet fail to call the terrorists ‘terrorists’ even though they commit acts of terrorism for the worlds #1terrorist group today, al Qeada. The language, executions, militants etc. makes one think they had to fire someone for the headline.

    There is no question that they are being very generous in how they describe far left or Muslim terrorists compared to how they describe a few dozen peaceful French citizens that demand rule of law where denied it.

  8. Eeyore

    from Debkafile sept 25: Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood has given King Abdullah II notice that he has until October to bow to their demand to transform the Hashemite Kingdom into a constitutional monarchy or face Arab Spring street pressure for his abdication.

    And now Al Quada is discovered hatching a terrorism plot.

    We could play connect the dots but it’s not so much fun when there’sonly two.

    • 1. We do not make the claims to pure unbiased intel that Stratfor makes and we are not a large commercial enterprise as is Stratfor.
      2. Boko Haram is objectively blood thirsty as their leader explains often and their actions back it up.

      Adding “you fuck” doesn’t add anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *