Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Rants

Erik Prince: We Need A Douglas MacArthur

Published

on

Blackwater founder Erik Prince argues for the need for a single steadfast U.S. military leader in Afghanistan to end the decade and a half of rampant spending and underwhelming results.

“Afghanistan is an expensive disaster for America. The Pentagon has already consumed $828 billion on the war, and taxpayers will be liable for trillions more in veterans’ health-care costs for decades to come. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died there, with more than 20,000 wounded in action. For all that effort, Afghanistan is failing. The terrorist cohort consistently gains control of more territory, including key economic arteries,” Prince writes in his Wall Street Journal op-ed “The MacArthur Model for Afghanistan.”

“As it is, there are too many cooks in the kitchen—and the cooks change shift annually. The coalition has had 17 different military commanders in the past 15 years, which means none of them had time to develop or be held responsible for a coherent strategy. A better approach would resemble Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s leadership of postwar Japan,” Prince argues.

Prince’s five-step solution for Afghanistan is a fascinating read from one of the closest observers and participants in American foreign policy. Prince has never shied away from a gunfight. He confirmed to this reporter at the beginning of the campaign that Hillary Clinton’s U.S. consulate in Benghazi was responsible for buying back some loose weapons following a program in which the United States armed the Syrian rebels (ISIS, of course, emerged from the Syrian rebellion, where it enjoyed Obama administration support in its early stages).

Trending: Maxine Waters Wants Trump Supporters To Stop Confronting Her

Prince’s op-ed echoes his previous statements to Tucker Carlson on Fox News:

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Rants

CNN: Hurricanes Kill People Because of Sexism

Published

on

CNN headline news: Hurricanes kill people because THEY’RE SEXIST.

In the wake of Hurricane Harvey ripping through Texas, a 2016 CNN article has resurfaced on my feminist Twitter feed, titled: “Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says.” Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, I guess.

It would make more sense if they believed female hurricanes were actually more violent than male hurricanes — women being the more vengeful and vindictive of the sexes — but no, femininity is absolved, because it’s sexism that justifies female meteorological aggression.

According to this dubious study, female-named hurricanes result in more death and destruction than male-named hurricanes, because people prepare less for them. And this all has to do with our sexist notion that women are weaker than men:

“Feminine-named hurricanes (vs. masculine-named hurricanes) cause significantly more deaths, apparently because they lead to a lower perceived risk and consequently less preparedness,” a team of researchers wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In other words, a hurricane named ‘Priscilla’ probably wouldn’t be taken as seriously as a hurricane named ‘Bruno,’ which might spark more fear and prompt more people to flee.”

Either CNN must take the general human population for complete idiots, or their newsroom is ideologically brainwashed and braindead. This study is just a sad waste of tax money.

By Brant Kelly – _DSC9079.jpg, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61979714

I never thought I would see the day when I have to spell out to feminists that hurricanes are not people. They possess no sentient or sexual characteristics. They’re freaking CLOUDS. Hurricane names are picked from a predetermined list, the names have nothing to do with the severity of the storm. Everybody knows this.

Meteorologists aren’t mulling in their laboratories, going “gee, this hurricane on the gulf coast has windspeeds of 100 mph; sounds like a Butch, what do you think? Oh, but the next one over in California is only at 80mph; let’s name it Sally!”

How utterly dumb must someone be to dismiss a deadly hurricane and stay at home just because it’s named Katrina instead of Kevin? Virtually nobody, or they are hopelessly stupid and deserve to be drowned under a flooding attic.

That’s right — all of those poor, dead people? They all died just because they hate women. It is the fate feminists want to befall on all those who dare question the superiority — I mean, equality, er um, equity — of women.

Of course, this isn’t what feminists are actually saying. In reality, their theory is much more absurd.

They say gender bias is unconscious. Our sexist notions are so deeply ingrained in our instincts, that even though we “know” that a hurricane is just a hurricane, whether named Christopher or Christina, our preconceived notions about the sexes are so deeply rooted in our minds that they taint our judgments and actions without ourselves realizing it. In order to undo this instinctual sexism, our minds must be constantly on the alert for “wrongthink,” purified with the ideology of feminism.

CNN’s so-called “study”? This is the drivel that passes these days as the scientific method:

“In one experiment, participants predicted the intensity of 10 hurricanes — five with female names and five with male names. The male hurricanes were deemed more intense — regardless of the gender of the participant.

That’s right. Researchers literally just questioned participants in the experiment to judge the severity of several hypothetical storms, only given their names. No other information.

Side note: the male hurricanes were deemed more intense regardless of the gender of the participant. Men are not the exclusive perpetrators of sexism here. Ah, but they’re not let off the hook. I’m sure each of those female participants was just a victim of “internalized misogyny” — which means women can only hold prejudice towards other women by learning it from a male-dominated society.

“In another test, participants were asked to judge the risks of a hypothetical “Hurricane Alexander” and a “Hurricane Alexandra.” Despite being told both had uncertain intensity, respondents considered Hurricane Alexander to be riskier.

Of course people are going to judge female storms as milder than males storms — you’ve given them no other information to go on. It’s a rigged experiment.

“A third experiment tested whether participants would be more likely to evacuate due to a “Hurricane Christopher” vs. a “Hurricane Christina.” As expected, more people would flee their homes if Hurricane Christopher came barreling toward them compared to an impending Hurricane Christina.”

How convenient that another study has already debunked this entire concept.

The government-subsidized study confirming implicit sexism in hurricane fatalities relies completely on restricted data that’s sensitive to the study’s conclusion. If there’s an implicitly sexist reaction to hurricane names, there should also be a sexist response to tropical storm names. Guess what? There isn’t! Hurricane Alberto in 1994 caused 30 deaths and $1 billion in damage, and from 2010-14, 18 tropical storms off the Atlantic wreaked 235 deaths.

What about hurricanes that didn’t make landfall? They would have seen that male-named storms such as hurricane Bill in 1991 were also not taken seriously, not because of sexism, but because of real-life circumstances.

They also excluded fatalities outside of the United States (how ethno-centric of those feminists!). In 1980, Hurricane Allen racked 269 deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border and $1 billion in damage.

Once the hypothesis is applied to a broader or entirely different data sets, it doesn’t appear to apply anymore. Color me surprised.

This claim of implicit sexism is just another way that feminists are belittling these disasters, blaming fairytale sexism instead of dysfunctional government responses and a lack of human charity and foresight for increased damage and destruction.

Storms used to be only given female names — but that changed when feminists complained that such a practice was sexist. Roxcy Bolton was noted as stating: “Women are not disasters, destroying life and communities and leaving a lasting and devastating effect.”

I don’t know about that — when you let women vote, be single mothers, hold elected positions, rob men in divorce courts, open the borders to hostile populations, and practice unrestrained sexual liberation, they’re worse than hurricanes. Women destroy entire civilizations.

And with that, I’ll hunker down and wait out the coming storm, because it looks like there’s nowhere to run from the rising flood of feminism.

 

SOURCES:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/health/female-hurricanes-deadlier-than-male-hurricanes-trnd/index.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715300517

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend