Select Page ::

Google Adds AI Fairness Lessons to Its Machine Learning Crash Course

Posted on October 19, 2018 by Danzig

Bad Bots

Bias in AI is a truly worrisome issue. We’ve seen algorithms that are racist, sexist, and every other negative -ist you can think of. Even more troubling: if we eliminate all the human bias in our training data, an AI might still learn to be bigoted all on its own.

That’s a concern researchers across the world are grappling with as we move toward a future in which AI is everywhere. One bright spot: Google, a leader in AI tech, just added an AI fairness module to its crash course on machine learning.

Dirty Data

Machine learning is a branch of AI in which we train algorithms using data sets. Since that data is often influenced by humans in some way — for example, a data set on arrests might include a racial bias based on the arresting officers’ beliefs — machine learning is particularly susceptible to issues of unfairness.

Several years ago, Google created a Machine Learning Crash Course (MLCC) as part of an internal two-day boot camp to expose more of its engineers to machine learning. It released the MLCC online in February so that anyone could take advantage of the exercises, case studies, and lessons contained within it.

And on Thursday, the company added a new training module to the course, this time focused on fairness when building AI.

Good Guy Google

According to a Google blog post, upon completing the 60-minute-long fairness module, students will know the types of human biases that can crop up in machine learning models, what to look for in data when determining if it might contain human bias, and how to evaluate a machine learning model’s predictions to see if they contain bias.

We must leave no stone unturned in the hunt for solutions to our AI bias problem, and by including a fairness module in its MLCC, Google is making a major contribution to the effort.

READ MORE: Google Machine Learning Crash Course Adds Lesson on Ensuring AI Fairness [9 to 5 Google]

More on AI fairness: To Build Trust in Artificial Intelligence, IBM Wants Developers to Prove Their Algorithms Are Fair

See the original post:
Google Adds AI Fairness Lessons to Its Machine Learning Crash Course

IBM: Quantum Computers Could Be Useful, But We Don’t Know Exactly How

Posted on October 19, 2018 by Danzig

This Matters, We Promise

There are very few things in this world surrounded by more hype and confusion than quantum computers. Depending on who you ask, quantum computers will either solve every problem in the known world or never prove useful at all.

The problem is that the computers we already have and understand are pretty darn good at their jobs. But scientists finally found specific ways that quantum computers outperform them — and that could be a big deal in computer science.

Slow and Steady

In research published today in the journal Science, researchers from IBM and the Technical University of Munich detailed the type of problems for which quantum computers may be best suited.

Specifically, quantum computers will be able to solve complex linear algebra problems — that’s a type of math computer scientists use for the optimization problems at which AI excels — without engineers needing to ramp up the complexity of the computer’s circuitry. With old-school classical computers, more complex problems require more complex processors, but a quantum computer’s limited circuitry will be able to solve this type of problem even as it becomes more difficult, according to the paper.

But Really, This Matters

In an accompanying blog post, IBM clarified why there was still so much confusion surrounding this new development. The short answer is that they haven’t really identified any specific problems that a quantum computer would be able to handle better than a classical one. But, IBM says that wasn’t the point.

Rather, they proved that such a problem exists. Claiming “hey, quantum computers will actually be good for something” may sound elementary but until this point, scientists weren’t actually sure that was the case.

Even so, the IBM blog post — which suggests that quantum tech could boost artificial intelligence capabilities — sometimes sounds like a combination of dense engineering speak and hedging bets.

But until we actually get a useful quantum computer up and running, we won’t know for sure.

READ MORE: Scientists Prove a Quantum Computing Advantage over Classical [IBM]

More on quantum computing: Quantum Computing Is Going to Change the World. Here’s What This Means for You.

Read the original post:
IBM: Quantum Computers Could Be Useful, But We Don’t Know Exactly How

NASA Unveils 21 New Constellations Formed by Black Holes and Other Brutal Space Stuff

Posted on October 19, 2018 by Danzig

Astrology vs. Astronomy

On a clear night, you might be able to point out a few constellations — maybe the Big Dipper, Orion’s Belt, and your Zodiac sign. But to see the Hulk and Albert Einstein, you’re going to need help from a powerful space telescope.

On June 11, 2008, NASA launched the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. Every three hours, it produces a map of all the sources of gamma rays in the entire sky. And now, these gamma ray sources have their own set of constellations.

Patterns in the Noise

Gamma rays are the highest-energy form of light, but we can’t see them with our own eyes. That means the gamma-ray sky depicted in Fermi’s maps looks a lot different from the sky we see when we look upward.

To date, Fermi has located about 3,000 sources of gamma rays, which include everything from rotating neutron stars to supermassive black holes. To celebrate the device’s 10 years of hard work, the Fermi team decided to create a set of 21 constellations from among these 3,000 sources.

“Developing these unofficial constellations was a fun way to highlight a decade of Fermi’s accomplishments,” said Fermi project scientist Julie McEnery in a NASA news release. “One way or another, all of the gamma-ray constellations have a tie-in to Fermi science.”

Science Meets Art

The team had some fun with the project. They drew inspiration from everything from pop culture (the TARDIS from “Doctor Who, Star Trek’s U.S.S. Enterprise) to science (Schrödinger’s Cat, Albert Einstein) while conjuring up this new set of constellations.

You can view these newly identified constellations via an interactive website featuring artwork by illustrator Aurore Simonnet. Click on a constellation, and you’ll find a link to a page with information about the gamma ray sources within it, giving you a chance to bone up on your science while indulging in a little culture.

More on gamma rays: Energy That’s out of This World: NASA Just Found a Gamma Ray Star System

More:
NASA Unveils 21 New Constellations Formed by Black Holes and Other Brutal Space Stuff

Tesla Just Dropped “Full Self-Driving” Mode From the Model 3

Posted on October 19, 2018 by Danzig

Hands Up

Can Tesla cars drive themselves?

The flagship electric car company’s answer to that question has been confusing — which has ended in disaster on a number of occasions.

But now we have clarity. The order page for the new Tesla Model 3 doesn’t feature the much-hyped “Full Self-Driving Capability” that promised customers “all you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.” CEO Elon Musk tweeted that the feature caused “too much confusion.”

Feature Creep

Removing the feature will certainly sting for potential Tesla buyers. Especially in light of the $7,500 tax credit that Tesla no longer guarantees after October 15.

The government is quite open to self-driving cars, at least in theory. The real problem: the feature doesn’t exist yet, as Ars Technica points out.

So when will Teslas really be able to drive themselves? That’s very hard to predict. For instance, Tesla’s newly introduced “Mad Max mode” can even irritate other human drivers just as effectively as any aggressive driver in an Audi.

Enhanced Driving

For now, customers will have to settle for “Enhanced Autopilot,” which includes lane assist and changing, intelligent blind spot monitoring, self-parking, and even navigating complex highway intersections.

People’s lives are at stake here. It’s a good thing Elon Musk decided to take things slow, and no longer offer the feature — fully autonomous driving isn’t going to happen over night.

More on Tesla’s autonomous car efforts: Tesla’s Autonomous Semi Truck Has Its First Official Mission

In the Future, Even Your Dish Detergent Will be Spying on You

Posted on October 19, 2018 by Danzig

Bust a Cap

It’s the future. You’re running low on dish detergent, so the container starts bugging you to buy more. Maybe it even cuts you out of the process by ordering more soap online on its own.

That’s the idea behind Water.io, a hardware company that’s working on a range of “smart caps” that keep track of how much stuff is left in a container.

Track Race

Water.io envisions a cap for water bottles, another for pill bottles, and another for detergents. The caps will tell you if you’re hydrating enough, track whether you’re taking all your pills — and, yes, put in orders when you’re running low on soap.

It’s a neat idea. But in the end, it’s just one more way for retailers to collect data about your shopping and consumption habits. Just remember that, like online ads, these smart caps could eventually become annoying — or even invasive.

Brand More

Water.io CEO Kobi Bentkovski spelled out the vision in a new interview with Fast Company.

“We are enabling the brands of consumer packaged goods to get data from their products,” he said. “The moment they know who their customers are, how customers are using a product, and when the product is going to run out is the moment they can compete with Amazon and the private brands of the retailers.”

That sounds great for brands. But here at The Byte, we’ll just keeping buying detergent when we see that we’re running low.

More on online shopping: Voice Ordering Is The “Most Disruptive” Shopping Trend

This Week in Science: Oct 13 – Oct 20

Posted on October 19, 2018 by Danzig

We’ll truly be pampered in the future: from imitation smoked salmon to legalized weed. What could we possibly have to complain about?

Here’s what inspired us in the world of science this week:

The Percentage of Unvaccinated U.S. Toddlers Has Quadrupled Since 2001. Vaccination rates amongst children in the United States have decreased in recent years, according to a new report from the CDC.

You’ve Heard of Fake Meat. How About Fake Fish? A new Wall Street Journal story looks at the rise of imitation tuna, shrimp, and even smoked salmon. The surprise conclusion: It’s pretty convincing.

Get Ready for Pills Programmed to Respond to Your Cells’ Individual Needs. A new paper suggests it could be possible to create smart pills that tailor medical treatments perfectly to a patient’s needs.

Five Products That Use Science to Maximize Your Meditation Sessions. Practicing meditation can improve both physical and mental health, boost self control, and improve productivity. These science-focused products can help.

A Humanoid Robot Gave a Lecture in a West Point Philosophy Course. In 2017, Bina48 became the first AI-powered robot to complete a college-level course, and now, it’s the first to co-teach one.

Canada Legalized Weed, and It Could Be a Huge Opportunity for Scientists. On Wednesday, Canada legalized cannabis, and the move provided medical researchers with the opportunity to develop promising new treatments.

The rest is here:
This Week in Science: Oct 13 – Oct 20

Ethereum Price – CoinDesk

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Danzig

Mt Gox's Bitcoin Creditors Have 4 Days to Submit Rehabilitation Claims

Oct 18, 2018 at 15:00 | Nikhilesh De

Clients of the defunct crypto exchange Mt. Gox must submit claims for trapped funds by Oct. 22.

Oct 18, 2018 at 07:00 | Leigh Cuen

Indian regulators' clampdown on crypto firms is forcing exchange Unocoin to experiment with ATMs and stablecoins to continue receiving fiat deposits.

Oct 17, 2018 at 14:00 | Nikhilesh De

Binance, the biggest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, is rolling out new software to aid detection of potentially illicit transactions.

Oct 17, 2018 at 04:00 | Sam Ouimet

It's possible to know what cryptocurrencies are going to be listed on Coinbase before it goes public.

Oct 16, 2018 at 20:40 | Nikhilesh De

Retail investors can now trade the 0x Protocol on Coinbase.com, as well as its Android and iOS apps.

Oct 16, 2018 at 13:40 | Daniel Palmer

Cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex says it has rolled out a new process for depositing fiat currency after it halted the service last week.

Oct 16, 2018 at 12:59 | Brady Dale

Decred is handing control of its $21 million treasury and all aspects of the protocol, from consensus through staffing, over to token holders.

Oct 16, 2018 at 11:59 | Brady Dale

Imagine the liquidity of every crypto exchange, but in one giant pool. That's what Paradigm aims to build, and investors are on board.

Oct 16, 2018 at 10:00 | Wolfie Zhao

Messaging giant LINE's Bitbox exchange has made its LINK token available for trading against bitcoin, ethereum and tether.

Oct 16, 2018 at 09:00 | Wolfie Zhao

The Huobi exchange has announced it will add support for four U.S. dollar-pegged cryptos, a day after OKEx did the same.

Excerpt from:

Ethereum Price - CoinDesk

EthereumPrice.org – USD Price, Charts & History

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Danzig

EthereumPrice.org - USD Price, Charts & History

$-5.5924 Hour Change

$209.4124 Hour High

$202.0624 Hour Low

$20.80B Market Cap

The price of Ethereum (ETH/USD) today is $202.62 USD with a total market cap of $20,799,002,019.

View the latest Ethereum price predictions sourced directly from the Augur marketplace. What does the crowd expect the price of Ethereum be in the future?

This guide takes a look at the investment case for Ethereum as well as the exchanges and platforms from which it can be bought.

Calculate the price of Ether in your own local currency using this simple tool with real-time price data.

Period

Change

Change (%)

High

Low

24h

$-5.59

-2.68%

$209.41

$202.06

$-7.22

-3.44%

$254.57

$187.03

$-312.66

-60.68%

$834.21

$167.72

$-111.03

-35.40%

$1422.47

$167.72

$201.27

14908.89%

$1422.47

$0.43

Year

USD

AUD

BTC

CAD

EUR

GBP

2016

749.47%

784.38%

280.62%

764.34%

808.13%

947.56%

2017

9087.98%

8813.52%

553.40%

8765.65%

8121.94%

8223.13%

2018

-72.67%

-72.26%

-42.04%

-71.79%

-72.41%

-71.71%

Ethereum is facing a new narrative of pessimism. What is currently happening on the blockchain that may warrant a price that goes above and beyond $1,000?

Ethereum's recent decision to drop the block reward (coin supply inflation) from 3 Ether to 2 Ether, and Cboe's announcement of an Ethereum futures market has done nothing to sway investor sentiment.

Ethereum has suffered a steep decline in value, dropping sharply from $731 3 months ago, to $258 at the time of writing - a fall of over 60%. Where does Ethereum go from here?

When we all stop talking about the price of Ethereum and start going back to what we were doing before, building stuff. Find out what's been going on at EthereumPrice.org here.

Given that the vast majority of my working life is spent in cryptocurrency, it would come as no surprise that yes - I'm bullish on the stuff. But I've been bullish longer than most - in fact it was in 2011 that I decided Bitcoin had a place in the future of payments [...]

The rest is here:

EthereumPrice.org - USD Price, Charts & History

Maternalfetal medicine – Wikipedia

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Danzig

Maternalfetal medicine (MFM) (also known as perinatology) is a branch of medicine that focuses on managing health concerns of the mother and fetus prior to, during, and shortly after pregnancy.

Maternalfetal medicine specialists are physicians who subspecialize within the field of obstetrics.[1] Their training typically includes a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology followed by a three-year fellowship. They may perform prenatal tests, provide treatments, and perform surgeries. They act both as a consultant during lower-risk pregnancies and as the primary obstetrician in especially high-risk pregnancies. After birth, they may work closely with pediatricians or neonatologists. For the mother, perinatologists assist with pre-existing health concerns, as well as complications caused by pregnancy.

Maternalfetal medicine began to emerge as a discipline in the 1960s. Advances in research and technology allowed physicians to diagnose and treat fetal complications in utero, whereas previously, obstetricians could only rely on heart rate monitoring and maternal reports of fetal movement. The development of amniocentesis in 1952, fetal blood sampling during labor in the early 1960s, more precise fetal heart monitoring in 1968, and real-time ultrasound in 1971 resulted in early intervention and lower mortality rates.[2] In 1963, Albert William Liley developed a course of intrauterine transfusions for Rh incompatibility at the National Women's Hospital in Australia, regarded as the first fetal treatment.[3] Other antenatal treatments, such as the administration of glucocorticoids to speed lung maturation in neonates at risk for respiratory distress syndrome, led to improved outcomes for premature infants.

Consequently, organizations were developed to focus on these emerging medical practices, and in 1991, the First International Congress of Perinatal Medicine was held, at which the World Association of Perinatal Medicine was founded.[2]

Today, maternal-fetal medicine specialists can be found in major hospitals internationally. They may work in privately owned clinics, or in larger, government-funded institutions.[4][5]

The field of maternal-fetal medicine is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in medicine, especially with respect to the fetus. Research is being carried on in the field of fetal gene and stem cell therapy in hope to provide early treatment for genetic disorders,[6] open fetal surgery for the correction of birth defects like congenital heart disease,[7] and the prevention of preeclampsia.

Maternalfetal medicine specialists attend to patients who fall within certain levels of maternal care. These levels correspond to health risks for the baby, mother, or both, during pregnancy.[8]

They take care of pregnant women who have chronic conditions (e.g. heart or kidney disease, hypertension, diabetes, and thrombophilia), pregnant women who are at risk for pregnancy-related complications (e.g. preterm labor, pre-eclampsia, and twin or triplet pregnancies), and pregnant women with fetuses at risk. Fetuses may be at risk due to chromosomal or congenital abnormalities, maternal disease, infections, genetic diseases and growth restriction.[9]

Expecting mothers with chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, drug use during or before pregnancy, or a diagnosed medical condition may require a consult with a maternal-fetal specialist. In addition, women who experience difficulty conceiving may be referred to a maternal-fetal specialist for assistance.

During pregnancy, a variety of complications of pregnancy can arise. Depending on the severity of the complication, a maternal-fetal specialist may meet with the patient intermittently, or become the primary obstetrician for the length of the pregnancy. Post-partum, maternal-fetal specialists may follow up with a patient and monitor any medical complications that may arise.

The rates of maternal and infant mortality due to complications of pregnancy have decreased by over 23% since 1990, from 377,000 deaths to 293,000 deaths. Most deaths can be attributed to infection, maternal bleeding, and obstructed labor, and their incidence of mortality vary widely internationally.[10] The Society for Maternal-fetal Medicine (SMFM) strives to improve maternal and child outcomes by standards of prevention, diagnosis and treatment through research, education and training.[11]

Maternalfetal medicine specialists are obstetrician-gynecologists who undergo an additional 3 years of specialized training in the assessment and management of high-risk pregnancies. In the United States, such obstetrician-gynecologists are certified by the American Board of Obstetrician Gynecologists (ABOG) or the American Osteopathic Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Maternalfetal medicine specialists have training in obstetric ultrasound, invasive prenatal diagnosis using amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, and the management of high-risk pregnancies. Some are further trained in the field of fetal diagnosis and prenatal therapy where they become competent in advanced procedures such as targeted fetal assessment using ultrasound and Doppler, fetal blood sampling and transfusion, fetoscopy, and open fetal surgery.[12][13]

For the ABOG, MFM subspecialists are required to do a minimum of 12 months in clinical rotation and 18-months in research activities. They are encouraged to use simulation and case-based learning incorporated in their training, a certification in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) is required, they are required to develop in-service examination and expand leadership training. Obstetrical care and service has been improved to provide academic advancement for MFM in-patient directorships, improve skills in coding and reimbursement for maternal care, establish national, stratified system for levels of maternal care, develop specific, proscriptive guidelines on complications with highest maternal morbidity and mortality, and finally, increase departmental and divisional support for MFM subspecialists with maternal focus. As Maternalfetal medicine subspecialists improve their work ethics and knowledge of this advancing field, they are capable of reducing the rate of maternal mortality and maternal morbidity.[14]

Go here to see the original:

Maternalfetal medicine - Wikipedia

Roger Ver joins Azbit exchange as Advisor – bcfocus.com

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Danzig

Roger Ver

Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com recently stated that he is going to open his own cryptocurrency exchange. Today, Roger Ver along with Mate Tokay, COO of Bitcoin.com announced that they had joined Azbit exchange as Advisors.

The question among the global crypto community is whether the exchange that he had stated to open soon is the same as Azbit exchange.

Azbit, a fintech startup is a part of a large-scale ecosystem. Azbits exchange is currently 80 percent ready while Roger is planning to launch his own cryptocurrency exchange.

It is much like two experienced hands uniting with each other. Roger Ver is quite influential around the world of crypto and blockchain. He has been the advisor for at least four ICOs in the past. These ICOs have successfully increased market caps. Azbit project will also be seen as an influencer in the financial world.

During the crowdfunding campaign, Azbit has announced the issuance of tokenized shares. Azbit AG is currently registered in Switzerland and is authorized to issue shares.

Later this year, Azbit is planning to launch an investment platform with possibilities of social copy trading. This investment platform lays a path for investors to entrust their assets to experienced traders.

