08 November 2015

Disputable Bravery Medals in the Netherlands


The military intervention by the Russians in Syria made me think about the country I live in. That's the Netherland. The Netherlands, once supposedly critical of continuous US armed meddling has become openly a vassal of the US. An unwelcome result of this is the desperate attempt to find a hero for the armed forces.

This article criticizes two handouts of a significant military medal. At the same time it attempts to display the quirks of the Dutch honoring system in general. As a side effect, the Dutch honoring system will be explained as well.

The Dutch Honoring System in Short

The Dutch honoring system is largely based on knighthood orders. Each order outranks the other, and each order has ranks within its order. The highest esteemed order is our combat-based order, called the Military William Order. It has four ranks within that order. The Order of the Netherlands Lion is the highest non-combat order. It consists of three ranks. The final order is the Order of the Orange Nassau, which consists of six ranks. The highest non-combat based medal though, is not the highest rank within the Order of the Netherlands Lion, instead it is a stand-alone medal called the Honorary Medal for Charitable Assistance. These decorations are for both civilians as well as for soldiers.

More On the Honoring System

The Military William Order is the highest knighthood order for combat-related bravery. This order requires combat by either soldiers or civilians.

Another order for bravery exists, which is  the Order of the Netherlands Lion, but the bravery doesn't have to be combat-related. The primary purpose of this order is to honor grandness in a field such as science, sports or arts. It could include certain aspects of bravery and it addresses chivalry in general. This is the very highest knighthood order for non-combat efforts.

Again, a higher medal exists for both bravery and chivalry, which is not a medal based on knighthood. It's the Honorary Medal for Charitable Assistance. The Honorary Medal is the highest decoration and is awarded for bravery for those who carried out an act of bravery or self-sacrifice, with an emphasis on charity.

The highest rank of the Netherlands Lion has been automatically given to Queen Maxima and is given to friendly heads of states. This order reeks of elitism quite profoundly.

One question I could raise is: when does bravery involve the highest rank of the Netherlands Lion versus bravery which involves the Honorary Medal? I don't think it has been properly defined. Even if it is, is that difference really important to distinguish? The highest rank of the Netherlands Lion is so special, next level civilian ranks don't make any sense. That's the gist I'm trying to bring across.

Finally we have the Order of the Orange Nassau. The keyword here is once again "chivalry". The Orange Nassau Order doesn't require grandness in some relevant field, instead it requires an act of chivalry. And again, the highest ranks are given for political purposes to foreign noblemen.

What's the difference between a high rank Nassau-based medal and any Lion-based medal? For example a politician who fended off an economic disaster will receive a medal of the Nassau order, whilst acknowledging its grandness in his/her field is equally feasible (Lion order).

Also, why is chivalry in a field of expertise more highly rated (Lion) than chivalry in general (Nassau)?  The impact of effort, valor, chivalry, sacrifice or bravery should not be defined by whether the person did it within his/her field of expertise. Nor do I like it that the same order can be awarded for either bravery/sacrifice or other types of chivalry.

The First William Order Since WW II

Marco Kroon, back then (2009) a Captain of the Dutch army, received the lowest rank within the prestigious Military William Order, the Knight 4th class. The given honor is persistently called the highest military honor. It is not. The actual awarded rank is part of the extremely high valued military order, yet it's the lowest rank within that order. I do not understand why the government keeps saying that Kroon received the highest honor. The media plays along by the way. If honor-based ranks within a rank-based order are equally honorable, then the point of having ranks is moot.

Whilst (now) Major Kroon received the medal when he was a Captain, the medal involves actions when he was a First Lieutenant Special Forces platoon leader. The research before awarding the medal took three years! He actively fought alongside the men whilst his team was outnumbered, even taking up more dangerous tasks. He ordered bombs on his own position. No men died. Finally, he controlled battle-hardened men because they seem to have kicked dead bodies and whatnot after a heavy fight. Instead he ordered his men to heal the wounded enemies. For this very behavior he was honored by his superiors.

My Criticism

I don't think the Knight 4th class was in place. 

He fought alongside the men, but he's a Special Forces guy in a probably typical Special Forces unit, which isn't a big unit to begin with. A platoon-leader fighting alongside the men when it's all-or-nothing doesn't seem special to me; instead it strikes me as a requirement.

Then there's the Broken Arrow. LT Kroon called a Broken Arrow twice during his stay in Afghanistan. Is that high amount even normal for Special Recon operators? None died, but to me it resembles sheer luck (and/or skill by the AC-130 crew).

Finally LT Kroon reprimanded his men in the field for unprofessional behavior after the ordeal. His leadership right there and then is commendable indeed. But again, does it warrant such a prestigious medal?

Does the combination of his actions warrant such a high medal? Reading up on the events doesn't warrant any medal of this magnitude I feel. As far as I can see he did his job. It's a tough job, I get it.

The reasons for awarding this medal might not have been explained properly by the official sources. But I have to go by what is presented.

Questions needs to be resolved such as: what part of the events is bravery-related with respect to the current magnitude of the Knight 4th class?
(a) The part where he fights? Yes, it's brave, but not worthy of this very medal especially because all of them were fighting and that's their job. If being outnumbered is relevant, then the other operators need to be awarded the same medal as well. 
(b) The part where he took up more dangerous tasks? What exactly did he do?

Is it worth a medal for controlling men when they go berserk on dead bodies immediately following a battle full of horrors? To be honest, no. However, a significant commendation related to future promotions is clearly in place as such a person is politically useful.

Finally, there's an argument that both his men as well as his commander supported the commendation. Such reasoning I don't care for. I have seen myself  what the intensity of military collegiality could mean: the word of the masses doesn't mean anything to me. I love soldiers; the army was once my home, but I have experience with said levels of collegiality and its effects.

An Spec Ops platoon leader performing more dangerous task during a do-or-die fight against an overwhelming enemy force. Is it worth this very medal? Besides, what were those extra dangerous tasks? No one knows. That hasn't been communicated.

The reasons for awarding the Knight 4th class must be well-defined or re-defined and it must not be presented as the highest honor. Also it must be realistic that even a private (or common civilian) could receive the highest ranks within this knighthood. Just like the other orders, this order has an odor of elitism as well.

Note that the requirements state three keywords: bravery, policy, loyalty. It needs to be clear whether all three requirements must be met, or at least one. Such should be the case for all four ranks.

Finally, a research of three years before an award is given is outrageous. I personally wouldn't even be interested anymore. The actions leading to the commendation might be crystal clear, but if one's life and personality isn't good enough for our King, Queen and politicians to be associated with, one is not knighted. But then again, when the nominee is a career soldier, such a critical thinking attitude might not be welcomed.


Details which could illuminate the reasons for Kroon's additional bravery relative to his men, are missing. That I simply do not trust.

Finally, the desperation and the intensity at which the government is attempting to find a national hero makes me distrust this entire enterprise.

Enemy Spotted: Kroon

Major Kroon communicates worse than a truck driver. But let's start at the beginning.

After having received  the honor, Kroon was indicted for drugs- and arms-dealing (electrical shock gadgets). The court-proceedings resulted in sexual explicit content to explain the drugs found on Kroon's chest-hair. Turns out it was his girlfriends. She snorts off his chest whilst being intimate. So eventually Kroon was found guilty of arms-dealing only. He possessed a bunch of electrical shock weapons and sold three of them. The verdict resulted in a fine of €750 and conditional community service. So he got off quite easily. You can't properly punish a hero.

I have no opinion about the drug-related allegations.

He ran a café which was known for having clientèle of less honorable stature. But he was far more in the public eye for his bad communicational skills. Not only does he talk like said truck driver, but he also revealed some details of his conversation with our Queen which is illegal. He also said some inappropriate things about potential sexual behavior of some royalties. He simply can't control the mouth on him. Inside the army he's known for his intimidating style of commandeering.

All in all, the way Major Kroon presented himself is most unfortunate for the upper layers within our society. A new hero must be found so that this one could be forgotten.

The Next William Order

Enter Gijs Tuinman. A cuddly looking Major of the Special Forces (again). Codename "pinkfluffybunny". I made that one up. The point is that a new hero was chosen, and this one was pulled straight from a catalog of non-threatening men. It's not just the looks - Major Tuinman chooses his words carefully and and the overall demeanor is that of a quite civilized person.

Major Tuinman has left the army already when he was asked back to serve as a leader of a Special Forces unit. According to newspapers, several sources within the political and military arena confirmed that he was asked to return specifically because of the behaviour of Kroon. Why our Special Forces had no suitable active-duty officers is beyond me.

The reasons for awarding the - once again - Knight 4th class are vague this time. The media threw out stories of his units (combined marines/special forces platoons) being under heavy fire. Six men (not Tuinman) went out in search of two missing soldiers during the fire fight. They brought them back, one dead. The second story is where Major Tuinman led an operation with never-before-done tactics. It involved landing helicopters nearby and after the initial fight, they went off in the helo's again to catch up with the escaped enemies. I highly doubt something similar has never been done before, but eh. Was it even that genius?

The official reason given is: being continuously capable. That's the short version.

And that's it. Wikipedia doesn't even mention the incidents leading to this commendation. Yet the media, both left and right, think that he's a replacement hero, as our Dutch armed forces do not have a useful hero yet. Besides, experience in life has taught me that if it walks, talks and looks like a duck, it is a duck. He's a replacement hero.


I wish it would have been needless to say that this article is by no means a personal attack on anyone. I never met these guys. Live and let live. The fact of the matter is that I criticize our honoring system and to expose its weaknesses, two recent cases were used as an example. I have no illusions that things were better before my time. But I do want change.

The Dutch were against deployment of troops abroad. Not many of us fell for the lies of the Americans which our government parroted. But troops were sent and the reason is that if we don't co-operate with the Americans, the Dutch will lose prestige in certain high communities. For example (ex) politicians won't get chairs in committees and whatnot. That was a direct reason for the Dutch to send troops to Mali. But an army and a country seem to need hero's to make things more bearable. Hence the need for two Knights.

Major Kroon is the commander in Mali by the way. What do you know?


Let me finish by mentioning two events which I have witnessed myself. It's about awarding the Dutch Red Cord of Honor (freely translated). It is amongst the highest military peace-time non-combat honors.

I witnessed this honor to be handed to an NCO for persistent correct behaviour. I kid you not. It was during my driving-lessons in the army. The man (can't remember exact rank) behaved like a robot alright (lol). He was known for that, but that's fine with me, nobody cared, yet awarding such a relevant honor is ridiculous.

The second incident revolves around a Corporal technician who performed a duty for six months which he wasn't trained for, and (almost) without supervision. My entire company was laughing after the ceremony. He later became an NCO. He wasn't unlikable or anything, let's just say he's not the prime example of a man you could trust doing his job honorably. Unless you're looking, then everything is fine. It's always like this.

