HISTORICAL REVISIONISM, RACISM AND IMPERIAL ENTITLEMENT FROM THE STRATFOR FILES: “WHY ‘ANGLOS’ LEAD”
Why Anglos Lead
Released on 2013-02-13 00:00 GMT
Introduction
The Stratfor and other memos and materials released by Wikileaks represent a rare look into the mind-sets of the upper reaches of the U.S. military, diplomatic service, intelligence services and the minions and their revolving doors of the civilian contractors and “think-tanks” that service the U.S. Imperium.
In these memos, just as in the documents of the Pentagon Papers, are a whole lot of smoking guns. As in the case of the Pentagon Papers, no real secrets in terms of sources and methods, or doctrines or intentions or capabilities not known to any potential adversaries are revealed. So much of the trade-craft of the intelligence and other agencies of government has not really changed for hundreds of years only the hardware, gadgets and software.
What makes them so dangerous is what they reveal not about intelligence sources and methods, or what they reveal about U.S. client states and how their relations are forged and maintained, but what they reveal about the true capabilities, mind-sets, proclivities, intentions and contempt for basic international law and decency on the part of all sorts of individuals with all sorts of high-sounding titles, positions, academic letters, family names and connections. What is dangerous for the powers-that-be in these documents, materials, emails and the like is the clear evidence of just how shallow, bigoted, grandiose, two-faced, mean, selfish, fascistic, narcissistic, megalomaniacal and even psychopathic and sociopathic some of these individuals with high-level clearances and all sorts of titles are.
And like the Pentagon Papers, they reveal that they do not even believe a lot of their own public triumphalist, bullshit internally. In the Pentagon Papers for example, there were documents showing that as early as 1964, Johnson was saying they could not exit and create a demonstration effect (the real domino principle) for other insurgencies that the U.S. Imperium could be defeated, yet could not possibly “win” in Vietnam no matter anyone’s slippery definition of “victory”.
Just look at what they say about Petraeus, the CIA, CIA capabilities and the like. Speculation on the termination of the former Director of Analysis in CIA? And some of these individuals hold or held high-level security clearances. Is is not interesting that we ask all immigrants and security clearance applicants if they have ever been members of any communist party or organization yet never asked if they have ever been members of any fascist organization or have such proclivities.
And here you have these “strategic minds” (clearly mostly legends in their own minds from their own self-praise of themselves) giving “strategic advice” at “strategic levels” and presenting like their name “strategic forecasts” on “strategic issues” and they are still spreading the slander and libel that Obama was not born on U.S. soil.
You will see here why the WIKILEAKS and other such revelations are really so dangerous to the powers-that-be. They show that behind the masks, posturing, strutting, and other poseur machinations, these folks are nothing; what my mother used to call “White Trash in ties”. White trash not because of the color of their skin or in the usual class-biased use of the term by other whites, but white trash because of their obvious smug and entitled pride in their whiteness they had nothing to do with but tout as if it were some kind of accomplishment. This mentality is very evident in some of these emails.
Among the traitors who did the most damage to the U.S., Aldrich Ames of the CIA and Robert Hanssen of the FBI, both high-up in Counter-intelligence, both ultra anti-communist, both ultra-conservatives, both big on America uber Alles, both sanctimonious, both from ultra-conservative and anti-Communist fathers (Ames father 30 year CIA and Hanssen’s father Chicago PD Red Squad) and both held highest level security clearances and were thought to be incapable of treason and betrayal of trust.
They would have both fit right in at Stratfor. And look at what they are themselves leaking out about Petraeus, a possible mistress, how she is viewed by the Yemenis, his drinking habits and how he may talk too much, possible classified information revealed to this potential mistress not his wife accompanying him etc…
And was all this known prior to Petraeus recommended for CIA and being vetted for CIA? I wonder if any of them reported Petraeus at the time and who that woman,not his wife, was and in what capacity was she with him.
These emails and essays strip away some of the masks and sugar-coated bullets of the U.S. Imperium and its minions of the Establishment that runs it. And they also reveal something about what Imperialism looks and acts like without any masks or sugar-coated bullets–pure hard power nothing “soft” about it; when they think their exchanges are secure. Indeed Stratfor brags about the methods it uses to get around walls to keep documents and exchanges secure, so this hacking of Stratfor was a case of Karma Time.
Notice in this revisionist rendition of the supposed “basis” of Anglo-American power and “civilization”, no mention made of imperialism, genocide, covert operations and “blowbacks” suffered not by those who caused them, unequal trade, racism, oppression of women, slavery and some of the carnage suffered globally in the name of “The Advance of Western Civilization Westward To Follow the Sun” with the “final conquest” and last to become “civilized” being China.
This essay by Lawrence Mead, along with the accompanying emails of some Stratfor employees, reek of the smug entitlement, historical revisionism, notion of Calvinistic “Pre-Ordinaton” [to rule] that has as its source, in the Anglo-American “Westerer Movement” [“Civilization founded in the Caucuses by Anglo-Saxons, Teutons, Nordics by “higher-level” of the Caucasians moving westward to “follow the sun, “civilizing” through missionaries, trade, and power projections westward to the final conquest of China] the very same origins as the Nazis and their “Eugenics” as well as their own occult theories of supposed racial superiority of “Anglo-Saxon”, “Teutonic” and “Nordic” Whites and being destined to rule.
There is no mention of smallpox-infected blankets, chartered monopolies, entrenched elites in secret societies at the founding of America that remain today and with many of the same family names in them from the times of the Pilgrims. There is no mention of slavery, calculated genocide, imperialism, colonialism, arrogant missionaries, use of alcohol and drugs as instruments of “primitive accumulation of capital” at the founding and with the expansion of American empire. No mention of control of key global institutions and the disparate effects of major wars in destroying some nations while aiding the building and expansion of others.
COVERT AND UNACCOUNTABLE ORGANS OF GLOBAL “GOVERNANCE AND POLICY”
There is no mention of the fact that during World War II, some 380 U.S. corporations continued to trade with the Nazis, Japanese and Italian Axis powers throughout World War II and that Hitler and the Nazis were financed by American financiers, including the Bush Family from 1924 onward.
As you read these files, you will see just how shallow, superficial, uneducated, myopic, full-of-themselves, narcissistic, self-absorbed, megalomaniacal, racist, sexist and even psychopathic and sociopathic some of these supposed “Supermen” and “Superwomen” or “Ubermenschen” of the U.S. Imperium really are. Without their teleprompters and speeches and essays written in their name by others, without their toadies in the mainstream media asking them only softball questions to keep their own access to the “movers and shakers”, without their posturing and posing for the cameras under controlled conditions and venues, they are really not much to write home about. Where would John Kerry, George Bush and his ilk be without the insider connections and networks of the Skull and Bones?
Please read some of these very revealing emails written by persons with high-level security clearances, sometimes leaking all sorts of stuff, from one of the consulting firms with very high-level connections and influence not only in the Bush white house, but in the Obama one as well. Like the Pentagon Papers and other such leaks, they reveal not only some psychopathic and sociopathic mind-sets in the “upper levels” of the U.s. Imperium, but they also reveal that they often internally do not believe their own lies they are spreading publicly. That is why the Pentagon Papers and the Wikileaks cables are so dangerous: they show the real nature, interests, intentions and capabilities of the U.S. Imperium and that they often do not match with what is presented for public consumption and indoctrination.
The infantile mentalities you will find revealed in some of these emails can best be summed-up from a poem by Bertolt Brecht:
Those who take the meat from the table,
teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined,
demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill, speak to the hungry,
of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss,
call ruling too difficult for ordinary folk.
Bertolt Brecht
Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
THE STRATFOR EMAILS
Email-ID 293753
Date 2006-01-21 23:27:04
From bokhari@stratfor.com
To analysts@stratfor.com
Why Anglos Lead
By Lawrence Mead
OVER THE last few years, due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many commentators have discerned the emergence of a new American empire.
Some critics blame the Bush Administration, arguing that, but for Bush, there would be no crisis over American “unilateralism” or “hegemony.” Others blame the end of the Cold War for “unleashing” America on the world.
Actually,American pre-eminence extends much further back–to World War II or before. It really continues a British primacy that dated back at least to 1815. During the 20th century, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia challenged the Anglo ascendancy, but they were turned back. So today the world order bears a remarkable resemblance to the late Victorian era. Now as then, the world is globalizing, and English is its lingua franca. The United States has merely supplanted Britain as the leading power.
American primacy is not an accident of this or that administration. It reflects the special capacity of English-speaking countries to lead the world order. These “Anglo nations”, or the “Anglos” as I will call them, include Britain and the chief territories that were settled initially from Britain–pre-eminently the United States but also Australia, Canada and New Zealand. What makes a country Anglo is that its original settler population came mainly from Britain. So even though a minority of Americans today have British roots, they inherit a political culture initially formed by the British.
Some other countries that Britain ruled, such as India or South Africa, are not Anglo in this sense because British settlers never formed the bulk of their populations. They may be English-speaking, and their public institutions have British roots, but British culture did not form the society as it did in the Anglo countries.
The Anglo nations–singly or in concert–have taken a special responsibility for the world order. Somehow, they are available to deal with chaos and aggression abroad, as other countries usually are not. One or another of the Anglos has led all the major military operations of the last fifteen years. Besides the current Afghanistan
and Iraq conflicts, instances include the 1991 Gulf War, the ensuing no-fly zones over Iraq, military operations in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999, and humanitarian interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Sierra Leone and East Timor.
What explains Anglo primacy? One immediate cause is that other rich countries that might show leadership have abdicated. Following the devastating wars of the 20th century, the continental nations and Japan sought to banish war by subordinating themselves and other states to international institutions–the United Nations, NATO and the European Union. Germany and Japan even adopted legal curbs on the use of their militaries abroad or for offensive purposes. The ethos of most of the developed world now runs strongly against war, even for a good cause. Thus, in moments of military crisis, America seems “bound to lead” because no other country can do so.
But beyond this, the Anglo nations also possess, to an unusual degree, the resources needed for war–wealth, a capacity to project force, confidence in war and the deference of other countries. Other commentators have noted these assets. What I add is chiefly the argument that all these resources ultimately stem from the Anglos’ political achievements: Good government at home is the ultimate reason for Anglo leadership abroad.
Wealth and Law
BRITAIN AND America came to primacy in part simply because they were the richest countries of their day. [tautology] They had the wealth and the technology to build dominant militaries and sustain them. The British built a bigger and better navy than rival European powers. The United States has overwhelmed its major opponents by both quantity and quality of arms. Washington funds high-tech weapons development on a scale that no other country can approach. The Anglos also buy influence abroad. The British financed alliances against their European rivals. They exported capital overseas just as they did colonists. The United States lavishes economic and military aid on its clients.
But why are the Anglos so rich? Principally because they are comfortable with capitalism. A special propensity to “truck, barter and exchange” appeared in England even in medieval times. The English became rich by developing a larger and freer internal market than rival countries.They also had an aristocracy more open to enterprise than continental rivals, and other entrepreneurs arose outside the landed elite. Due to these assets, the Industrial Revolution appeared first in Britain. The resulting wealth largely explains Britain’s hegemony during the 19th century. It took Britain’s European rivals most of a century to catch it.
The United States, lacking any premodern social order, built its culture and institutions even more fully around the market economy. And where Britain was an island, the United States was a continent. The American combination of confident capitalism with massive scale is equaled nowhere else. So the United States became a powerhouse of wealth and innovation with which it seems no other country can compete.
In recent decades, it did seem that Anglo economies were losing ground to eager rivals in Europe or Asia, pre-eminently Japan. But over the last quarter-century, the Anglos have trimmed taxes and subsidies, deregulated markets, curbed trade unions, cut welfare benefits and exposed their private sectors to ruthless restructuring. The end result is that the United States remains the world’s richest country, while the British have the most dynamic large economy in Europe. At the end of the 20th century, the five Anglo countries led the world in overall economic policy. Not by accident, they also rank high in military expenditure.
Most other countries, in contrast, are a lot less comfortable with the marketplace. In Europe, continental governments try to shield citizens and companies from competitive pressures, leading to higher taxes and more social spending. In Asia, capitalism is even more compromised.Japan and its imitators used skilled workforces, strong technology and exports to the West to advance themselves. But in the 1990s Japan and other Asian countries suffered financial reverses. That showed that they still lacked the internal institutions and practices needed to rival the West. And while China may generate the wealth needed to finance a military juggernaut, it is much weaker in all the other attributes of world leadership.
The success of the market in Anglo countries did not occur in a vacuum. It reflects good governance. As early as the twelfth century, independent royal courts gained authority over all of England. The rule of law protected property and contract against force and fraud, and that was critical to the country’s early economic dynamism. A broader tradition developed that government should be impartial. It should publicly explain its policies, and functionaries should be honest.
Impartial governance worked over time to liberate enterprise. The medieval economy, in Britain as elsewhere, was riddled with monopolies, guilds and other restrictions. But over the centuries these came to be seen as corrupt. In a regime where policies had to be explained, special privileges could not ultimately be justified. So mercantilism was ended, monopolies abolished and financial markets developed. Adam Smith proved the superiority of the free market, and in the 19th century Britain became the first country to adopt free trade.
The British passed the rule of law, like capitalism, on to their colonies, and it was the most precious of their gifts. In America, political and economic competition can look like a free-for-all, but it is undergirded by a formidable legal order. Enterprise is free yet regulated to limit collusion and other abuses. Most people pay their taxes and obey the law. A civic ethos suffuses the regime. Abuses and corruption occur, but they are exposed and redressed, as in the recent Enron scandal. American judges and juries are not for sale, which is why drug kingpins fear extradition to the United States. Equal opportunity, based on an elaborate education system, is generous. The whole system rests on a commitment to public impartiality that America imbibed, like mother’s milk, from its British forebears.
In the Third World, in contrast, lack of the rule of law is a worse hindrance to development than any economic problem. Regimes are systematically corrupt. While nearly all economies today are formally capitalist, few are fully competitive. Officials often shield favored firms from answering to the law or the consumer. Without an ethos of impartiality, democratization achieves little. Elections merely change which politicians have their feet in the trough.
Thus, nurtured by the rule of law, the Anglos’ economies became a golden river, pouring forth the wealth needed to sustain their ascendancy around the world. No country without an equal trust in markets and in law is likely to challenge them.
The Projection of Force
WEALTH AND law, however, cannot fully explain Anglo primacy. By the end of the 20th century, Britain was no longer the richest country in Europe. Germany is larger and potentially more powerful. The affluent European Union might potentially outspend even the United States on arms. But neither Germany nor the EU has made any serious attempt to challenge the Anglos’ military leadership.
It is true that in NATO and UN peacekeeping operations, non-Anglo nations often participate. But they usually contribute only token forces, or their forces are untested in battle and thus of limited value. In Africa, local peacekeeping forces have sometimes created more disorder than they solved. The sole recent case of non-Anglo intervention by a single country is France’s expeditions to its former colonies in West Africa.
Many countries, of course, mobilize military force within their own borders. But in the capacity to prevail militarily far from home, the Anglos are pre-eminent. For one thing, they invest in the naval and airlift capacity needed to operate overseas. France is their only conceivable rival. Other major powers have no such capacity. Russia once could project force, as it did in Afghanistan, but its ability has degraded sharply since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In part, the Anglos’ capacity reflects habit. They have been sending armies overseas for centuries. The British built their empire that way. The United States has eschewed a formal empire, but it has intervened regularly in Latin America and the Caribbean.
A deeper reason, however, is again good government. Just as a capable regime made Anglo countries rich at home, so it helped them project power abroad. To an unusual degree, Anglo governments combine strong executive leadership with legislative consent. Both features make for effective war-fighting overseas.
Among European states, England was unified unusually early. Following the Norman Conquest, it developed the strongest monarchy in Europe. But the idea arose almost as early that government should be by consent.The Magna Carta codified the principle that the king could not change the law or raise taxes without the consent of the realm. Kings created Parliament to obtain taxes, conceding “redress of grievances” in return. As a result, British politics treated executive and legislative power as complementary, not opposed.
Both dimensions made the government effective abroad. The king had clear authority to govern, but he needed parliamentary consent to fund his enterprises. While this limited his personal power, it also allowed him to build greater political and financial support for foreign policy than in other states. Armed with these resources, English kings controlled much of France for centuries. In contrast, most continental rulers downgraded their parliaments and sought to rule on a personal basis. Such regimes were perpetually underfunded and politically insecure, as was proven by the French and Russian revolutions.
In Britain, Parliament pre-empted the power of the monarch rather than the other way around, but without compromising the authority of the regime. Still today, the essence of British government is a strong executive that requires parliamentary consent to govern. The American Constitution creates added checks and balances within the regime, but in foreign policy the arrangement is still British. The president has undoubted power to initiate policy, including war, but Congress must provide support and funding. Actions approved by both branches are highly likely to succeed abroad.
Deploying these institutions, Anglo regimes routinely out-mobilize their adversaries. The combination of unusual wealth with a unique capacity to tax and borrow allowed Britain to defeat France in the wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, even though France was then a much larger country. British military and trade pressure finally drove the Bourbon regime into bankruptcy and revolution. In much the same way, American arms and economic pressure forced the Soviet dictatorship to open up politics to get broader support, whereupon it, too, collapsed. The paradox was that the country most committed to the state was far worse governed than the capitalist one, and this was its undoing.
When the two Presidents Bush sought support from Congress before fighting Iraq, they observed a ritual that English kings initiated in the 13th century. The need for popular consent can delay Anglo acceptance of conflict, as was true in both the United States and Britain before World War II. But what looks like weakness is ultimately a strength. Once support is won, Anglo governments typically fight resolutely. Only if wars go badly for a prolonged period is consent withdrawn, as happened in Vietnam and could happen in Iraq.
Other countries that might rival the Anglos have no such tradition of forming a public will for war. In Anglo elections, two political parties typically dominate, and the use of single-member districts usually generates a majority with a clear mandate to govern. In continental countries and Japan, by contrast, there are more parties or factions, and proportional representation is often used, leading to fragmented parliaments and cautious coalition governments. In China, the regime fears any open debate, by elected representatives or the public. So its capacities to lead and to build support are far more limited.
Confidence in War
A FURTHER asset of the Anglo countries is that they approach war more confidently than their potential rivals. That partly reflects their favorable geopolitical situation. No Anglo country shares a common border with a threatening neighbor. Britain, Australia and New Zealand are islands, while the United States abuts only much weaker Canada and Mexico. So the Anglos often can wait to fight opponents until they are likely to prevail. The same cannot be said of France, Germany or Russia, still less the hapless east European countries sandwiched between Germany and Russia.
A second reason is again rooted in political success. For the past two centuries, Anglos have gone to war to defeat aggressors that threatened not only themselves but the stability of the world order. They are willing to do this in part because such struggles continue their liberal domestic political project. Their history is all about taming political power–schooling rulers to serve society rather than themselves. If they have succeeded in that endeavor at home, they believe they can do so abroad. To battle foreign tyrants is a further venture in the taming of unaccountable power. So they tend to approach war with purpose.