According to an earlier report by BC Focus, a controversy erupted when the Roger Ver shifted his allegiance from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash. The Bitcoin.com CEO is now looking for a partner to finance the exchange or may build one internally.

If we build it ourselves, we can do it really, really cheap, and we get exactly what we want. But we dont have the security of a battle-tested exchange thats been around for a while, said Roger Ver.

Bitcoin Jesus | Bitcoin Cash | whoisrogerver.com

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Danzig

bitcoin jesus judas

There once was a boynamed Roger,

an early bitcoin adopter.

On the road for days

singing btc's praise,

now leads his sheep to the slaughter.

He copied the name &claimedit's the same,

- cash -

crypto's sad,

whoreish stepdaughter.

She laid with insiders,

got pumped n' grew tired,

not even virginplebs are willing to ride her.

So goes the story of lil' roger's glory,

except of course the Federal Prison story....

career highlights

(1/4 stick to be exact.)

May 2, 2002

Roger Ver was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison, a fine of $2,000, as well as a three-year period of supervised release. for selling explosives on the online auction site, eBay. following a guilty plea on: one count of dealing in explosives without a license,one count of illegally storing explosives,one count of mailing injurious articles.

Mr. Ver admitted to engaging in the business of selling explosives without a license

largesttheft inbitcoinhistory

February 28th, 2014

Mt. Gox filed in Tokyo for bankruptcy protection. Havinglost almost 750,000customers bitcoins, &100,000 of its own bitcoins, totaling7% of all bitcoins, and worth around $473 million near the time of the filing.

coinbase launches bcash

December 19th

in the hourbeforecoinbase announced thebcash listing, itwent from $1k to $8k usd

December 20th

cnbc hosts lil roger on the fast money show to talk about the fall of bitcoin and the rise of bcash.

other glorious milestones

thanks for visiting & check out our other sitesfor more content!

38mxQyU3MikLmnPWFiWnc761E5GxqeP3xH

0x9EB522E3e750fD160a74D1794D151bD8dc874413

MAxx4QGX4rDE4298ptnxUSxVm1ZkhsZ6to

See original here:

Bitcoin Jesus | Bitcoin Cash | whoisrogerver.com

Roger Ver yells that "there is no God" in Blockchain Cruise …

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Danzig

Jimmy Song and Roger Ver set out to have a high level debate to discuss the case between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. If the introduction to the format was the setting of the bar, then calling the discourse high level is being as generous as Oprah Winfrey.

The debate took place on the poolside of a luxury cruise ships deck. The audience consisted of bikini-clad ladies and shouting shirtless men holding and filming on an array of devices.Not a minute in, as Song introduced the forum, Ver interrupted him in order to ask just one question. Song respondedwith a string of no, just sit down requests.

Initially, one microphone was to be used in order to keep it civil. As Song suggested, there is way too much Jerry Springer and not enough Supreme Court.

However, the alleged Supreme Court approach quicklychanged when Ver was handed a microphone and Song marched off the stage saying that he refused to do the debate if there [were] two mics. His refusal did not seem to last long. He returned after less than two minutes following Vers promise not to interrupt (again).

Finally after a display of Ver shouting at a shirtless man, Song grabbing papers which had blown away, and a lady asking where she could find the margaritas the debate began.

Song opened his segment by stating:

Bitcoin Cash is a fiat money.

He proceeded to explain that hesees Bitcoin as a classically liberal and anarchal capitalist, and sound method of money, befitting its cypherpunk roots. On the other hand, he offered that Bitcoin Cash is paternalistic and Keynesian befitting its corporate roots. He explained that Bitcoin is unique as it offers a cryptocurrency with no point of failure, no censorship, and no authority. Therefore, users are sovereignover their own money.

Bitcoin Cash, he said, is a fiat owing to the fact that it is centralized with an elite group that determines a roadmap. He said that this leading team determines what will happen to the token through authoritarian hardforks. These forks, such as result in the allowance of changing economic incentives such asforced upgrades.

After Songwrapped up his first point, Ver took the stage, saying:

My goodness, what a bunch of nonsense from Jimmy.

He was behind the podium for less than a minute. Instead of looking to refute any of Songs arguments, Ver simply offered Jimmy a wager:

[Ill] bet a million dollars equivalent of whatever cryptocurrency [he wants], that within ten years Bitcoin Cash will have a larger market cap than the BTC version of Bitcoin today.

Song took the stage once more to proceed with his point, as Ver had offered no point to contend.

In the second component of his argument, Song extrapolated his argument on the centralized token.

Following from there, the two argued about fiat, liberalism, personal attacks on what books the individuals had read.

Start trading cryptocurrency with Coindirect.

Link:

Roger Ver yells that "there is no God" in Blockchain Cruise ...

PR: Roger Ver Joins Azbit Crypto Exchange Advisory Board …

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Danzig

This is a paid press release, which contains forward looking statements, and should be treated as advertising or promotional material. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support this product/service. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the press release.

We are elated to announce that Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com and Mate Tokay, COO of Bitcoin.com joined Azbit as our Advisors!

Apparently the subject on everyones mind today is Roger Ver is planning to open his own cryptocurrency exchange. The global crypto community of course took his statement seriously since Bitcoin Jesus has a good eye for the major upcoming industry trends.

This is an approach that Azbit fully supports: we firmly believe that the world needs a truly multi-functional, reliable, and functioning exchange. And that is what we are working on right now. We are sure that people should be able to get all the financial services they need in a single place. This is why Azbit is building blockchain banking together with an in-built multi-exchange and investment platform.

Azbits multi-cryptocurrency exchange is currently 80 percent ready. It is based on the Bitsane crypto exchange, which has been successfully operating since 2016 with more than $8,000,000 in daily transaction volume.

The official announcement of the partnership between Azbit and Bitcoin.com was made right on board at Blockchain Cruise 2018. After signing a document Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com, said: Were gonna to promote all Azbit products at Bitcoin.com so the whole world gets to know the great project that Azbit is building. They build platform, we promote it, the users come and everybody is happy!

Bitcoin Jesus Roger Ver is billionaire, crypto enthusiast, investor, businessman, and one of the most influential people in the world of crypto and blockchain. He has recently participated in at least four ICOs as an advisor. All these projects have successfully raised the planned hard cap from 15 to 50 million USD.

Roger Ver and Mate Tokay are always on top of things ertainly, this was the beginning of our significant cooperation. Our advisors boundless knowledge about cryptocurrencies and blockchain will raise Azbit project to the new level and offer our customers a truly great product.

The strongest aspects of the Azbit project:Truly new idea of combining the most popular and in-demand financial services that currently exist separately.

Azbit AG (a joint-stock company) has been registered in Switzerland and thereby authorized to issue shares. It gives us the brilliant opportunity to issue tokenized shares during the crowdfunding campaign. AZ token holders will receive the dividends in this connection. Azbit will share 75% of the total platforms fee; all payments (in AZ tokens) via airdrop will be made monthly. Income statements and audits will be published regularly on Azbit.com.

Azbit has obtained a securities exemption from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Rule 506(c) of Regulation D. The project also has a Payment Institution license in the Czech Republic (in the E.U.)

Azbit had successfully finished Private sale and moved to the next level Pre-ICO campaign is underway. Early investors can get the maximum bonus up to 30%.

Website: https://azbit.com/Page on Bitcointalk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4382120.0Telegram: https://t.me/azbit_comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/azbit.news/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/azbit.news/Twitter: https://twitter.com/azbit_newsMedium: https://medium.com/@Azbit_news

Contact Email Addressinfo@azbit.com

This is a paid press release. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the promoted company or any of its affiliates or services. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in the press release.

Visit link:

PR: Roger Ver Joins Azbit Crypto Exchange Advisory Board ...

Blockchain.io | Your Gateway to the Internet of Value

Posted on October 17, 2018 by Danzig

Blockchain.io wants to reshape your experience with cryptocurrencies

A New Regulatory Compliant Exchange Expects 170.000+ Users from Day One

A New Platform Combines a Centralized Exchange With Decentralized Settlements

A new exchange gives priority to regulatory compliance and security

A New Exchange Will Help ICOs Launch Their Product

A New European Exchange to Assist Selected ICO Campaigns

A New Exchange Focused On Security And Regulatory Compliance Will Eliminate Worthless Tokens

Introducing BCIOs Discounted Trading Fee Framework!

Fueled by passion and talent, our marketing team is driven to deliver outstanding marketing campaigns!

Blockchain.io Taking Over Europe

New Crypto Exchange Aims to Become Leading Platform in Europe by 2020

The team behind Blockchain.io

Blockchain.io: Aiming for European Leadership

Here are the terms of sale.

Paymium and Blockchain.io are paving the way to enter the Internet of value.

Blockchain.io: Building an effective team in the crypto industry

Our tech team has been hard at work to ensure that our users experience the best.

Bounty Contest Has Finished. The Final Rankings Are Here!

BCIO: The art of building a successful Crypto team

Dominique Rodrigues, a highly skilled engineer and an experienced entrepreneur.

Blockchain.io: a new generation of cryptocurrency trading platforms

How Blockchain.io takes on investors worst Crypto dilemma

Ready for upcoming crypto-trading regulations

We are pleased to announce our filing has been accepted and are now registered with the SEC!

Centralized order-book with decentralized settlement. Encouraging trade while ensuring trust.

Pierre Noizat, CEO of Paymium & Blockchain.io describes its vision of the Internet of Value at Chainges, Amsterdam.

It is in the interest of American cryptocurrency traders to invest in a European platform

Paymium is planning to raise 60 Million.

Meet our team at the Next Web Conference in Amsterdam on May 24 & 25.

What is BCIO Token ? A brief rundown of our crypto-exchange proprietary token.

A brief introduction to crypto trade

Pierre Noizat will be speaking at Chainges in Amsterdam on May 4-5th. Meet us there !

Pierre Noizat announces the launch of Blockchain.io at The Bitcoin, Ethereum & Blockchain SuperConference in Dallas - February 16th 2018

Cryptocurrencies, why should Europe embrace them ?

In the crypto-economy, France has shinning global champions, among them include Ledger, Paymium and Stratumn.

Why are crypto-currencies indispensable to Europe? A rundown from Pierre Noizat on perspectives in Europe.

Round table on cryptocurrency regulation with Cathy Lubochinsky, member of the Circle of Economists; Pierre Noizat, cofounder of Paymium; and Emmanuel Lechypre, columnist at BFM Business.

Paymium is capitalizing on bitcoin with Dentsu Consulting.

Paymium Launches European Cryptocurrency Trading Platform Blockchain.io

Watch Pierre Noizat interview with CEO Money about blockchain.io cryptoexchange at the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Blockchain Superconference in Dallas

Paymium launching European cryptocurrency trading platform Blockchain.io

Pierre Noizat will speak at the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Blockchain Superconference in Dallas, Texas on February 16th to present blockchain.io .

Welcome to the Internet of Value ! In the same way as the Internet redefined global communication, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are now reinventing money and value transactions.

Sbastien Couasnon and his guets are investigating the rise of bitcoin. with Eric Larchevque, CEO of Ledger and Pierre Noizat co-founder of Paymium.

Cofounder of Paymium (Bitcoin Central) and bitcoin specialist Pierre Noizat reacts to the bankruptcy of MT Gox and explains his service.

The rest is here:

Blockchain.io | Your Gateway to the Internet of Value

The Futurist: The Misandry Bubble

Posted on October 17, 2018 by Danzig

- by Imran Khan

Why does it seemthat American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that mediocrity and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant wages and rising crime, tocrumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the economic decline of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?

Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is. I am herebytriggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with. What you are about to read isthe equivalent of someonein 1997 describing theexpected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009in profound detail.

This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist.As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well. As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.

Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has tainted the interaction between men and women,where the stateforcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to inflict great harm onto their own families, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This isunfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

Now, the basic premise of this article is that men and women are equally valuable, but have different strengths and weaknesses, and different priorities. A society is strongest when men and women have roles that are complementary to each other, rather than of an adverserial nature. Furthermore, when one gender (either one) is mistreated, the other ends up becoming disenfranchised as well. If you disagree with this premise, you may not wish to read further.

The Cultural Thesis

The Myth of Female Oppression : When you tell someone that they are oppressed, against all statistical and logical evidence, you harm them by generating discouragement and resentment. This pernicious effect is the basis of many forms of needlessly inflicted female unhappiness, as well as the basis for unjustified retaliation against men.

All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who did not face hardships as severe as what women endured. In reality, this narrative is entirely incorrect. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.

Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?

Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment.

As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights that men were given in even 1% of historical instances, falls flat.

This is not to deny that genuine atrocities like genital mutilation have been perpetrated against women; they have and still are. But men also experienced atrocities of comparable horror at the same time, which is simply not mentioned. In fact, when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, some other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly.

It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive. It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication. The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is. In fact, this myth is evidence not of historical oppression, but of the vastly different propensity to complain between the two genders.

The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment : Take a look at the collage of entertainers below (click to enlarge), which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.

As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector. They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases,as didcharacters ascontrastingas Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage.

At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity ofproudly, inspiringlymasculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear. Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent. Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes. Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones. But where are the new characters? Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia? A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.

Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains,and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong. Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices. Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committedexclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas.

This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, andgirls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leadsto the normalization of single motherhood (obviously withtaxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, butmerely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon.This, in turn, leads tofatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal. It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.

ThePrimal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding thatbeing one of four women sharingan 'alpha' was stillmore preferablethanhaving the undivided attentionof a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.

Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.

As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genderswhile penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, receiveda provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one).Conversely,the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women,was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

The Four Sirens : Four unrelated forces simultaneously combined to entirely distort the balance of civilization built on the biological realities of men and women. Others have presented versions of the Four Sirens concept in the past, but I am choosing a slightly different definition of the Four Sirens :

1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to act on their urges ofhypergamy.

2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs ofirresponsible behavior onto men and children.

3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any organized male opposition to women entering the workforce (in China, taxes were collected in a way that mandated female productivity), as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers. However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support -was no longer a necessity.

Female entry into the workforceis generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended). Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.

4) Female-Centric social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.

These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable jobof shielding women from the consequences of their own actions. Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them. Despite all the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities, men were still expected to adhere to their traditional responsibilities.

Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia,marriage is considered a mandatorybedrock of anyfunctioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West isbarreling ahead ona suicidal path.

We earlier discussedwhy marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked'not too long agowere :

1) People married at the age of 20, and often died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychologicalfoundation than the present urban norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptlyemerges from hersvelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.

2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% ofyoung men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there werealways significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knewhow fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.

3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.

4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.

Today, however, all of these factors have been removed.This is partly the result ofgoodforces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.

For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to beindulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In some Eastern cultures, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride'sfather to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' againstirresponsible behavioron the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Eastern equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Indian culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for thesurrounding civilizationto survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existedthrough centuries ofobserving the realities ofhuman behavior. Indian civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also hadcomparablemechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.

In an 'at will' employment arrangement between a corporation and an employee, either party can terminate the contract at any time. However, instead of a few weeks of severance, imagine what would happen if the employer was legally required to pay the employee half of his or her paycheck for 20 additional years, irrespective of anything the employee did or did not do, under penalty of imprisonment for the CEO. Suppose, additionally, that it is culturally encouraged for an employee to do this whenever even minor dissatisfaction arises. Would businesses be able to operate? Would anyone want to be a CEO? Would businesses even form, and thus would any wealth be created, given the risks associated with hiring an employee? Keep these questions in mind as you read further.

So why are 70-90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)? Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?

Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. What makes attorneys different from, say, engineers or salespeople, is that a) they know precisely how to lobby for changes to the legal system, bypassingvoters and the US constitution,that guarantees more revenue for them, and b) what benefitsthemis directly harmful to the fabric of society in general, and to children in particular. When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who openly say that 90% of the male gender should be exterminated, the outcome is catastrophic.

The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy. Indeed, the man has to pay even if the woman has an extramarital affair, possibly even being ordered to pay her psychiatric fees. Bogus claims by 'feminists' that women suffer under divorce are designed to obscure the fact that she is the one who filed for divorce. Defenders of alimony insist that a woman seeking a divorce should not see a drop in living standards, but it is somehow acceptable for the husband to see a drop even if he did not want a divorce. I would go further and declare that any belief that women deserve alimony on a no-fault basis in this day age is utterly contradictory to the belief that women are equals of men. How can women both deserve alimony while also claiming equality? In rare cases, high-earning women have had to pay alimony to ex-husbands, but that is only 4% of the time, vs. the man paying 96% of the time. But it gets worse; much worse, in fact.

Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, andcannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well. So the man loses his children and most of his income even if he did not want divorce. But even that is not the worst-case scenario.

The Bradley Amendment, devised by Senator Bill Bradley in 1986, ruthlessly pursues men for the already high 'child support' percentages, and seizes their passports and imprisons them without due process for falling behind in payments, even if on account of job loss during a recession. Under a bogus 'deadbeat dads' media campaign, 'feminists' were able to obscure the fact that women were the ones ending their marriages and with them the benefit that children receive from a two-parent upbringing, and further demandingunusually high spousal maintenence, much of which does not even go to the child,from a dutifulex-husband who did not want a divorce, under penalty of imprisonment. So the legal process uses children as pawns through which to extract an expanded alimony stream for the mother. Talk about a multi-layer compounding of evil. The phony tactic of insisting that 'it is for the children' is used to shut down all questions about theuse of children as pawns in the extortion process, while avoiding scrutiny of the fact that the parent who is choosing divorce is clearly placing the long-term well-being of the children at a very low priority.

So as it stands today, there are large numbers of middle-class men who were upstanding citizens, who were subjected to divorce against their will, had their children taken from them, pay alimony masked as child support that is so high that many of them have to live out of their cars or with their relatives, and after job loss from economic conditions, are imprisoned simply for running out of money. If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes. Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise, not to mention a 21st-century version of slavery. Sometimes, the children are not even biologically his.

This one-page site has more links about the brutal tyranny that a man can be subjected to once he enters the legal contract of marriage, and even more so after he has children. What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizenwho is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. As a result, the word 'marriage' should not even be used, given the totality of changes that have made the arrangement all but unrecognizable compared to its intended ideals. Suicide rates of men undergoing divorce run as high as 20%, and all of us knowa manwho either committed suicide, or admits seriously considering it during the dehumanization he faced even though he wanted to preserve the union. Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with thevalues of any supposedly advanced democracy thatprides itself on freedom and liberty. There is effectively a tyrannical leftist shadow state operating within US borders but entirely outside the US constitution, which can subject a man to horrors more worthy of North Korea than the US, even if he did not want out of the marriage, did not want to be separated from his children, and did not want to lose hisjob. Any unsuspecting man can be sucked into this shadow state.

Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and 'feminist' organizations over the past quarter-century. If Western society is to survive, these revenues should be chopped down to a tenth of what they presently are, which is what they would be if the elements that violate the US Constitution were repealed.

Marriage is no longer a gateway to female 'companionship', as we shall discuss later. For this reason, as a Futurist, I cannot recommend 'marriage', as the grotesque parody that it has become today, to any young man living in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia. There are just too many things outside of his control that can catastrophically ruin his finances, emotions, and quality of life.

At a minimum, he should make sure that having children is the most important goal of his life. If not, then he has insufficient reason to enter this contract. If this goal is affirmed, then he should conduct research by speaking to a few divorced men about the laws and mistreatment they were subjected to, and attend a few divorce court hearings at the local courthouse. After gaining this information, if he still wants to take the risk, he should only marryif he can meet the following three conditions, none of which can substitute either of the other two:

1) The woman earns the same as, or more than, he does.

2) He has a properly done pre-nuptial arrangement with lawyers on each side (even though a pre-nup will not affect the worst aspect of divorce law -'child support'as a cloak forstealth alimony and possible imprisonment).

3) He is deeply competent in the Seduction Arts (Game), and can manage his relationship with his wife effortlessly. Even this is a considerable workload, however. More on this later.

There are still substantial risks, but at least they are somewhat reduced under these conditions. If marriage is a very important goal for a young man, he should seriously consider expatriation to a developing country, where he ironically may have a higher living standard than in the US after adjusting for divorce risk.

So,to review, the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are :

Traditional cultures marketed marriage with such punctilious alacrity that most people today dare not even question whether the traditional truths still apply. Hence,hostility often ensues from a mere attemptto even broach the topic of whether marriage is still the same concept as it once was. Everyone from women to sadistic social conservativesto a young man's own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage for reasons they cannot even articulate, and condemnhis request for a pre-nup, without having any interest in even learning about the horrendously unequal and carefully concealed laws he would be subjected to in the event that his wife divorces him through no reasons he can discern. But some men with an eye on self-preservation are figuring this out, and are avoiding marriage. By many accounts, 22% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive foreven just20% of men to marry?

Women are far more interested in marriage than men. Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality thatwomen age out of fertility much quicker than men. This creates great stress among the single female population. In the past, the steady hand of a young woman's mother and grandmother knew that her beauty was temporary, and that the most seductive man was not the best husband, and they made sure that the girl was married off to a boy with long-term durability. Now that this guidance has been removed from the lives of young women, thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives whopursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning plunge in her prospectswith men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from thisfate. The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation to package failure as a desirable outcome, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities. Women often protest that a high number of sexual partners should not be counted as a negative on them, as the same is not a negative for men, but this is merely a manifestation of solipism. A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock."

The big irony is that 'feminism', rather than improving the lives of women, has stripped away the safety nets of mother/grandmother guidance that would have shielded her from ever having to face her Wile E. Coyote moment. 'Feminism' has thus put the average woman at risk in yet another area.

Game (Learned Attraction and Seduction) : The Four Sirens and the legal changes feminists have instituted to obstruct beta men have created a climate where men have invented techniques and strategies to adapt to the more challenging marketplace, only to exceed their aspirations. This is a disruptive technology in its own right. All of usknowa man who is neither handsome nor wealthy, but consistently has amazing success with women. He seems to have natural instincts regarding women that to the layperson may be indistinguishable from magic. So how does he do it?

Detractors with a vested interest in the present status quo are eager to misrepresent what 'Game' is, and the presence of many snake-oil salesmen in the field does not help, but as a definition :

The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.

The subject is too vast for any description over here to do it full justice, but in a nutshell, the Internet age enabled communities of men to share the various bits of knowledge they had field tested and refined (e.g. one man being an expert at meeting women during the daytime, another being an expert at step-by-step sexual escalation, yet another being a master of creating lasting love, etc.). The collective knowledge grew and evolved, and anentire industry to teach the various schools of 'Game' emerged. Men who comprehended the concepts (a minority) and those who could undertake the total reconstitution of their personalities and avalanche of rejections as part of the learning curve (a still smaller minority) stood to reap tremendous benefits from becoming more attractive than the vast majority of unaware men. While the 'pick-up artist' (PUA) implementation is the most media-covered, the principles are equally valuable for men in monogamous long-term relationships (LTRs). See Charlotte Allen's cover story for The Weekly Standard, devoted to 'Game'.

Among the most valuable learningsfrom the body of knowledge is the contrarian revelation that what women say a man should do is often quite theantithesis of what would actually bring him success. For example, being a needy, supplicative, eager-to-please man is precisely the opposite behavior that a man should employ, wherebeing dominant, teasing, amused, yet assertive is the optimal persona.An equally valuable lesson is to realize when not to take a woman's words at face value. Many statements from her are 'tests' to see if the man can remain congruent in his 'alpha' personality, where the woman is actually hoping the man does not eagerly comply to her wishes. Similarly, the 'feminist' Pavlovian reaction to call anynon-compliant mana 'misogynist' should also not be taken as though a rational adult assigned the label after fair consideration. Such shaming language is only meant to deflect scrutiny and accountability from the woman uttering it, and should be given no more importance than a 10-year-oldthrowing a tantrumto avoid responsibility or accountability. Far too many men actually take these slurs seriously, to the detriment of male rights and dignity.

Success in internalizing thecore fundamentals of Gamerequires an outside-the-box thinker solidly in the very top of Maslow's Hierarchy,and in my experience, 80% of men and 99.9% of women are simply incapable of comprehending why the skills of Game are valuable and effective. Many women, and even a few pathetic men, condemn Game, without even gaining a minimal comprehension for what it truly is(which I have highlighted in red above), and how it benefits both men and women. Most of what they think they know about Game involves strawmen, a lack of basic research, and their own sheer insecurity.

For anyone seeking advice on learning the material, there is one rule you must never break. I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women. It is not moral to mistreat women, even if they have done the same to countless men. We, as men, have to take the high road even if women are not, and this is my firm belief. Nice guys can finish first if they have Game.

'Feminism' as Unrestrained Misandry and Projection :The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. The actions of 'feminists' reveal their ideology to be one that seeks to secure equality for women in the few areas where they lag, while distracting observers from the vast array of areas where women are in a more favorable position relative to men (the judicial system, hiring and admissions quotas, media portrayals, social settings, etc.). They will concoct any number of bogus statistics to maintain an increasingly ridiculous narrative of female oppression.

Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channelsfor women. But once these goals were met and even exceeded, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation thatare blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.

Asit is profitable to claim victimhood in this age, a good indicator is whether any condemnation by the supposedly oppressedof their oppressor could be similarly uttered if the positions were reversed. We know that what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said about whites could not be said by a white pastor about blacks, and we see even more of a double standard regarding what women and men can say about each other in America today. This reveals one of the darkest depths of the human mind - when a group is utterly convinced that they are the 'victims' of another group, they can rationalizeany level of evil against their perceived oppressors.

Go to any major 'feminist' website, such as feministing.com or Jezebel.com, and ask polite questions about the fairness of divorce laws, or the injustice of innocent men being jailed on false accusations of rape without due process. You will quickly be called a 'misogynist' and banned from commenting. The same is not true for any major men's site, where even heated arguments and blatant misandry are tolerated in the spirit of free speech and human dignity. When is the last time a doctrinaire 'feminist' actually had the courage to debatea fair woman like Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce, or Christina Hoff Somers on television?

Ever-tightening groupthink that enforces an ever-escalatingnarrative of victimhood ensures that projection becomes the normal mode of misandrist thought.The word 'misogynist' has expanded to such an extreme that it is the Pavlovian response to anything a 'feminist' feels bad about, but cannot articulate in an adult-like manner. This reveals the projected gender bigotry of the 'feminist' in question, which in her case is misandry. For example, an older man dating women 10 years younger than him is also referred to as a 'misogynist' by the older bitterati. Not an ageist, mind you, but a misogynist. A man who refuses to find obese women attractive is also a 'misogynist', as are gay men who do not spend money on women. The malenon-compliancelabeled as 'misogyny' thus becomes a reaction to many years of unopposed misandry heaped on him first, when he initially harbored no such sentiments. Kick a friendly dog enough times, and you get a nasty dog.

There are laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), thatblatantly declaresthat violence against women is far worse than violence against men. VAWA is very different from ordinary assault laws, because under VAWA, a man can be removed from his home at gunpoint if the woman makes a single phonecall. No due process is permitted, and the man's Constitutional rights are jettisoned. At the same time, half of all domestic violence is by the woman against the man. Tiger Woods' wife beat him with a blunt weapon and scratched his face, only to be applauded by 'feminists' in a 'you go girl' manner. Projection can normalize barbarism.

Rape legislation has also bypassed the US Constitution, leaving a man guilty until he proves himself innocent, while the accusing woman faces no penalty for falsely sending a man to prison for 15 years, where he himsef will get raped. The Duke Lacrosse case was a prominent example of such abuse, but hundreds of others occur in America each year. The laws have been changed so that a victim has 1 month to 'decide' if she has been raped, and such flexibility predicatably leads to instances of a woman reporting rape just so that she does not have to tell her husband that she cheated on him (until it becomes profitable to divorce him). 40-50% of all rape accusations are false, but 'feminists' would rather jail scores of innocent men than let one guilty man get away, which is the exact opposite of what US Constitutional jurisprudence requires.

But, unimaginably, it gets even worse.Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded. Men see cuckolding as the ultimate violation and betrayal, yet there is an entire movement among 'feminists' to enshrine a woman's right to commit adultery and use the resources of her husband to dupe him into thinking the child is his. These misandrists even want to outlaw the right of a man to test the paternity of a child.

So, to review, if a woman has second thoughts about a tryst a few days later, she can, without penalty, ruin a man financially and send him to prison for 15 years. 'Feminists' consider this acceptable. At the same time, even though men consider being cuckolded a worse fate than being raped, 'feminists' want to make this easier for a woman to do, by preventing paternity testing. They already have rigged laws so that the man, upon 'no fault' divorce,has to pay alimony, to a woman who cuckolded him.

This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the worst tyrannies of the last century. Modern misandry masking itself as 'feminism' is, without equal, the most hypocritical ideology in the world today. The laws of a society are the DNA of that society. Once the laws are tainted, the DNA is effectively corrupted, and mutations to the society soon follow. Men have been killed due to 'feminism'. Children and fathers have been forcibly separated for financial gain via 'feminism'. Slavery has returned to the West via 'feminism'. With all these misandric laws, one can fairly say that misandry is the new Jim Crow.

Shaming Language and Projection as a Substitute for Rational Debate :As discussed previously, any legitimate and polite questions about the fairness of anti-male realities in the legal system and media are quickly met with Pavlovian retorts of 'misogynist' and 'loser'. Let us deconstruct these oft-used examples of shaming language, and why misandrists are so afraid of legitimate debate.

Contrary totheir endless charges of 'misogyny' (a word that many 'feminists' still manage to misspell), in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry andenshrine them on exalted pedestals. Every day, we see men willing to defend women or do favors for them. There is infinitely more chivalry than misogyny exhibited by the male population. On the other hand, we routinely see anti-male statements uttered by 'feminists', and a presumption that all men are monsters guilty of crimes committed by a small number of people of the same gender.When well-known 'feminists' openly state that 90% of the male population should be exterminated, the unsupported accusation of 'misogyny' is a very pure manifestion of their own misandric projection.

On the second charge of being a 'loser who cannot get laid', any observation of the real world quickly makes it obvious that men who have had little experience with women are the ones placing women on pedestals, while those men who have had substantial sexual experience with women are not. Having sex with a large number of women does not increase respect for women,which is the exact opposite of theclaim that 'feminists' make. Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolized into love for these particular 'feminists'.

That misandrists are so unchallenged is the reason that they have had no reason to expand their arsenal of venom beyond these two types of projection. Despite my explanation of this predictable Pavlovian response, the comments section will feature misandrists use these same two slurs nonetheless, proving the very point that they seek to shout down, and the very exposure they seek to avoid. My pre-emption will not deter them from revealing their limitations by indulging in it anyway. They simply cannot help themselves, and are far from being capable of discussing actual points of disagreement in a rational manner.

Men, of course, have to be savvy about the real reason their debate skills are limited to these two paths of shaming language, and not be deterred. Once again, remember that this should be taken no more seriously than if uttered by a 10-year-old, and there is no reason to let a 'feminist' get away with anything you would not let a man get away with. They wanted equality, didn't they?

'Feminism' as Genuine Misogyny : The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer.By incentivizing the dehumanization of their ex-husbands and the use of children as pawns, they set bad examplesfor children, and cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. By making baseless accusations of 'misogyny' without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men where there previously was none. By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.

One glaring example of misandry backfiring is in the destruction of marriage and corresponding push of the 'Sex in the City/cougar' fantasy. Monogamous marriage not only masked the gap between 'alpha' and 'beta' men, but also masked the gap between attractiveness of women before and after their Wile E. Coyote moment. By seducing women with the myth that a promiscuous single life after the age of 35 is a worthy goal, many women in their late 30s are left to find that they command far less male attention than women just a decade younger than them. 'Feminism' sold them amoral code entirely unsuited to their physical and mental realities, causing great sadness to these women.

But most importantly, 'feminists' devalued the traditional areas of female expertise (raising the next generation of citizens), while attaching value only to areasof male expertise (the boardroom, the military, sexual promiscuity) and told women to go duplicate male results under the premise that this was inherently better than traditional female functions. Telling women that emulating their mothers and grandmothers is less valuable than mimicking men sounds quite misogynistic to me, and unsurprisingly, despite all these 'freedoms', women are more unhappy than everafter being inflicted with such misogyny.

So how did the state of affairs manage to get so bad? Surely 'feminists' are not so powerful?

Social Conservatives, White Knights, and Girlie-Men : It would be inaccurate to deduce that misandrists were capable of creating this state of affairs on their own, despite their vigor and skill in sidestepping both the US Constitution and voter scrutiny. Equally culpable are men who ignorantly believe that acting as obsequious yes-men to 'feminists' by turning against other menin the hope that their posturing will earn them residual scraps of female affection.

Chivalry has existed in most human cultures for many centuries, and is seen in literature from all major civilizations. Chivalry greatly increased a man's prospects of marriage, but the reasons for this have been forgotten. Prior to the modern era, securing a young woman's hand in marriage usually involved going through her parents. The approval of the girl's father was a non-negotiable channel in the process. If a young man could show the girl's parents that he would place her on a pedestal, they could be convinced to sanction the union. The girl herself was not the primary audience of the chivalry, as the sexual attraction of the girl herself was rarely aroused by chivalry,as the principles of Game have shown.

Hence, many men are still stuck in the obsolete, inobservant, and self-loathingnotion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today, despite the modern reality that a woman's sexual decisions are no longer controlled by her parents, and are often casual rather than locked in matrimony. Whether such men are religious and called 'social conservatives', or effete leftists and called 'girlie men', they are effectively the same, and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them. This is why we see peculiar agreement between supposedly opposed 'social conservatives' and 'feminists' whenever the craving to punish men arises.A distressingly highnumber of men actually support theimprisonment of innocent men for false rape accusations or job loss causing 'child support' arrears merely because these 'men'don't want to risk female disapproval, incorrectly assuming that fanatically vocal 'feminists' represent theofficial opinionof all women. These men are the biggest suckers of all, as theirpig-headed denialof the effectiveness of Game will prevent them from deducing that excess agreeability and willingness to do favors forthe objects of their lustare exactly the opposite of what makes women sexually attracted to men. No woman feels attraction for a needy man.

For this reason, after lunatic 'feminists', these pedestalizing White Knights are the next most responsible party for the misandry in Western societytoday. The average woman is not obsessively plotting new schemes to denigrate and swindle men, she merely wants to side with whoever is winning (which presently is the side of misandry). But pedestalizing men actually carry out many dirty deeds against other men in the hopes of receiving a pat on the head from 'feminists'. Hence, the hierarchy of misandric zeal is thus :

Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman.

For reasons described earlier, even a declaration that many men are bigger contributors to misandry than the average woman will not deter 'feminists' from their Pavlovian tendency to call articles such as this one 'misogynist'.

Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing andwillful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.

Why There is No Men's Rights Movement : At this point, readers may be wondering "If things are this bad, why don't we hear anything about it?". Indeed, this is a valid question, and the answer lies within the fundamentals of male psychology. Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women (alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value). White Knights also join in the chorus of shaming other men since they blunderously believe that this is a pathway to the satiation of their lust. So an unfairly ruined man is faced with the prospect of being shamed by women and a large cohort of men if he protests about the injustice, and this keeps him suffering in silence, leading to an early death. We have millions of fine young men willing to die on the battlefield to defend the values enshrined in the US Constitution, but we don't see protests of even 100 divorced men against the shamefully unconstitutional treatment they have received. The destruction of the two-parent family by incentivizingimmoral behavior in women is at least as much of a threat to American safety and prosperity as anything that ever could have come out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Men being too afraid to be the 'squeaky wheel' even when they have lost their childrenand their present and futureassets isa major contributorto the prevailing status quo. Alpha men have no incentive beyond altruism to act as they benefit from the current climate, and thus my altruism will be limited to putting forth these ideas.

Any serious movement has to start a think tank or two to produce research reports, symposiums, and specific policy recommendations, andthe few divorce lawyers who were compelled by their conscience to leave the dark side have to be recruited as experts. Subsequently, televisedpanel discussionshave to be conductedat top medical, business, and graduate engineeringschools (where young men about to embark on lucrative careers are approaching marriage age, but know nothing about the law), documentary films have to be produced, prominent victims like Mel Gibson, Paul McCartney, Hulk Hogan, and Tiger Woods have to be recruited as spokesmen, and visibly powerful protests outside of divorce courts have to be organized. In this age of Web 2.0/social media/viral tools, all this should be easy, particularly given how quickly leftist groups can assemblea comparable apparatus for even obscure causes.

Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Authors (MRAs) that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs. 'Something is better than nothing' is the most generous praise I could possibly extend to their efforts, and this article I am presenting here on The Futurist is probably the single biggest analysis of this issue to date, even though this is not even asite devoted to the subject and I am not the primary author of this site. Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.

The Faultline of Civilization : After examining all the flaws in modern societies, and the laws that exacerbate them, it becomes apparent that there are two realms of legal/judicial thought that stand alone in determining whether our civilization is going to be ever-improving or merely cyclical. These two legal areas are a) the treatment of paternity rights, and b) the treatment of due process in rape accusations. The human brain is wired to value the well-being of women far higher than that of men (for reasons that were once valid, but no longer are today), which is why extending due process to a man falsely accused of rape is not of particular interest to people who otherwise value due process. Similarly, there is little resistance to 'feminist' laws that have stripped away all types of paternity rights from fathers. The father is not seen as valuable nor as worthy of rights, as we have seen above. These two areas of law are precisely where our society will decide if it ascends or declines. All other political sideshows, like immigration, race relations, and even terrorism are simply not as important as none of those can destroy an entire society the way these laws can.

The Economic Thesis

See the article here:

The Futurist: The Misandry Bubble

GNU/Linux Distribution Timeline – Futurist

Posted on October 17, 2018 by Danzig

After a short essay on methodology were curious to find out whether there are any master-snoops among our audience.We present exhibit M, a rare specimen we know nothing about but for the fact that it was compiled from bits of Gentoo. Hence we call publicly for any hints or leads regarding this elusive distribution!

Meanwhile, a gentle reader has drawn to our attention the fact that Damn Vulnerable Linux is currently listed as a Slax derivate by the major pundit places, while it certainly boasted a Damn Small Linux pedigree in its very beginnings. The switch has happened, but everyone claims not to have seen when it did! Have you?

And just in case anyone needs more material, heres our current ToDo buffer.

Greenie. An Ubuntu-based distribution that seems to be pretty popular in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and thus probably a good addition to the GLDT.Quick googling leads us to the official page and to DistroWatch. The latter hints at a game oriented Xubuntu fork in early 2008, rebasing to Ubuntu in mid-2008.The official page doesnt seem to sport any change logs or release announcements (while my Slovak is very poor, this isnt much of a problem thanks to Google Translate).The oldest downloads (mirror) seem to have been purged.The forums also only hold comparatively recent posts.Googling a bit further reveals that Greenie was known in 2007. Time to power up the Wayback Machine: voil. Since my Slovak hasnt improved much in the meantime, lets feed again the earliest archive link to the translator The beginning of the project [...] 14th September 2007 and Greenie Linux 1.0 is based directly on Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn. (on a second look, that page was available in English anyway!)Job done.

While checking out the page DW links to Greenie, Newtoos catches the eye. The Slovakian Wikipedia says something about it forking off of Ubuntu in Nov 2008.Researching further, we see that the download ISOs share a common folder. Extracting the URL from the link address, we quickly reveal Newtoos release date: 2008.11.13.

If only project sites had a nicely visible change log / history sectionTwo distributions for the GLDT 11.7 are done, eight still to go!

About Sealand – Become a Lord, Lady, Baron or Baroness

Posted on October 16, 2018 by Danzig

In the early 60s, Roy Bates, a Major in the British army, established a radio station, situated offshore on an abandoned ex naval fort named Knock John. The theory behind this location was an attempt to bypass the draconian broadcasting restrictions of the time, which permitted little more than formal broadcasting by the BBC. Roys station, Radio Essex, and others like it, were known affectionately by the media as Pirate radio stations, and were much loved by the British public, as they supplied everything that the BBC did not at the time, Pop music and amusing presenters.

In the years than ensued, Roy fought an unsuccessful legal battle with the UK government, which questioned the legality of his occupation of said fort. It was ruled that Knock John fell under UK jurisdiction. Smarting from his setback, Roy weighed his options. Another abandoned fortress, Roughs Tower, identical in construction to the Knock John existed further offshore, and crucially, outside of the three mile limit to which the UK jurisdiction extended. Roy proceeded to occupy Roughs Tower, on Christmas eve 1966, with the intention of revitalising his dormant radio station. This was until he conjured a different plan entirely. After consulting his lawyers, Roy decided to declare this fortress island the independent state of Sealand, Claiming Jus Gentium (Law of Nations) over a part of the globe that was Terra Nullius (Nobodys Land).

On the 2nd of September 1967, accompanied by his wife Joan on her birthday, his son Michael (14), daughter Penelope (16) and several friends and followers, Roy declared the Principality of Sealand. The founding of this country was marked by the raising a newly designed flag, and in an extremely romantic birthday gesture, the bestowing of a new title on his beloved wife, to be know from that moment on as Princess Joan.

See the article here:

About Sealand - Become a Lord, Lady, Baron or Baroness

Noir Nights – A Cyberpunk Noir soundtrack

Posted on October 16, 2018 by Danzig

You lived a life of privilege and comfort sheltered in the upper city until one day a chance encounter turns your world upside down. Reluctantly , now you must travel to the lower city that holds the only key to your way out of this mess. Along the way, you uncover more than you ever expected, and you find out the truth behind all the lies youve been told. What you do with this information is up to you. From the splendors of the Upper City to the grim realities of the Lower City, these are your Noir Nights.

"You were one of the elite, now you're one of us."

//Splendors of the Upper City00:00:00 Peaks and Valleys - Holon 00:06:06 Seven Days - Xaeroseven00:09:40 Transient - Synkro00:16:24 Return - Gridlock 00:21:39 Please not yet - Palmer's Medic

//Surveillance00:27:09 The City is watching - The Enigma TNG

//Premonition00:32:57 "- - -" - Access to Arasaka

//Upper City late nights00:35:20 Song 23 - Gridlock00:40:25 Quiet Little Rain - Palmer's Medic

//Rude Awakening00:47:50 Dream Sequence - Amon Tobin00:54:48 After Dark - Ahnst Anders

//Lower City Transition00:59:43 Something Wicked This Way Comes - Iszoloscope

//Black Market01:04:55 Discordia - Maduro01:08:31 Proper Hoodidge - Amon Tobin

//Proposition01:13:35 Juno Wakes - Maduro

//Lower City Streets01:19:35 Silent Whisper - Ahnst Anders01:27:09 Temptation and Desire - Silent Servant01:30:28 Dark Twinkle Rose - The Enigma TNG01:35:50 And then it was (Oktopus remix) - Obsidian Kingdom

//Manuevers in the dark01:40:42 Telemetry - Bad Sector01:45:55 Antenna - Swarm Intelligence01:50:49 Deadly Covers - Raphael Acohen

//Chase sequence01:55:28 Insight - Diaphane

//Captured01:59:44 Verge - Freeze Etch02:01:22 Irrotator - Freeze Etch

//Interrogation02:07:04 Nebulous Illumine - The Enigma TNG

//Escape02:14:55 Morningstar - Palmer's Medic02:22:46 Reconsider - Aphorism

//Regroup02:25:46 LX-R - Camerxn02:30:25 Highway - Access to Arasaka

//Point of no Return02:33:18 Untitled 06 - Totakeke02:40:09 All that is Hidden - Raphael Acohen

//All or nothing02:45:50 All Torque (F Buttons Remix) - Hybrid02:50:55 Alma the hellcat - Palmer's Medic

post on Tumblr: https://casie-mod.tumblr.com/post/151...Artwork by yours truly https://casie-mod.tumblr.com/post/142...

Links to artists in this playlist:

Palmer's Medichttps://palmersmedic.bandcamp.com/

Camerxnhttps://camerxn.bandcamp.com/album/cr...

Freeze Etchhttps://freezeetch.bandcamp.com/album...

Holon https://holon-subatomic-audio.bandcam...https://soundcloud.com/mark-r-3

Synkrohttps://synkro.bandcamp.com/album/tra...

Gridlock https://www.amazon.com/Formless-Gridl...

Access to Arasakahttps://crlstudios.bandcamp.com/album...

Amon Tobinhttps://amontobinmusic.bandcamp.com/

Ahnst Andershttps://ant-zen.bandcamp.com/album/ma...

Iszoloscopehttps://iszoloscope.bandcamp.com/albu...

Madurohttps://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...

Silent Servanthttps://www.beatport.com/track/tempta...

The Enigma TNGhttps://theenigmatng.bandcamp.com/

Obsidian Kingdomhttps://obsidiankingdom.bandcamp.com/...

Bad Sectorhttps://loki-found.bandcamp.com/album...

Swarm Intelligencehttps://adnoiseam.bandcamp.com/album/...

Raphael Acohenhttps://concrete.bandcamp.com/album/n...

Diaphanehttps://tympanikaudio.bandcamp.com/tr...

Aphorismhttps://tympanikaudio.bandcamp.com/al...

Totakekehttps://tympanikaudio.bandcamp.com/al...

Hybridhttps://www.amazon.com/Driveclub-Orig...

Go here to read the rest:

Noir Nights - A Cyberpunk Noir soundtrack

History of cancer chemotherapy – Wikipedia

Posted on October 16, 2018 by Danzig

The era of cancer chemotherapy began in the 1940s with the first use of nitrogen mustards and folic acid antagonist drugs. The targeted therapy revolution had arrived, but many of the principles and limitations of chemotherapy discovered by the early researchers still apply.

The beginnings of the modern era of cancer chemotherapy can be traced directly to the German introduction of chemical warfare during World War I. Among the chemical agents used, mustard gas was particularly devastating. Although banned by the Geneva Protocol in 1925, the advent of World War II caused concerns over the possible re-introduction of chemical warfare. Such concerns led to the discovery of nitrogen mustard, a chemical warfare agent, as an effective treatment for cancer. Two pharmacologists from the Yale School of Medicine, Louis S. Goodman and Alfred Gilman, were recruited by the US Department of Defense to investigate potential therapeutic applications of chemical warfare agents. Goodman and Gilman observed that mustard gas was too volatile an agent to be suitable for laboratory experiments. They exchanged a nitrogen molecule for sulfur and had a more stable compound in nitrogen mustard.[1] A year into the start of their research, a German air raid in Bari, Italy led to the exposure of more than 1000 people to the SS John Harvey's secret cargo composed of mustard gas bombs. Dr. Stewart Francis Alexander, a lieutenant colonel who was an expert in chemical warfare, was subsequently deployed to investigate the aftermath. Autopsies of the victims suggested that profound lymphoid and myeloid suppression had occurred after exposure. In his report, Dr. Alexander theorized that since mustard gas all but ceased the division of certain types of somatic cells whose nature was to divide fast, it could also potentially be put to use in helping to suppress the division of certain types of cancerous cells.[2]

Using that information, Goodman and Gilman reasoned that this agent could be used to treat lymphoma, a tumor of lymphoid cells. They first set up an animal model by establishing lymphomas in mice and demonstrated they could treat them with mustard agents. Next, in collaboration with a thoracic surgeon, Gustaf Lindskog, they injected a related agent, mustine (the prototype nitrogen mustard anticancer chemotherapeutic), into a patient with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.[3] They observed a dramatic reduction in the patient's tumor masses.[4][5] Although the effect lasted only a few weeks, and the patient had to return for another set of treatment, that was the first step to the realization that cancer could be treated by pharmacological agents.[3] Publication of the first clinical trials was reported in the New York Times.[6]

Shortly after World War II, a second approach to drug therapy of cancer began. Sidney Farber, a pathologist at Harvard Medical School, studied the effects of folic acid on leukemia patients. Folic acid, a vitamin crucial for DNA metabolism (he did not know the significance of DNA at that time), had been discovered by Lucy Wills, when she was working in India, in 1937. It seemed to stimulate the proliferation of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cells when administered to children with this cancer. In one of the first examples of rational drug design (rather than accidental discovery), Farber used folate analogues synthesized by Harriett Kiltie and Yellapragada Subbarow of Lederle Laboratories. These analogues first aminopterin and then amethopterin (now methotrexate) were antagonistic to folic acid, and blocked the function of folate-requiring enzymes. When administered to children with ALL in 1948, these agents became the first drugs to induce remission in children with ALL. Remissions were brief, but the principle was clear antifolates could suppress proliferation of malignant cells, and could thereby re-establish normal bone-marrow function. Farber met resistance to conducting his studies at a time when the commonly held medical belief was that leukemia was incurable, and that the children should be allowed to die in peace.[citation needed] Afterwards, Farber's 1948 report in the New England Journal of Medicine was met with incredulity and ridicule.[citation needed]

In 1947, Major League Baseball Hall of Famer Babe Ruth, who was battling Nasopharynx cancer, became one of the first human subjects of teropterin (similar to aminopterin) treatment. Dr. Richard Lewisohn of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York administered the drug, and over the course of several months, Ruth's condition began to improve. However, Ruth died the following year.[7]

In 1951, Jane C. Wright demonstrated the use of methotrexate in solid tumors, showing remission in breast cancer.[8] Wright's group were the first to demonstrate use of the drug in solid tumors, as opposed to leukemias, which are a cancer of the marrow. Several years later at the National Cancer Institute, Roy Hertz and Min Chiu Li then demonstrated complete remission in women with choriocarcinoma and chorioadenoma in 1956,[9] discovering that methotrexate alone could cure choriocarcinoma (1958), a germ-cell malignancy that originates in trophoblastic cells of the placenta. In 1960 Wright et al. produced remissions in mycosis fungoides.[10][11]

Joseph Burchenal, at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, with Farber's help, started his own methotrexate study and found the same effects. He then decided to try to develop anti-metabolites in the same way as Farber, by making small changes in a metabolite needed by a cell to divide. With the help of George Hitchings and Gertrude Elion, two pharmaceutical chemists who were working at the Burroughs Wellcome Co. in Tuckahoe, many purine analogues were tested, culminating in the discovery of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP), which was subsequently shown to be a highly active antileukemic drug.