18 June 2015

Lawrence Krauss Wants Your Money

Long time since I have written something. The reason I don't write that much is because I'm comfy in my skin - it's all fine, there's not much to write about.  But some things I cannot let go by unspoken of, and one of those things is foolery in the scientific world. I've written an essay about Michio Kaku, and now I have my eye on Lawrence Krauss.

Lately I have picked up particle physics a bit, because I'm a nerd. That's the way of the nerd: it  wants to learn about those things. Going from there I stumbled upon a name I didn't pay much attention to. His way of explaining things is quite pleasant in my view. Little did I know mr. L. Krauss is a demi-god in the world of hard science. Maybe I should pay more attention to names in the future.

I quickly noticed something strange: the urge to address political and religious issues in many of his presentations. He does it often jokingly, but still, it didn't float with me. It's not healthy to involve politics constantly, often forcefully and out of the blue.

So what does this mean? Has Krauss personal issues? I couldn't exclude it though that didn't float with me as well. Then the subject of nothing came into sight. Mr. Krauss is in the process of selling nothing. His version of nothing. Now the puzzle will soon fall into place.

And before anything else, I am not questioning Krauss' knowledge about physics or the universe. I wouldn't dare. At the same time I'm quite confident he'd stretch a few theories and results here and there to sell his product.
I'm questioning his integrity.

The sum of all energies, positive and negative is 0 (the "nothing"). Because quantum mechanics doesn't allow a state of "nothing" (for long), it will create something. Hence his theory "something out of nothing". That's the global idea. Supportive evidence is that the universe is flat (with a 95% accuracy), as the theory goes.
By the way, the sum of the energies is not exactly 0, but near 0! That's not "nothing". Renaming a phrase like "close to nothing" to "nothing" is a creative license which does not belong within the scientific realm in my view. But Krauss doesn't seem to share that view when his personal interests are at play.

Krauss is selling his book. And whilst at it, he uses his scientific background as a trojan to talk about politics and religion. For what reason I wonder. Let's explore.

It's an easy way out to blame politics and religion when the community doesn't buy [his] ideas. He mentions gay marriages, attacks religion and complains about legislators. This he does to win over young students. It works. I can see it in the comments on YouTube for example. Then the true agenda surfaces: he pleas for more money for research from legislators. And whilst at it he'll sell his book.

The talk about religion has a secondary effect: it is bait. Some part of a religious community will surely react. It's an interesting tactic: the foolishness of too many religious zealots will add to Krauss' believability to achieve his personal interest. Strength through the weakness of others.

No, I'm not a religious person. I'm agnostic. And like many scientists (Krauss, Dawkins, Hawking to name a few), I'm quite not a fan of philosophy either. I merely am a mortal who's becoming aware of scientists misusing their background to push for their own agendas.

If someone makes a plea for money, then that is fine with me for sure. But the methods used  by Krauss' is vile. It is vile because it teaches the unwary masses to think structurally wrong with the intent to serve the [financial] interests of an individual. It is destructive because the process of thinking is fundamental for creating a mindset, along with an emotional drive. Mr. Krauss provides a bad example as well; he's undisputed an authority. What mindset is he providing? Whatever it is, it's not righteous.

Mr. Krauss has turned into a bad representative for atheists and agnostics. Having intelligent people in the frontline representing those two groups is a perk offcourse - if representation is needed to begin with. But intelligence is not a must and it certainly isn't enough, especially when the representative nullifies his [hers] positives by introducing the negatives I'm addressing in this blog post.

Finally, mr. Krauss has turned a scientific subject into a religious matter. And he wants money for it. The tax paying community should pay for his research if it was up to him. He mentions legislators, but effectively that means money from taxpayers.  All in all, this has turned into a most unwelcome situation.

Again, the definition of "nothing" which Krauss uses in his book, is not the "nothing" as we have defined it in dictionaries. Heck, even Krauss himself puts quotes around "nothing" in his book, but refuses to make that abundantly and explicitly clear when selling his idea in the media or in a classroom.  I bet it sounds cool just like "Dark Matter" (merely a placeholder name for unknown matter), "Dark Energy" (a placeholder name for unknown types of energies) and "Black Hole" (nothing black about it and it's not a hole either).

The major lesson here is to beware of lingering scientism. It creeps in through scientist-worship.

Teaching and writing, to me, is really just seduction; you go to where people are and you find something that they're interested in and you try and use that to convince them that they should be interested in what you have to say.

Lawrence M. Krauss 

19 August 2013

The US Gun Control Debate

So I have been following the recent gun control debate in the USA lately. Gun lobbyist argue that gun control laws are against the constitution (2nd amendment). Opponents argue that the 2nd amendment requires gun owners to be in a well regulated militia.

There's also the debate whether a higher gun possession increase the crime rate. Famous are the stories of American towns and villages who enforce mandatory gun-ownership. These places seem to have the lowest crime rates. But that by itself doesn't prove anything. I've decided to look up some basic statistics on Wiki. Whilst Wiki is in my book a political correct leftist leaning website, the sources they used for homicide rates and gun-related crimes I consider more or less reliable. So here we go:

I took the UK as a test case to compare overall homicide rates and gun-related homicides with the US. In a debate on CNN between Larry Pratt and Piers Morgan, Pratt claimed that England had 700 gun-related homicides in one year. He said this within the context that less guns do not decrease violence. So off I went checking out the stats. Could not find it easily for England, but here's UK:
In 2011, 648 murders were committed, of which 58 were caused buy a gun or firearm. The murder rate is about 1.15. The rates of firearm related crimes have increased somewhat, despite lowering homicide numbers. The source is the 'Office for National Statistics'. The numbers are provided by the Police.

But does it prove anything? Now let's examine Switzerland. Relative to Europe, Switzerland has less restrictive gun laws. Switzerland is #4 in the world with respect to gun ownership (45 for the Swiss versus 90 for the US per 100.000 citizens). But Switzerland has 7 x less gun-related homicides! The Swiss gun related homicides is about the same as the UK's despite the fact that the Swiss have far more firearms per citizens on average! The total homicide rate in Switzerland is only 0.7 (again per 100.000 citizens) though! Ccompare with UK's 1.15 and USA's 4.8. The gun related homicides in Switzerland is only 0.5 (compare with 3.6 in the USA and 0.5 of the UK).

Here's the table (rates are per 100,000 citizens):

Country Homicide Rate Gun Related Homicide Gun Possesion
UK 1.2 0.05 6.7
Switzerland 0.7 0.05 45.7
USA 4.8 3.6 94.3

Mind you that 'Homicide' can also mean suicide and accidents amongst others.

So the conclusions are:
  • Both Switzerland and the USA have a very high gun possession rate compared to the rest of the world, yet the US has a much higher homicide and gun related homicide rate.
  • The gun possession rate of the UK is lower than most others in the West of Europe, including Spain and Portugal, but the homicide rate is about equal as the rest of West Europe.
Therefore, the statement that less guns means less homicides, or more guns means more homicides (one does not exclude the other), cannot be proven with these numbers alone. Another example is that both Chicago and Los Angeles have tougher gun regulations yet the crime-rates are no better than Texas, which is a state known for it's most lenient gun regulations.

Here's a quote from Wiki:
A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the United States are committed with guns.[62] Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used,[62][63][64] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[65] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons.[66] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates.[67][68] A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill.[64][69] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[66][69]
Common sense - a scientifically dangerous type of thinking - tells us that the availability of guns increase deaths as a by-product of crime. Yet statistically Americans do not resort faster to guns than Europeans. Both countries are flooded with guns, so the number of available guns can't be it. For example, Honduras has an extreme gun-related homicide rate, yet the rate of gun-ownership equals that of the UK! El Salvador is another country with about the same statistics as Honduras. So the people in these countries resort much faster to a gun.

Another interesting aspect is the accidental deaths by guns; The us has a rate of 0.3 accidental deaths per 100k citizens, which is far higher than other Western oriented country (West Europe).

Far more important:, why has the US such an overall high homicide rate to begin with (compared to Europe)? Suppose it's because of the high availability of guns, then why are Americans so much less in control of their guns compared to the rest of the Western world?

All in all, from a mathematical point of view there's not much which can be proven in favor of one or the other. But the real issue isn't statistics. Most members of the NRA do not agree with the NRA's tough stance against gun regulation. But the NRA realizes where the fierce regulation-lobby comes from. Its enablers are the anti-gun lobbyists. Regulation of this magnitude could be a first phase towards banning guns entirely. I have no doubt this would be the case and the NRA has no doubt either. A second reason the NRA wouldn't be interested in regulation is because of gun sales. Whilst the NRA doesn't sell guns directly, they have strong ties to gun sellers. Because of their behaviour one may question whether the NRA is a pro-member or a pro-corporate association.

It will end to the disadvantage of gun owners and the NRA.

The NRA has reached its maximum capacity. Meaning, they have a very large membership count. I can't imagine it will grow significantly. And secondly, there's nothing significantly to gain regulation-wise for the NRA and gun owners. Therefore, the NRA and their members have only things left to lose. The courts do not cooperate for now, but there are loopholes and most importantly, the 'gun regulators' will persist. Slowly but surely they'll get there. It may take another thirty years, but they won't give up.

Also, I would be pro-gun if I would be an American. I'm pro-gun anyway. The seond amendment gives a hint on why this is so important: it's to protect the common perosn against its own government if needed. Governments were never friends of the common people. One should not forget. I'm also pro ownership of automatic weapons, and any other weapon which can be carried as such is the second amendment in my view.

22 January 2013

The True Face of Feminism: An Introduction


This blog-entry exposes the true face of feminism. A few random but striking cases are presented to get the viewer going. By no means is this entry meant as an exhaustive or remotely complete resource.

Feminism is Hate and Inequality

Feminism is not about equality between men and women. It may have been in the past, but the noble causes are gone long time ago. These days it's about female rights only. It's about women having more rights than men, and sometimes it's about equal rights, but with less obligations for women. This blog entry is to give you a starter on this subject from a realistic perspective. It basically demonstrates the ugly face of feminism in daily life.

An Inconvenient History Lesson: Feminists Did Not Win Voting Rights For Women

In fact, in those days, 1914, two main movements existed: the suffragettes and the feminists. Both groups weren't quite kosher to put it mildly, however, the suffragettes were diametrically opposed to what feminists stood for. The suffragettes feared that the feminist movement was going to be destructive to the traditional family life. An old newspaper article illustrates this:

Old article mocking Feminists for being a danger to family life. (CLICK to enlarge)
Having illustrated the difference, it also needs to be clear that the suffragettes didn't obtain voting rights for females either! In fact, they made it look bad. It was the universal suffrage together with human rights groups who got women (and minorities) to vote. Bet you didn't know that one. Yet modern day feminists take claim for that. Well, they always did actually.

Incident At a Canadian University

One typical way of how feminists deal with opposing views is by simply disrupting it. Here's you'll see a group of students simply blocking the entrance for visitors who paid for their tickets. Nobody gets to attend a lecturers' presentation. Below is a disturbing video perfectly demonstrating this:

The video is somewhat dramatized, but make no mistake, it's not exaggerated. If you like to see the raw footage, which I think is better anyway, then watch this five minute clip: full version of obstructing access.

Let me break it down. Warren Farrel is A Ph.D, M.A. and B.A, a champion for Men's Right Activism and is a former feminist. He visited the University of Toronto to address some issues regarding boys in the educational system. In the video you'll hear some students yelling about him being a rape apologist. Basically they used an out-of-context placed quote about rape statistics to justify their blockade. Here's the quote, then you be the judge of that: "And with the rape, I was showing why the rape statistics are exaggerated, and saying that date rape was much more complex than the way feminists had portrayed it, as men oppressing women."

For Farrel's response, see this link. I could go on forever, but let me wrap it up with two additional links: Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE) response

The University of Toronto Student's Union (UTSU) published a response to the protest on the university page, but it has been deleted as the events were quite shameful.

The UTSU's response started off emotionally charged by stating:  
"On November 16, 2012 a group at the University of Toronto hosted an event on campus which would supposedly address issues that men and boys face in our society." 
Does this sound like a balanced and neutral statement to you?. What else would Dr. Farrel do other than having his speech? It's what he does all the time. He's having speeches, is a tutor and organizes workshops. In fact, looking at his resume, the man has an impressive record!

In case you didn't realize, the Toronto Student's Union consists entirely out of feminists. Some union huh? How healthy is it for a university to have a union which is defined by a single interest group only?

These feminists trigger the Fire Alarm constantly if they don't like something. The university is required to clear the building. The fire department is required to respond. And all of this is at the expense of the tax paying citizen!

Feminists Don't Like Facts

A self proclaimed professional feminist. She claimed to be one in the video. The young man presents a lot of statistics, and how does this professional feminist respond? She doesn't want to justify statistics on the pay gap - the government will do that for her she says! When it comes to statistics about domestic abuse, she doesn't want to accept these statistics as well and her counter argument is to move the goalpost by re-defining the scope of said statistics.

This is a typical feminist who appeals to emotion and in general uses exclusively fallacies. Just about everything stereotypical feminist-like happens, including somebody shouting "rape" at some point. Crying rape is a major modus operandi of feminists. There's almost no discussion possible without some feminist crying rape. All I ask is to open your eyes. You'll see.


Cisca Dresselhuys, once the chief editor of a Dutch feminist magazine 'Opzij' (Dutch wordplay for 'move aside / for her'). She refused to hire male employers in her company. Offcourse, all references on their website about this case have been removed.

Now imagine if a magazine refused a female employee for being a woman... the world would be set on fire by feminists in minutes time. Questions in the Parliament will be raised. Probably new laws would be invented.

Or how about the French feminist movement outrage when the name of the false rape accuser of Strauss-Kahn was made publicly known. (Nafissatou Diallo) She knows what's up.

An Ultimate Double Standard

Let's demonstrate a final double standard. Female teacher caught having sex with boy

Did you read it? What odd thing did you notice? Parents feel sympathy for that pedophile woman. Ever heard of parents feeling sympathy for a male pedophile teacher?

When an adult male has sex with an underage person, it's actually called rape, or sexual abuse. When an adult female has sex with an underage person, it's called "seduction" or "had sex with". Rarely is it called unambiguously rape when a women is the suspect - that's the gist here.

Now where are the feminists to call out on this inequality? Also, the article doesn't tell you that the police let her go when she was caught red handed. She was ordered to report in the next day. Now imagine if it were a man caught red handed... you think they'd let him go right then and there?

And So Forth

I haven't even mentioned the violent and destructive behavior of feminists and their male stooges (called White Knights, manginas or macktivists). They literally use violence, intimidation and destruction of private property. It's all there on the Internet for you to gaze at.

When it comes to the feminists favorite topic, which is rape, you won't hear them when it's politically incorrect. This is key for recognizing their double standards.

The mass rape(s) in England (see Rotherham for example) didn't spark outrage by feminists at all. In fact, you didn't hear them. Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Germany, in all these countries most rapes are committed by immigrants or their descendants, but you won't hear feminists about it.

2015 / 2016

Look what happened during New Years Eve 2015/2016 in all of West of Europe; mass sexual assault and many actual rapes that were (and still are and will forever be) kept hidden. But not a single word from feminists. In fact, now the storm is calming, the feminists slowly crawl out of their shells to deny the facts and blame everybody but the perpetrators themselves. It's only a beginning. Soon they'll find ways to blame West European men in some shape or form again.

It simply baffles me that women do not see this. They, and most men too, do not understand that simple trick, where initially a good cause is used as a Trojan for a selfish and financial agenda.

Resources To Get You Started

May I suggest a few resources for you to see this subject from a different point of view:
Karen Straughen's Youtube Channel (her motivation is that she doesn't want her sons to be the tools feminists want them to be)
Sargon of Akkad's Youtube channel. A left winger who regularly exposes the true face of feminism:

This should get you going on top of the links throughout this post.

03 October 2012

Michio Kaku - a celebrity wannabe whore


Boy am I going to regret the title someday. Maybe. Right now I can't find a more suitable and to-the-point title. Basically I'm saying this man is willing to sell the biggest bullshit for a little bit of fame.

Funding Science

Usually professors are responsible to find funds for research. One way to collect money is to make their field of expertise popular and relevant (promises for great things). That's why NASA sends out worthless messages about possible life on Mars every two weeks. It's to keep the public warm so NASA can continue to beg for funds. But if you listen carefully they haven't offered us anything yet. It's all very vague. Something tells me it will stay this way forever.

Now about the String Theory. That's the biggest scam ever. The String Theory is about a smallest particle of energy in the form of a string. It implies the existence of multiple dimensions, which in turn leaves us with  most hardcore scientific formulas. These formulas are so difficult to understand, only a very few know what it says.. Those are very important formulas because they offer the Theory Of Everything! Yep. Not even the most bad ass wizardry in Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter dared to go that far. But String Theory scientsts found it.

But wait, it turns out the theoretical models raise unsolvable problems. So they added more dimensions to their story. Now, they even have entire parallel universes. Multiverses! With 11 dimensions. Each time they couldn't figure out the problem with their theory, they added more dimensions. That's the trick. And so the formulas - which seem to have an elegancy beyond imaginable borders - became more complex as well. Multiple universes to solve everything (e v e r y t h i n g) because it's the Theory of Everything, remember? And so nations kept donating money. In fact up to 80% of the science budgets went to String Theory research at one point. Talking about one big scam. Tell me if you think a bigger scam could compete with this. Feel free to include Madoff or Lehmann Brothers.

Michio Kaku Fights Ineffective Science

Luckily we have Michio Kaku to stop all this nonsense because he stated once how he's critical about some of the cost-ineffective missions and methods of NASA. Oops I was wrong. Michio Kaku is the biggest endorser of the String Fairy Tale. But then again, he's the co-writer of this fantasy story. Yep, the co-founder. This should be enough to be suspicious already but now the real work starts.

Signals To Outer Space

In the documentary "Through the Wormhole" episode "Will We Survive First Contact?" we learn that NASA is searching for Extraterrestrial Life by scanning the universe for certain patterns in certain frequencies. Enter M.K. He claims NASA is doing it wrong because they are not scanning a broad aspect of frequences. And then he makes an example so Rednecks would understand too: by standing on a bridge taking photographs of cars passing by. Then he asks us: would we find the alien if we would only take pictures this way on this spot? I bet all the scientific wannabe sheeple are like: "Noooo offcourse not. Stupid NASA. We are so much more efficient because we understand what the Great Michio Kaku is saying.".

Bambi versus Godzilla

For some reason Michio Kaku is allowed to say more stuff in the same episode. He tells us not to believe Hollywood movies (good thing he's telling us that) because they protray as if Earth will have an all out war against Aliens. Like, a fair battle. No says M.K., it will be more like Bambi vs Godzilla! (add convincing tone and amazement for the dramatic effect). Something tells me even Rednecks and wannabees (the target audience) could have guessed this.

Michio Explains the String Theory (not)

Have you seen this YouTube video of him explaining the String Theory to idiots uninformed human beings? Here's the link: Idiot Guide to String Bullsh*t.
First of all the entire four minutes are about travel through wormholes. What the String Theory really is isn't explained at all. It's only slightly touched at best. Here's the cool part: at 2:23: we are shown some formula with only the smallest amount of vague context and without an explanation of the formula. It's obviously meant to impress us with the sheer complexity of it. And at 3:54 mark we're shown the same formula again without any explanation and - this time - no context whatsoever. But if that formula doesn't impress you then I don't know what will. The Theory of Everything is right there at your disposal.

Michio Knows About Radiation Too. He's Such a Genius LOL!

So Fukushima had this Nuclear Reactor thing going on. A very sad story for many out there. Aside from the immediate drama there was this isssue on how to handle the situation with the reactor in general. Michio appeard on ABC and was perfectly able to tell:
  1. What to do
  2. Japanese Suck
 First he was telling how the reactor should be burried (or something) and then he was telling how the Japanese leadership weren't real scientist because they have fallen asleep. Here's the exact quote:

The leadership [in Japan] is disconnected from reality. They’re not physicists, they’re not engineers… -Michio Kaku,  CNN, March 18, 2011
Luckily we have mr. Kaku to tell the Japanese what to do.

And there's the usual fear mongering, the thing he's really good at (just observe how often he's telling us how the Aliens will crush us!):

“Plutonium is the most toxic chemical known to science! A speck of plutonium, a millionth of a gram, could cause cancer if it’s ingested.”  -Michio Kaku, ABC News, March 25,2011

A second of sun tanning can cause cancer too. No context whatsoever. But most viewers by far won't know how to look at his statement and find the flaws. All they know is that Kaku is some smart sicentist with wormholes and Theory of Everything which makes travel from verse to verse possible. Then surely he must know stuff about something as puny as your everyday average nuclear reactor?

Michio Is Expert At Evolution Theory. The man knows all.

Watch the vid at the 2:32 mark and then let's talk: I Pretend To Be An Evolution Theory Expert

So he doesn't think Evolution has stopped but (wait for it...) "grrosse evolution" has stopped. Grosse as in, our brains are not getting bigger, and other physical features. An no, it's not terminology. Mr. Kaku invented it. "Grosse Evolution". Isaac Asimov would be proud.
But he has a solution (was there a problem?). Gene manipulation. Now we cannot create a pig with wings yet - "that would require the manipulation of thousands of genes, we simply don't have that technology yet" - so chances are that we would look decades from now the same.

I'm not making this shit up man. Just watch that short clip.

... so chances are, decades from now, we'll look pretty much the same.-Michio Kaku,  YouTube May 31, 2011 (from bigthink.com)

Find any spoiled 12 year old girl who's major achievement is clicking the "Like Button" on Facebook and she'd predict the same if you ask her.

Michio Kaku Knows Everything About Everything

He sure is acting like he does. He knows everything about everything. He knows how the future would look like (he's a futurist too), he knows how the universe is built up, he even knows there are multiple universes, he knows about evolution, he knows about gene technology and manipulation, he knows about the military strength of aliens, he knows better how to scan for alien signals then NASA signal experts, he knows about radiation and how to handle nuclear reactor incidents. The only thing he does not know how is how to prevent shit coming from his mouth. He should find some funds to research how to do that. This man has the world nothing to offer.

Not Just This

I could have gone on and on about him and his antics. Clearly I'm not his biggest fan. Just look up all his material on YouTube (it's about 99% of all YouTube material because he likes attention so much) and you tell me if you genuinly really really really learned something for reals. Be honest.  Until then...

07 May 2012

Skyrim is a Major Dissapointment

So like thirty minutes ago I uninstalled Skyrim. The amount of crashes were horrible. The framerates went down and down despite my high end machine. And finally, the cherry on top, just when I had the hang of every aspect of the game, being a High Elf level 30, I couldn't load the most recent savegames.

Yes, I had the latest patch 1.5. Yes I tried the orignal version and some mods for high definition graphix. It all worked OK-ish in the beginning but the stability of the game went from mediocre to unplayable. The maker, Bethesda Game Studios didn't learn anything from their previous versions like Oblivion. Many of these bugs were also to be seen in the Fallout releases. Fallout is made and produced by the same company.

For Bathesda, making their games playable just enough is good enough for them. There isn't much competition. They know. There isn't much competition when it comes to high quality Role Playing Games. At my age, 44, I know RPG's of these days are a joke compared to what has been. Young 18 to 24 year old players think this is the creme de la creme, along with Oblivion and Fallout. Well, today with these standards - high graphix and neat sounds - it is. A good story line and consequent use of logic and cleverness in general is rarely to be seen.

It's not merely the crashing and lack of performance this game suffers. Story wise, whatever your main character does, it just doesn't have consequences. I can murder persons for the ego of others. I'll receive my XP. I can kill the director of an orphanage, leave the children behind. But I'll get my XP. There's no evil, good or neutral. Just kill kill kill for the XP. No consequences.

The game looks non-linear but it isn't. In the long run you just can't go wrong. You'll be directed towards the expected end one way or the other. There is one major plotline (quest) to do and many other side quests. You can do anything in any order almost. This gives a false feeling of non-linear gameplay. However, every quests is basically a stand alone quest with a linear approach. I did like 40 quests. They all look the same. Kill that, bring this, activate so. Seen it done it.

And finally, the acting voices. I hear the same voices for all kinds of characters throughout the world of Skyrim. It feels like they only have 4 voice actors. At one point I didn't buy it anymore. At one point, I didn't buy anything.

And then there's the battles. It's a plain joke. If I would to use everything I had I'd be more lurking in my inventory and magic screens then watching and enjoying the view of the battle and the game. I'm stunned Bathesda didn't hear of hotbars, quickkeys and whatnot. Sure, it offers a quick menu but the items in that menu are ungrouped. I had potions, offensive spells, healing spells, weaons and armor all mixed up in the quick menu because the game doesn't allow any structured setup of your stuff.
So I decided to level up my archery and conjuring an destruction spells only  and used only these three things throughout the game. Boring! Simplistic UI design.

Games like Skyrim are milking a good start (Elder Scrolls). These days it's all about cool graphics and quantity. There aren't many games that specialize in single play. So there's not much competition. But the young of these days don't know any better. They think that the modding community is an integral part of all this. The modding community who will make these kind of games much more interesting. Remember the Desert Combat mod for Battlefield 1942? In fact, many players don't even look at the game primarily. They look for modding options... and downloadable content... Now that's saying something.

Lurking the internet learns that many more players gave up on this game. The crashes along with decreasing rendering performance and various other nasty bugs makes this game unplayable for many of us. But nobody has an interest in finding out the percentage of very unsatisfied customers.

But as long as games like this are being hyped Bathesda won't have a reason to improve their products in a significant way.

30 March 2012

Hypersensitivity Is Not Normal

There's something wrong with being a Hypersensitive Person (HSP). There's something wrong with the definition of hypersensitivity as well. A female co-worker wondered whether I was hyper sensitive because I notice tiny details.  Her son is, and she compared his attention to detail to mine. I suspected it was a pseudo-science thing. The co-worker answered my remark with a disappointed look. It turns out it is pseudoscience indeed.

This is what a Hypersensitive Person is according to Elaine N. Aron:
  • Are you easily overwhelmed by such things as bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics, or sirens nearby?
  • Do you get rattled when you have a lot to do in a short amount of time?
  • Do you make a point of avoiding violent movies and TV shows?
  • Do you need to withdraw during busy days, into bed or a darkened room or some other place where you can have privacy and relief from the situation?
  • Do you make it a high priority to arrange your life to avoid upsetting or overwhelming situations?
  • Do you notice or enjoy delicate or fine scents, tastes, sounds, or works of art?
  • Do you have a rich and complex inner life?
  • When you were a child, did your parents or teachers see you as sensitive or shy?
The first item is of a physical nature (senses) and the rest of the items are traits of an emotional or behavioral nature. Let's dissect this list a bit.

Being overwhelmed by sirens nearby could easily be the same as being overwhelmed by any loud sounds. It might be a sign of stress. In fact, one of the self test questions on E. Aaron's website is about being overwhelmed by strong sensory input in general. If one combines overwhelming sensory input with being startled easily, can't cope with increased workload, can't cope with emotions, then this clearly is a serious indicator for stress.

Everything else in this list fits any normal person. Do you enjoy delicate or fine scents, tastes or sounds? Are you sensitive or shy (really?) ? Do you have a rich and complex inner life? All these items have nothing to do with hypersensitivity! Traits of a typical strong introvert are combined with indicators for stress.

Questions like "I try hard to avoid making mistakes or forgetting things." This question could fit a perfectionist. The test repeats the same questions albeit in a different form:
  • I am easily overwhelmed by strong sensory input.
  • I am easily overwhelmed by things like bright lights, strong smells,coarse fabrics,or sirens close by.
  • I am made uncomfortable by loud noises.
  • I am bothered by intense stimuli, like loud noises or chaotic scenes.
Scoring 14 out of 27 questions means you're probably a HSP. But with these kind of questions, as posted above, it's easy to get 14 positives.

How perfect this has been done to conceal weaknesses. It's the same as combining the flu with normal healthy human traits only to claim that there's nothing wrong with you. You supposedly just need to be aware of who you are so you can cope with the flu. Well that's wrong. The real answer should be that you're a normal person with an illness called the flu! So you need medicine.

Again, many (good) traits of introvert personality types are combined with stress-related signs, only to call such a a person a Highly Sensitive Person. Remove the good traits and all that remains is a psychological and/or neurasthenic disorder.

The so called HSP counselors are earning money with patients who are desperate. Pseudopsychology is for those left behind because effective mainstream methods are not available. An analogy is to be found when religious views fill gaps where science can't reach yet.

The Hypersensitivity-industry is a god of a gap.

17 January 2012

Dear Cigarette

I'll  have none of you as of today. It's on bitch.

This section was intended as a logbook during my campaign to quit smoking. However, it went so smooth I stopped logging prematurely. There simply wasn't much to tell. The aftermath continues below.

It's over three weeks now. There's nothing to report. Quitting ended up easier than I anticipated.

Almost into the fifth week. Still going strong.

Over seven weeks now.

October 2012. Not smoking. Gained 10 Kg (22 Lbs) of mass. No suit fits me anymore! Replaced my Jeans too. No custom made Italian shirt fits me either. Too expensive to replace just like that. And I have gained quite a belly too! But women tell me I look better. More color, fuller face. I always was an ugly motherfucker and I have no illusions, but it's nice to hear a compliment.

April 2013. Smoking wise, things are still going dandy. However, the thought of smoking never leaves. I realize I belong to the very rare who managed to quit this successfully, cold turkey and without help. But I also realize I have to remain vigilant. It may be that for the rest of my life occasionally I have to resist. Sometimes I can even smell the smoke even though there's nothing here!

January 2015. All good. Gained even more weight. I rarely think of smoking anymore and I certainly do not crave it. However, I do fear it. Overall health has improved.No flu's ever, nothing is going on ever, not even a wet nose or the need to scrape the throat once in a while. Absolutely nothing. The added fat makes me also more resilient against cold. I never could stand cold. Boy did that change.

Epilogue June 18, 2015

It's all about the mindset. I have worked on it for seven years. I was told once by a wise colleague that I will quit only when I have quit in my mind. I immediately knew that was the truth . So I managed to re-program my mind into being a non-smoker. Again, that process took me seven years.

Now I'm happier than ever because I have learned about the power of the mindset. I have learned more about the depth and possibility of controlling your own mind. For a long time I thought "mindset-talk" was gibberish, but now I've done it myself, re-invented it myself. It's the greatest discovery in my life, and so far it has been the greatest journey of my inner self.

To smokers who wish to quit: don't try until you've quit in your head first. Let's ignore what so called specialists have to say. No need for electronic cigarettes, nicotine gum, pills and whatnot. Smoking, or non-smoking, it's in your head. I have learned something else about this: people never listen.

09 December 2011

Who's Vladimir?

Staring at the bright morning sunlight hurt my eyes.
Tired after a night of star gazing with a friend.

Somebody with a Dutch mind and a Serb/Russian heart who appreciates the brotherhood with Russia. Born on 08 October 1967. Moved to the Netherlands when I was seven years old. So I moved to the Netherlands way before Yugoslavia fell apart. I barely speak the Serb or the Russian language, but I understand it a little better than that. I have proudly served the Dutch army for five years as a Specialist Electronics where I had a very sporty life. However, the Netherlands lost my loyalty after they bombed Serbia, stole land from them, then help instigate horrible things in Ukraine.

My keywords are politics, software programming, music, movies, science ficiton, non-fiction, and lifestyle in general. Independent thinking is key to me and by extension I haven't watched TV, listened to the radio, read a newspaper as of 2001.

Single, no children. I work in the field of Business Intelligence. Conservative Pagan who believes in the natural flow of things. Critical thinker, tolerant, not very agreeable nor forgiving.

Allergic to politicians, feminists and leftists. Also allergic to total indiscretion, lack of manners, lack of respect, lack of integrity and panicky behavior.

Love cooking, opera  and Slav folklore (Baltic, Russian, Balkan), Science Fiction and ladies in skimpy bikinis exiting a swimming pool.

Guilty pleasure: watched RHOBH. Team Camille and Kyle.