The Anglos think of war as confirming, not threatening, their deepest values. The British regime derived much of its confidence from its victories over Spain, then France, then Germany. That a free country, ruled by law and consent, could defeat dictatorships was Britain’s pride. Both Britain and the United States look back on World War II and the Cold War as glorious crusades. Those victories led to the rebuilding of much of Europe under Anglo auspices. The same confidence has led George Bush to attempt the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq, a much tougher challenge. Due to their dread of conflict, the continental nations today could not imagine such an enterprise.
The Anglo taste for war does not reflect militarism. These countries are less in love with soldiers than some of those they have defeated, such as imperial Germany and Japan. Anglo political culture promotes skepticism toward public institutions, including the armed forces. Civilian control of the military is strict. The military’s ability to impose itself on politics is far stronger in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Rather, Anglo acceptance of war reflects the confidence of the political class as a whole. Regimes that have governed successfully at home naturally think they can prevail abroad as well.
The Deference of Others
A FINAL resource that promotes the Anglos’ primacy is what Joseph Nye has called “soft power”–the uncoerced admiration of other countries. Traditional realists would expect that a nation as dominant as the United States is today should provoke counter-alliances. But Anglo power is used mostly for ends others perceive as disinterested, so it is tolerated. When the Anglos go to war, it is usually against widely recognized threats and in alliance with others. These brave campaigns served Anglo interests, but they also sheltered weaker nations. Relatively rich and secure, the Anglos act most of the time as status quo powers that defend the international order rather than pursuing their own narrow interests. As Charles Krauthammer argued several years ago in these pages, the United States has sustained an international system that provides for open seas, open trade and open societies lightly defended.
Foreign trust is such that most European and Asian countries would rather have the United States organize security for them than do it themselves. The Germans, Japanese or Russians would be far less trusted, because they ravaged large regions within living memory. America is also the financial mainstay of many international bodies. Far from exploiting smaller countries, America is the strong nation that is exploited by the weak.
Of course, the current Bush unilateralism has undermined American legitimacy abroad. The United States also disappointed others by withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and by refusing to join several new international agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases and the International Criminal Court.In these cases, our leaders judged that international cooperation was too costly for us. However, no other nation or grouping has stepped forward to take up the burdens that America declines. Europe has begun to form a military capacity separate from NATO, but it is as yet nascent. There is still no alternative to Anglo power as a basis for world order.
Again, the Anglos’ political successes stand in the background. Other countries accept Anglo foreign policy goals, in part because they arise from a transparent political process that foreigners can understand and even influence. The Anglos also have an unusually long history of governing in accord with individual rights. In politics, they practice what they preach, however imperfectly. That heritage makes it implausible that they could be oppressors abroad. This open and democratic tradition is the real source of Anglo soft power.
As noted above, Anglo foreign policy tends to express domestic values; realpolitik is secondary. Both William Gladstone and Jimmy Carter lectured other countries about human rights. Such language unsettles the realist minds of foreign statesmen, but it also reassures them. It might tempt America to unwonted crusades, but it also announces an identity of ends with other countries. Bismarck, the master of realpolitik, envied Britain’s “uncanny gift for provoking the jealousy yet attracting the support of European Powers.” Much of the time, if not presently, America does the same.
Some Qualifications
I DO NOT say that the Anglos dominate every aspect of world politics. Japan, Germany and other European countries are major sources of foreign aid. These and other countries contribute to the UN and international development agencies and shape world trade rules. It is only in crises requiring force that the Anglos move inevitably to the fore. However, that capacity is so critical and so costly that it is enough to make them overall world leaders.
I also do not necessarily defend the foreign policy pursued by the Anglo nations, let alone the current Bush unilateralism. Traditionally, Anglo policy has emphasized maintaining law and order abroad, skepticism toward international institutions and free trade. The continental countries would rather emphasize economic relations, international cooperation, generosity to the developing world and restraints on globalization. Yet any world system must cope with aggressors and the breakdown of order. That is where the Anglo capacity for war seems indispensable, and this is what chiefly gives them their primacy.
I also do not assume that the Anglos always agree among themselves. American and British interests have sometimes clashed, most notably over Suez in 1956. New Zealand withdrew from the ANZUS alliance rather than accept American ships carrying nuclear weapons. Canada refused to support the Iraq War. Recently, Britain joined other Europeans in pursuing a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear buildup, despite American doubts. It also backs the current world initiative to reduce world poverty through increased foreign aid; America is more skeptical.
Still less do I assume that there is or ought to be any explicit condominium among the Anglos. No “Anglosphere”, where English-speaking nations collaborate to run the world, is likely to emerge. 1 If the Anglos so often act in concert, especially in military matters, the reason is their shared histories, geopolitical situations and regimes. Any “special relationship” among their leaders is secondary.
Path Dependence
TO A LONG view, Anglo world leadership is not due to the Bush Administration or any recent event, not even to the crusades of the last century. Rather, the key fact, as Bismarck noted, is that the North Americans speak English. Britain defeated France for the control of the New World. The Battle of Quebec in 1759, which sealed that victory, might be the most decisive of modern times. In Europe, Britain had already proven the peerless capacity of capitalism, law and consent to generate wealth and power. Its conquest of North America ensured that the United States would become, in geopolitical terms, Britain writ large. Just as Britain came to lead Europe, so the United States would come to lead the world, and for similar political reasons.
Anglo primacy will probably persist precisely because its roots lie in good government, which is deeply path dependent. It is hard for any country to become well governed that has not always been so. Somehow, the British formed an effective regime early, and it went from strength to strength. Each advance generated the confidence and the trust needed for the next. The British passed on that legacy to their Anglo heirs, and these countries, too, have had beneficent histories. In terms of political gifts, the richest countries have been English-speaking. Their wealth and power ultimately derive from this great fact.
Most other European countries were less fortunate. Their development was more delayed and uneven. Only since World War II did many of them achieve regimes that were both effective and democratic. Outside the West, political traditions are still less fortunate. Regimes have typically been venal and incompetent. Weakness persists, because past failure undermines the assurance and the cooperation needed to improve. In recent decades, only a handful of non-Western regimes, mainly in Asia, can be said to have crossed the line from bad government to good.
While elected government has recently spread widely, the actual quality of government–its ability to rule legally, effectively and responsively–grows much more slowly. What institutions do exist in third-world countries are often a legacy of imperialism. A return to empire, perhaps under UN auspices, may be the only solution to “failed states.” 2 Either good government must be exported to the Third World, or those peoples will immigrate to the West in search of it, which poses its own problems.
Could China become powerful despite a regime that is both corrupt and undemocratic? The jury is still out. While China’s recent growth is remarkable, the country is still far below Western levels in per capita wealth and in the resources needed for a leading military. On past precedent, China will need much better government before it can truly challenge the West. While its regime has shown some moves toward legality and popular responsiveness, it has far to go.
For decades, international institutions such as the World Bank largely ignored governmental weakness, but that has changed.Increasingly, development aid is given subject to conditions on the receiving regimes. Aid donors use private organizations to run projects, sidestepping corrupt rulers. The human rights movement seeks to use American courts to indict foreign governments, in effect seeking to project American law, like American military power, beyond our shores. Thus the fortunate West works around the chief tragedy of the non-West, which is its politics.
This increasing focus on institutions, or lack thereof, highlights the real reasons for Anglo primacy. Bismarck was right; the fact that good governance arose first in the English-speaking world and was bequeathed to America is truly the most fundamental fact about world affairs. The great division in today’s international system is between countries that are well governed and those that are not. As long as that divide continues, Anglo primacy will endure.
1 See, for example, James C. Bennett, The Anglosphere Challenge
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).
2 See Vladislav Inozemtsev and Sergei Karagonov, “Imperialism of the
Fittest”, The National Interest (Summer 2005).
Lawrence M. Mead is professor of politics at New York University,
where he teaches public policy and American government. He has written
several books about American social policy.
Kamran Bokhari
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Senior Analyst, Middle East & South Asia
T: 202-251-6636
F: 202-429-8655
bokhari@stratfor.com
————————–
THE STRATFOR EMAILS: KARMA TIME–SO AS YE HACK AND LEAK SO SHALL YE BE HACKED AND LEAKED AGAINST
An example of the kinds of sentiments and “strategic thoughts” expessed in the emails of the “strategic thinkers” of StratFor
Introduction to the Stratfor Memos
by Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Re: obama for rapid comment and impovement
Released on 2012-10-19 08:00 GMT
Email-ID 65604
Date 1970-01-01 01:00:00
From bhalla@stratfor.com
To analysts@stratfor.com
nothing on question of Pakistani cooperation? also, we should caveat the speculationon AQ counterattack.. we have seen very clearly the decline of AQ core, and this piece makes it sound like we have no idea what their capabilities are.
———————————————————————-
From: “George Friedman”
To: analysts@stratfor.com
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 9:55:19 PM
Subject: obama for rapid comment and impovement
George Friedman
Founder and CEO
STRATFOR
221 West 6th Street
Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-744-4319
Fax: 512-744-4334
Re: White House still acting shady on the photo release
Released on 2012-10-19 08:00 GMT
Email-ID 65615
Date 1970-01-01 01:00:00
From bhalla@stratfor.com
To analysts@stratfor.com, friedman@att.blackberry.net
wrote my thesis on it 
———————————————————————-
From: “George Friedman”
To: “Analysts”
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 10:42:46 AM
Subject: Re: White House still acting shady on the [bin Laden] photo release
Its interesting that americans believe the us is bad at deception. This is not the view of foreign intelligence services who are constantly being whipsawed by us intelligence or think they are. This is a subject worth studying
I find that american officials outside intelligence or on the margins are the most convinced of this.
The american weakness is strategic intelligence but i dont see why the us is seen as weak on disinformation.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
STRATFOR MEMO
Re: INSIGHT – YEMEN – why champagne hangovers suck
Released on 2013-02-05 13:00 GMT
Email-ID 90306
Date 2010-02-05 22:14:51
From aaron.colvin@stratfor.com
To analysts@stratfor.com
List-Name analysts@stratfor.com
On the money angle, it’s a perfect example of how opportunistic the tribes and players are in Yemen. Great stuff.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Michael Wilson
wrote:
PUBLICATION: background/analysis
ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Yemeni diplomat based in DC
SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION: analysts
SOURCE HANDLER: Reva
.
This was a bit of a hectic, late night mtg so I didn’t get a focused discussion. King Fahd’s youngest son, Prince AbdelAziz was in town and challenged everyone to a champagne bottle drinking contest. He’s a total goof-off. I have a more serious mtg scheduled with the Yemeni diplomat for next wk.
Source just came back from Yemen last week. Seems like they are making decent progress against AQAP and the Houthis. You know that song, moneymoneymoneymoney moonaaaay, monaaaay? well, that’s yemen right now.
The Saudis are pouring cash in to buy off militants, defectors, etc. through the tribes and it’s working. Source claims that AQAP is heavily infiltrated because of this. And their concerns over OpSec show. It’s just become a huge money-making business now. That’s why the Houthis want to negotiate directly with Saudi, and not through Sanaa and why Sanaa wants to be the mediator. They know whoever deals with the Saudis, gets money as part of the deal. Everybody wants a cut.
An example on the money angle — this one commander tells the Saudis give me 40,000 riyals, I’ll make the Houthis come down from XXXX (i’m forgetting the name of this hilltop right now). The commander takes the money, hands out 10,000 Riyals, keeps the rest for himself and they all come down. Because of deals like this Abdel Malik al Houthi doesn’t have control over the entire Houthi insurgency., just sub-factions here and there.
Yes, the Houthis were able to seriously raise their profile and embarrass Sanaa and Riyadh, but they’re pretty beaten down right now. The towns are all bulldozed. THey have nowhere to go. Just hiding out on hilltops right now.
The delay in the release of Echo is because the Yemenis got the intel to bomb their ‘computer’ labs in Arhab.
The Saudis and Americans aren’t giving any attention to the rehab proposals. Yemen has been asking them for support, but they’re not interested in that initiative right now. Nothing’s being done on it. What the Yemenis really want are more helos, which the US isn’t giving them. US says they already have enough transport and firepower, but is also blocking the Yemenis from striking any deals with the Russians, Chinese, etc to get them.
The Yemeni CT units are slowly (well, trying) to come up to speed. There’s a body that was created about a year ago, called the OSSF – office of strategic security forces or something like that. It’s 100,000 strong, trained by Jordanian and US intel, NSA. There’s a change in attitude by Sanaa on the CT front. Whereas before, the US would provide the coordinates on a target and the Yemenis would stall and stall, now they’re ready to take them out.
Whenever the source met with Saleh, Saleh was completely obsessed with the Houthi rebellion. THat’s at the top of the list of his priorities. he wants to end this for good.
Petraeus has become BFF with the Yemeni ambassador here. Dinners every other week at the amb’s house. Last time he came with this woman, not his wife. The Yemenis think she was his mistress, but i seriously doubt that he’d be that stupid considering how high profile he is. You can see Petraeus taking a much deeper interest in Yemen these days though.
Petraeus (after he drinks a few) says privately there is an Iranian link in Yemen, but it is not yet critical.
Didn’t get much of a chance to go into any depth on the southerners and al Fadhli, but i will next wk.
–
Michael Wilson
Watchofficer
STRATFOR
michael.wilson@stratfor.com
(512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
Re: INSIGHT – Yemen – Counterterrorism turf wars in DC
Released on 2013-02-05 13:00 GMT
Email-ID 1204569
Date 2010-09-04 23:33:33
From sean.noonan@stratfor.com
To analysts@stratfor.com
List-Name analysts@stratfor.com
Well, at this point Awlaki is a more serious threat than UBL. It’s not just a PR thing.
———————————————————————-
From: “Reva Bhalla”
To: “Analyst List”
Sent: Saturday, September 4, 2010 3:23:19 PM
Subject: INSIGHT – Yemen – Counterterrorism turf wars in DC
PUBLICATION: background/analysis
ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: discussion over sheesha with Yemeni diplomat source
and two of Saleh’s younger sons
SOURCE Reliability : B
ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
SOURCE HANDLER: Reva
Update on those leaks from a couple weeks ago on CIA recommendations to the administration to carry out drone strikes in Yemen… The administration has tasked out all the main agencies to give their recommendations on US counterterrorism policy toward Yemen, with a policy decision due by the end of the year.
There’s a huge turf war between CIA and JSOC over this, which is why all these leaks are coming out. First the CIA leaked their rec for drone strikes. Then CENTCOM leaked their rec for $1.2 billion assistance funding for Yemeni special forces (this was all Petraeus, who has a very good relationship with the Yemenis and goes to the Yemeni ambo’s house pretty regularly for dinner.The Yemenis are nervous about Mattis taking over Centcom. THey could deal well with Petraeus, whom they consider a ‘diplomat.’ Don’t know yet how to read Mattis.
There’s been a ton of media spin and leaks later about Anwar al Awlaki being the next bin Laden. OBL is becoming old news now. CIA and JSOC want a new target to claim success, so there’s a concerted campaign going on right now to play up al Awlaki as the #1 terrorist. Al Awlaki is much easier to target anyway and they have leads on him, so every agency wants to be the one to say they got him.
–
Sean Noonan
Tactical Analyst
Office: +1 512-279-9479
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
http://www.stratfor.com
Email-ID 65125
Date 1970-01-01 01:00:00
From bhalla@stratfor.com
To gfriedman@stratfor.com
George, please, please, please respond to this one.
———————————————————————-
From: bdifalco@yahoo.com
To: responses@stratfor.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:13:02 PM
Subject: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: What Happened to
the American Declaration of War?
di falco, bob sent a message using the contact form athttps://www.stratfor.com/contact.
to Geo Friedman, mar 29, 11 yours on usa war and presidential idiots, is far short of the mark because you do not understand the USA, nor what it stands for, nor how it operates, nor its essential pro forma as to other nations, etc etc etc, because you were not born and raised in USA thus do not have an inborn knowhow of what usa is all about worse you submerged yourself in texas, austin of all places, where the
folks and mentality are slightly below the mexican mafia, i.e. texas and its folks are not tuned in to USA if you want to understand The United States, you have to understand that it has to be at war all the time, and has in fact been in a shooting war every day since inception, and that the Militia took USA, as is ongoing, by war conquest, not by bullshitters like obama the messia caliph muslim who has the same problem you do because he was not born and raised in USA and moreso because he is a psychopath who lives in his mind rather than in reality i.e. he is a nutcase of the worse kind thus, to begin your education, of usa and its constant worldwide exploitation, read the original Declaration of Independence as written signed July 4, 1776 – first scan it in-entirety, then read it for depth of understanding, both ought take about half an hour, then let it simmer in your mind without you tinkering with it when you understand said Independence,then do the same with our constitution as written 18th century, and after awhile you might get the gist of what we who are born and raised in usa know for our reality that you do not have a clue as to any of it it was stupid of the voters to put obama in white house because he is not qualified by the constitutional mandate that a pres shall be born on continental USA etc etc thus there is no way he can ever properly op USA, no way…once you have mastered the essence of above Independence and constitution, read the United States Code, which is the next paramount law that exercises and mandates and achieves the dictates of Independence and its trust instrument for op of USA Govt, reading time about 4 hours, deal with it the same as above for the paramount dictates of independence and op of govt,you will be amazed,,,,,,,,, i will be amazed if this brings your intellect up to the level of a 7 year old who was born and raised in USA otherwise you write an excellant forum, mostly good stuff, but would be better if you understood the USA Concept, as very few experts, especially pontificators, do….
your friend
bob
Source:
strong>FW: CIA head of analysis fired
Released on 2012-02-27 15:00 GMT
Email-ID 3438302
Date 2004-12-29 16:54:06
From iser@stratfor.com
To allstratfor@stratfor.com
I wanted to forward these comments from George to the entire team so that everyone at Stratfor is aware of the incredible opportunity/challenge we are faced with.
Iser
—–Original Message—–
From: George Friedman [mailto:gfriedman@stratfor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:13 AM
To: analysts@stratfor.com; exec@stratfor.com
Subject: CIA head of analysis fired
Jamie Miscik, Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA was fired today. As DDI, she ran the analytic shop. According to media reports, she was fired for squandering resources on day to day reports while ignoring the broad trends. In other words, she was fired for looking at the trees and being unable to see the forest. She was also accused of spending too much time updating policy makers and too little time trying to grasp the broad trends–giving customers what they wanted instead of what they needed. In the end, it was her customers that turned on her.
My charge against her was and remains that she took no pride in her craft and turned intelligence into PR and shoddy process. She and her gang are now history.
This gives Stratfor an enormous, historic opportunity. The CIA model of analysis has been invalidated. The ponderous, process driven machine that could only manage the small things now needs to be replaced by a robust, visionary, courageous analytic system. Stratfor has the opportunity to show the way. In fact, we are showing the way. Everyone in Langley knows that we do things they have never been able to do with a small fraction of their resources. They have always asked how we did it. We can now show them and maybe they can learn.
Our annual and decade forecast will, I guarantee you, be read by everyone at the CIA. They are looking for new models and they are looking at us. Every ounce of excellence that Stratfor owns will go into those two pieces. This will not only be good business, it will serve our country. They will be a road map to the craft of intelligence.
Allan Dulles said that intelligence was a craft. It is not a mass production line. The architects of misbegotten process in intelligence have failed and are out. It is our chance to step to the plate. It’s a rare moment and I want everyone in intelligence to take a break from working to think, dream and imagine. This is our chance to do it right.
It is Stratfor’s chance to make intelligence history and build a major business at the same time. It is a moment I have been waiting for–and knew was coming–since 1996, when George Tenet was appointed DCI and Stratfor was founded. I, for one, am going to show them how it’s done. I invite each of you to join me. This, ladies and gentlemen, is it.
—————————————————————–
Fwd: [Social] [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: The Tactical Irrelevance of Osama bin Laden’s Death
Released on 2012-10-19 08:00 GMT
Email-ID 65601
Date 1970-01-01 01:00:00
From bhalla@stratfor.com
To rohin.peace@gmail.com
crazy reader response
———————————————————————-
From: “Sean Noonan”
To: “Social list”
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2011 5:46:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Social] [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: The
Tactical Irrelevance of Osama bin Laden’s Death
This just blew my mind.
On 5/2/11 12:25 PM, wrbarryjr@yahoo.com wrote:
walter Barry, Jr. sent a message using the contact form athttps://www.stratfor.com/contact.
there is only one storyline that holds together and explains the courious obama mystery in all matters, including the killing of osama. that the two men were brothers in a large bin laden family (there is only one letter different in their names) their facial features are about the same: add a beard to obama. their hatred of the west and the usa is the same their seemingly access to unlimited funds are the same the bin laden in the white house is osama bin laden, not obama this explains the birther mystery, why in the second day in office bin laden signed off to close gitmo because ultimately that is where the couriers would unravel the fraud. after the 2003 failere to explode the twin towers from afar, osoma and obama switched places. that is why no one at occcidental, columbia, harvard or anywhere knew either brother osama emerged from this smoke as obama and thru hope and change became president. thus the killing of the brother yesterday was necessay to permently secure the real osama bin laden in the white house. the killing had to be an eyewitness event, with dna and a fast burial at sea. thus the phoney bin laden (obama) is gone forever and the real one (osama bin laden) is in the white house! call me at 831 625 9990
walter barry
Source:
http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=559&.intl=us&.lang=en-US
–
Sean Noonan
Tactical Analyst
Office: +1 512-279-9479
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
http://www.stratfor.com
——————————————-
From: Mirela Glass [mailto:glass@stratfor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:23 AM
To: allstratfor@stratfor.com
Subject: Stratfor on YouTube
Dear all,
A challenge for all of us this holiday season! Let’s put on our creative caps and think of possible ways to get Stratfor on YouTube.
We are looking for ideas of possible videos we can create on geopolitical, security and public policy themes. The videos will have to be short, under 5 minutes, interesting, entertaining and provocative. We are looking for the `wow’ effect! No promotional content, no sales pitch allowed!
Please send me your ideas for either topics, themes, or if you dare go further, complete scripts.
Have fun!
Mirela Ivan Glass
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Marketing Manager
T: 512-744-4325
F: 512-744-4334
Email: glass@stratfor.com
RE: Stratfor on YouTube
Released on 2013-02-13 00:00 GMT
Email-ID 5027
Date 2006-11-15 16:36:46
From kornfield@stratfor.com
To allstratfor@stratfor.com
I bet a film of a blue sky discussion would be interesting. Particularly if George, Reva and Rodger all vehemently disagree with each other.
Possible titles:
“Why China sucks and Iraq doesn’t matter.”
“How to make ricin in three easy steps.”
“Bolivia, World Hegemon.”
“Nice things to say about Africa.”
“How long will Poland last?”
“What if the world’s whole population got to vote in the next U.S.
presidential election?”
“Turkey: Attaboy.”
“The Seethers of Lebanon”
“Is that Hizbullah or he just happy to see me?”
We could also have a Christmas peep microwaving session, and discuss the
analogy between melting marshmellow and… [choose your own adventure].
———————————————————————-
RE: The Mexican, the arab, and the jersey girl
Released on 2013-02-13 00:00 GMT
Email-ID 5982
Date 2007-03-20 14:20:28
From campbell@stratfor.com
To social@stratfor.com, jeremy.edwards@stratfor.com
HAHA, small, simple things humor me when I sit alone in my
apartment with no face to face human contact each day.
—–Original Message—–
From: Jeremy Edwards [mailto:jeremy.edwards@stratfor.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:21 AM
To: sarah campbell
Cc: social@stratfor.com
Subject: Re: The Mexican, the arab, and the jersey girl
Your great grandparents used to laugh at that joke when their great-grandparents told it to them.
sarah campbell wrote:
A Mexican drinks his beer and suddenly throws his glass in the air, pulls out his pistol and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, “In Mexico our glasses are so cheap we don’t need to drink from the same glass twice.”
An Iraqi, obviously impressed by this, drinks his beer, throws his glass into the air, pulls out his AK-47 and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, “In Iraq we have so much sand to make glasses that we don’t need to drink out of the same glass twice either.
The Jersey Girl, cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer and drinks it, throws her glass into the air, pulls out her gun and shoots the Mexican and the Iraqi, and catches her glass. She says, “In New Jersey we have so many illegal Mexicans and Arabs that we don’t have to drink with the same ones twice.
hahahaha.
Sarah Campbell
*Stratfor* *Strategic Forecasting, Inc*.
Briefer
T: 202.349.1748
F: 202.349.8655
Campbell@Stratfor.com
————————————————–
Jeremy Edwards
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Writer/Copyeditor
T: 512-744-4321
F: 512-744-4434
jeremy.edwards@stratfor.com
http://www.stratfor.com
————————————————————-
RE: The Mexican, the arab, and the jersey girl
Released on 2013-02-13 00:00 GMT
Email-ID 6035
Date 2007-03-20 14:27:18
From scott.stewart@stratfor.com
To social@stratfor.com
Being that I’m from Pennsylvania, that joke is far more flattering than any joke my grandaddy EVER told me about Jersey Girls.=20
In fact, he probably would have said something to the effect that since there are so many illegal aliens in Jersey that they Jersey Girls never have to sleep with the same ones twice.
————————————————————–
RE: The Mexican, the arab, and the jersey girl
Released on 2013-02-13 00:00 GMT
Email-ID 6171
Date 2007-03-20 14:28:41
From campbell@stratfor.com
To social@stratfor.com, scott.stewart@stratfor.com
Oooooooo ouch stick
—————————————————————
Re: The Mexican, the arab, and the jersey girl
Released on 2013-02-13 00:00 GMT
Email-ID 6299
Date 2007-03-20 17:08:26
From ajay.tanwar@stratfor.com
To social@stratfor.com
…And then she was convicted of a double homicide and was sentenced to life in jail.
BLONDE JOKE #116
How do you brainwash a blonde?
A rigorous schedule of psychologically breaking down their confidence and resistance to outside suggestion.
BAR JOKE #1
A man walks into a bar. He has a few drinks and chats with the bartender.
Later that night, he goes home alone and reflects on the poor decisions he’s made in life.
RELIGIOUS JOKE #5
A Priest, a Minister, and a Rabbi are walking down the street. They discuss, together, the various traditions and beliefs of their different religions.Each leaves with a greater respect for the other and a deeper understanding of the world.
DOCTOR JOKE #5
A man goes to his doctor. The doctor tells him he’s dying.
The man says, “I want a second opinion.”
The doctor gives him the name and number of a specialist in the type of cancer with which the man has been diagnosed.
POLISH JOKE #21
A gentleman is of polish descent. His heritage in not discernable to his neighbors and co-workers, save for the letters “ski” at the end of his
surname.
GENIE JOKE #3
A man and a woman are crossing the desert. They find a lamp in the sand.
The man rubs the lamp and nothing happens. Afterward, he feels a bit foolish.
CHICKEN JOKE #63
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Because the chicken lacks any reasoning or decision-making capabilities, it seems unlikely the chicken’s action was spurred by any particular motivation.
DEATH JOKE #5
A man died. What transpired after he passed the veil of death is beyond the knowledge of the living.
KNOCK-KNOCK JOKE #8
Knock, Knock!
Who’s there?
John.
John who?
John Wilson, your old friend from college.
What a pleasant surprise. Please, come in.
BAR JOKE #17
A man walks into a bar with a dog. He orders a drink.
The bartender says, “Hey, we don’t let dogs in here!”
The man says, “But I’m blind, and this is my seeing eye dog. According to the Americans With Disabilities Act, you have to allow him into your establishment.”
The bartender gives him his drink, which he consumes.
POLISH JOKE #9
How many Polish people does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Two. One to hold the ladder, and the other to turn the light bulb in a clockwise fashion until it is secured in the socket.
WIFE JOKE #2
Take my wife, please, as I can no longer afford to pay for a nurse to come and care for her on a daily basis.
LAWYER JOKE #7
What do you call a room full of lawyers?
A group of highly educated legal professionals.
FARMER’S DAUGHTER JOKE #13
A man is driving down a country road at night when his car gets a flat
tire. He stops by a local farmhouse and asks the owner if he can stay there for the night. “Sure,” says the farmer. “As long as you don’t touch my three beautiful daughters.” The man did as he was told, because frankly, he didn’t find the girls nearly so attractive as their father seemed to.
From: Reva Bhalla [mailto:reva.bhalla@stratfor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:34 PM
To: stratforaustin@stratfor.com
Cc: ‘Joseph de Feo’
Subject: Happy Hour…today!
You’re tired, you’re over-worked, you’re sick of George telling you how meaningless your life is….you need a drink.
Lucky for you, we’ve organized a happy hour. Jeff Stevens has proposed the rooftop at the InterContinental on Congress — awesome drinks, great weather, great view.
Also, Joe de Feo is here from DC and is in need of some Austin culture. Come out and meet the real Joe de Feo, and get fashion tips from him while you’re at it.
Let me know if you can make it…we’d love to have you there.
ciao,
Reva and Amanda
–
Marko Papic
Stratfor Geopol Intern
Austin, Texas
AIM: mpapicstratfor
Cell: + 1-512-905-3091
Marko Papic
Stratfor Geopol Intern
Austin, Texas
AIM: mpapicstratfor
Cell: + 1-512-905-3091
——————————————————–
Re: Happy Hour…today!
Released on 2012-10-19 08:00 GMT
Email-ID 17432
Date 2007-12-05 22:33:13
From zeihan@stratfor.com
To Stratforaustin@stratfor.com, burton@stratfor.com, defeo@stratfor.com, reva.bhalla@stratfor.com, ct@stratfor.com, marko.papic@stratfor.com
if i have a shrunken arab head on the dash and a “nuke em all” bumpersticker would i have been ok?
Fred Burton wrote: Concur, the sheriff would still have probable cause for the traffic stop.
———————————————————————-
From: Marko Papic [mailto:marko.papic@stratfor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Reva Bhalla
Cc: Fred Burton; Joseph de Feo; CT AOR; stratforaustin@stratfor.com;
Peter Zeihan
Subject: Re: Happy Hour…today!
i think my point still stands… the said sheriff would be prudent to pull Peter over for driving a hybrid, he can establish his hatred for arabs during questioning and send him off with a citation…
—– Original Message —–
From: “Reva Bhalla”
To: “Peter Zeihan” , “Marko Papic”
Cc: “Fred Burton” , “Joseph de Feo”
, “CT AOR” ,
stratforaustin@stratfor.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 3:26:44 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago
Subject: RE: Happy Hour…today!
ooh, how would you evaluate that one, Fred? he hates the A-rabs, but drives a hippie car. do they cancel each other out?
———————————————————————-
From: Peter Zeihan [mailto:zeihan@stratfor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:24 PM
To: Marko Papic
Cc: Fred Burton; Joseph de Feo; CT AOR; Reva Bhalla;
stratforaustin@stratfor.com
Subject: Re: Happy Hour…today!
hey!
i drive a hybrid because i can’t stand saudis — has nothing to do with been a greeny
Marko Papic wrote:
good call Fred… but you forgot to remind him about Saabs, Subarus and any form of hybrids…
———————————————————-
—– Original Message —–
From: “Fred Burton”
To: “Reva Bhalla” ,
stratforaustin@stratfor.com
Cc: “Joseph de Feo” , “CT AOR”
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 3:11:27 PM (GMT-0600)
America/Chicago
Subject: RE: Happy Hour…today!
Mull this conversation over while at the local dot com bar –
This skinny, hard scrabble, 70-year-old Texas sheriff, dipping Copenhagen, wearing two Colt .45 Commanders (“am too damn old to reload”) asked me to help him define probable cause for traffic stops in a post 9-11 world.
He went on to say that his current policy was, “Anybody who doesn’t belong, dot com land speculators, foreigners, Middle-Easterners, cars with tags north of Virginia, and long hairs.”
I nodded and told him that was a pretty good list, but he may want to think about adding anybody who drives a Volvo, beacuse they could be liberal Dems in his county stirring up dissent.
The old boy said, “Damn good idea” as he scribbled it down in his ticket book.
———————————————————————-
FAIR USE NOTICE
Fair Use Notice
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This site makes such material available in efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information.
Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Common Dreams and Information Clearinghouse.