First link drop of 2016

I'm not exactly having a creative phase these days and existing text drafts are still 'unconvincing'.

Thus instead a link drop as a life sign:

some military tech to think about:

and in German:

historical Bundeswehr "training" videos:




  1. In the spirit of linkdumping, here is an interesting article about why only the English used longbows in any great numbers and the suggested reason is: politics. It seems like something you would enjoy.


    1. This reminds me that I've got a book about nothing but longbows sitting on my shelf, unread.

      IIRC the reasons for the longbow's decline were several ones, especially an increasing shortage of yew due to high consumption and unsustainable forestry.

  2. Longbows were not unique to Europe - Asians also had various forms (e.g. maruki yumi).


  3. I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything, but... Do you have any thoughts on the mass rapes that were perpetrated by muslim immigrants in cologne?

    1. There were no rapes, but sexual harrassments.

      I wrote a while ago that the super-liberal behaviour of Merkel in the migrant issue is provoking terrible backlash. The media was first cheerleading Merkel's policies (this wore off within about two months) followed by critical if not embarrassed critical commentary. It was a mere matter of time till the media would direct the spotlight at some ugly side of migration.

      Besides - nobody was convicted so far, so it's still not known who exactly did what. Innocent until found guilty: We do not 'know' for sure whether Muslim immigrants committed the sexual harrassments.
      The whole migration crisis has a smell of neglect of rule of law - there's no need to add even more to this neglect.

    2. 'The whole migration crisis has a smell of neglect of rule of law - there's no need to add even more to this neglect.'

      On the contrary, I think the german government needs all the criticism it can get on this issue. They haven't put any measures into place which would ensure the muslim immigrants will peacefully integrate with society. One commentator from Rebel Media did a great job of dissecting merkels stance on immigration. https://youtu.be/j_8kc19DL70

    3. Seriously, that guy told more lies in the first 20 sec of his video (I didn't watch more) than I do in a month.
      Foreign language coverage of the recent German migration policy and related events was riddled with inaccuracies (and worse).

      It's obvious that the foreign comments these days lack an understanding for both the actual spoken and written words in German, the legal situation, the division of labour between federal level and states in Germany and the less sensational aspects of the policy and administration regarding migrants.
      To read or to listen to foreign comments feels like reading or listening to a fiction show.

      It makes me think twice about commenting on domestic policies in other countries myself. The Greek crisis was another such experience which made me question the wisdom of commenting on domestic policies in other countries. Even if one's facts are correct, one is still bound to at least get wrong the choice of words.

    4. I did a quick google search on his claims at the beginning, reading english language sites, and verified them to be true. Merkel did indeed state that there would be no legal limits on the number of immigrants germany would accept. And these immigrants are in fact being offered special benefits in addition to welfare: Some have threatened to sue for not getting these benefits fast enough!

    5. That's not what he said. He said
      "[Merkel] is the one who said there should be no limits to immigration from the Muslim middle east to Germany."

      That's a lie. Merkel merely stated what's obvious to Germans; the right to asylum in Germany has no built in quantity limit:

      „Das Grundrecht auf Asyl für politisch Verfolgte kennt keine Obergrenze; das gilt auch für die Flüchtlinge, die aus der Hölle eines Bürgerkriegs zu uns kommen"

      ~ "The fundamental right to asylum for politically persecuted people knows no upper limit; this applies as well to refugees who came from the hell of civil war to us"

      That's a correct description of a legal fact. The fundamental right to asylum is in article 16a of the constitution (articles 1-20 cannot be changed substantially!).

      Any such upper limit would need to be found in either the constitution itself or in rulings of the federal constitutional court. Such an upper limit doesn't exist.

      "should" and "no limits" (there are many other limitations than about quantity already!) are lies. He's using a vaguely similar actual quote to utterly misrepresent, manipulate and lie about what the No.3 of the German government said on the issue.

      "calling for 800,000 migrants", "no application forms necessary" etc were outright lies as well. That guy exposed himself to be a liar within less than 20 seconds.