The Eli Lilly natural products group found that alkaloids of the Madagascar periwinkle (Vinca rosea), originally discovered in a screen for anti-diabetic drugs, blocked proliferation of tumour cells. The antitumour effect of the vinca alkaloids (e.g. vincristine) was later shown to be due to their ability to inhibit microtubule polymerization alkaloys, and therefore cell division.

The NCI, headed by Dr. John R. Heller Jr., lobbied the United States Congress for financial support for second-generation chemotherapy research. In response, Congress created a National Cancer Chemotherapy Service Center (NCCSC) at the NCI in 1955. This was the first federal programme to promote drug discovery for cancer unlike now, most pharmaceutical companies were not yet interested in developing anticancer drugs. The NCCSC developed the methodologies and crucial tools (like cell lines and animal models) for chemotherapeutic development.

In 1965, a major breakthrough in cancer therapy occurred. James F. Holland, Emil Freireich, and Emil Frei hypothesized that cancer chemotherapy should follow the strategy of antibiotic therapy for tuberculosis with combinations of drugs, each with a different mechanism of action. Cancer cells could conceivably mutate to become resistant to a single agent, but by using different drugs concurrently it would be more difficult for the tumor to develop resistance to the combination. Holland, Freireich, and Frei simultaneously administered methotrexate (an antifolate), vincristine (a Vinca alkaloid), 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and prednisone together referred to as the POMP regimen and induced long-term remissions in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). With incremental refinements of original regimens, using randomized clinical studies by St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the Medical Research Council in the UK (UKALL protocols) and German Berlin-Frankfurt-Mnster clinical trials group (ALL-BFM protocols), ALL in children has become a largely curable disease.

This approach was extended to the lymphomas in 1963 by Vincent T. DeVita and George Canellos at the NCI, who ultimately proved in the late 1960s that nitrogen mustard, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone known as the MOPP regimen could cure patients with Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Currently, nearly all successful cancer chemotherapy regimens use this paradigm of multiple drugs given simultaneously, called combination chemotherapy or polychemotherapy.

As predicted by studies in animal models, drugs were most effective when used in patients with tumours of smaller volume. Another important strategy developed from this if the tumour burden could be reduced first by surgery, then chemotherapy may be able to clear away any remaining malignant cells, even if it would not have been potent enough to destroy the tumor in its entirety. This approach was termed "adjuvant therapy".

Emil Frei first demonstrated this effect high doses of methotrexate prevented recurrence of osteosarcoma following surgical removal of the primary tumour. 5-fluorouracil, which inhibits thymidylate synthase, was later shown to improve survival when used as an adjuvant to surgery in treating patients with colon cancer. Similarly, the landmark trials of Bernard Fisher, chair of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, and of Gianni Bonadonna, working in the Istituto Nazionale Tumori di Milano, Italy, proved that adjuvant chemotherapy after complete surgical resection of breast tumours significantly extended survival particularly in more advanced cancer.

In 1956, C. Gordon Zubrod, who had formerly led the development of antimalarial agents for the United States Army, took over the Division of Cancer Treatment of the NCI and guided development of new drugs. In the two decades that followed the establishment of the NCCSC, a large network of cooperative clinical trial groups evolved under the auspices of the NCI to test anticancer agents. Zubrod had a particular interest in natural products, and established a broad programme for collecting and testing plant and marine sources, a controversial programme that led to the discovery of taxanes (in 1964) and camptothecins (in 1966). Both classes of drug were isolated and characterized by the laboratory of Monroe Wall at the Research Triangle Institute.

Paclitaxel (Taxol) was a novel antimitotic agent that promoted microtubule assembly. This agent proved difficult to synthesize and could only be obtained from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree, which forced the NCI into the costly business of harvesting substantial quantities of yew trees from public lands. After 4 years of clinical testing in solid tumours, it was found in 1987 (23 years after its initial discovery) to be effective in ovarian cancer therapy. Notably, this agent, although developed by the NCI in partnership with Bristol-Myers Squibb, was exclusively marketed by BMS (who had utilized the synthetic methodology developed by Robert Holton at Florida State University) who went on to make over a billion dollars profit from Taxol.[citation needed]

Another drug class originating from the NCI was the camptothecins. Camptothecin, derived from a Chinese ornamental tree, inhibits topoisomerase I, an enzyme that allows DNA unwinding. Despite showing promise in preclinical studies, the agent had little antitumour activity in early clinical trials, and dosing was limited by kidney toxicity: its lactone ring is unstable at neutral pH, so while in the acidic environment of the kidneys it becomes active, damaging the renal tubules. In 1996 a more stable analogue, irinotecan, won Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the treatment of colon cancer. Later, this agent would also be used to treat lung and ovarian cancers.

Cisplatin, a platinum-based compound, was discovered by a Michigan State University researcher, Barnett Rosenberg, working under an NCI contract. This was yet another serendipitous discovery: Rosenberg had initially wanted to explore the possible effects of an electric field on the growth of bacteria. He observed that the bacteria unexpectedly ceased to divide when placed in an electric field. Excited, he spent months of testing to try to explain this phenomenon. He was disappointed to find that the cause was an experimental artifact the inhibition of bacterial division was pinpointed to an electrolysis product of the platinum electrode rather than the electrical field. This accidental discovery, however, soon initiated a series of investigations and studies into the effects of platinum compounds on cell division, culminating in the synthesis of cisplatin. This drug was pivotal in the cure of testicular cancer. Subsequently, Eve Wiltshaw and others at the Institute of Cancer Research in the United Kingdom extended the clinical usefulness of the platinum compounds with their development of carboplatin, a cisplatin derivative with broad antitumour activity and comparatively less nephrotoxicity.

A second group with an NCI contract, led by John Montgomery at the Southern Research Institute, synthesized nitrosoureas, an alkylating agent which cross-links DNA. Fludarabine phosphate, a purine analogue which has become a mainstay in treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, was another similar development by Montgomery.

Other effective molecules also came from industry during the period of 1970 to 1990, including anthracyclines[12] and epipodophyllotoxins both of which inhibited the action of topoisomerase II, an enzyme crucial for DNA synthesis.

As is obvious from their origins, the above cancer chemotherapies are essentially poisons. Patients receiving these agents experienced severe side-effects that limited the doses which could be administered, and hence limited the beneficial effects. Clinical investigators realized that the ability to manage these toxicities was crucial to the success of cancer chemotherapy.

Several examples are noteworthy. Many chemotherapeutic agents cause profound suppression of the bone marrow. This is reversible, but takes time to recover. Support with platelet and red-cell transfusions as well as broad-spectrum antibiotics in case of infection during this period is crucial to allow the patient to recover.

Several practical factors are also worth mentioning. Most of these agents caused very severe nausea (termed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the literature) which, while not directly causing patient deaths, was unbearable at higher doses. The development of new drugs to prevent nausea (the prototype of which was ondansetron) was of great practical use, as was the design of indwelling intravenous catheters (e.g. Hickman lines and PICC lines) which allowed safe administration of chemotherapy as well as supportive therapy.

One important contribution during this period[when?] was the discovery of a means that allowed the administration of previously lethal doses of chemotherapy. The patient's bone marrow was first harvested, the chemotherapy administered, and the harvested marrow then returned to patient a few days later. This approach, termed autologous bone marrow transplantation, was initially thought to be of benefit to a wide group of patients, including those with advanced breast cancer. However, rigorous studies have failed to confirm this benefit, and autologous transplantation is no longer widely used for solid tumors. The proven curative benefits of high doses of chemotherapy afforded by autologous bone marrow rescue are limited to both Hodgkin's and selected non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients who have failed therapy with conventional combination chemotherapy. Autologous transplantation continues to be used as a component of therapy for a number of other hematologic malignancies.

The hormonal contribution to several categories of breast cancer subtypes was recognized during this time[when?], leading to the development of pharmacological modulators (e.g. of oestrogen) such as tamoxifen.

Molecular genetics has uncovered signalling networks that regulate cellular activities such as proliferation and survival. In a particular cancer, such a network may be radically altered, due to a chance somatic mutation. Targeted therapy inhibits the metabolic pathway that underlies that type of cancer's cell division.

The classic example of targeted development is imatinib mesylate (Gleevec), a small molecule which inhibits a signaling molecule kinase. The genetic abnormality causing chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) has been known for a long time to be a chromosomal translocation creating an abnormal fusion protein, kinase BCR-ABL, which signals aberrantly, leading to uncontrolled proliferation of the leukemia cells. Imatinib precisely inhibits this kinase. Unlike so many other anti-cancer agents, this pharmaceutical was no accident. Brian Druker, working in Oregon Health & Science University, had extensively researched the abnormal enzyme kinase in CML. He reasoned that precisely inhibiting this kinase with a drug would control the disease and have little effect on normal cells. Druker collaborated with Novartis chemist Nicholas Lydon, who developed several candidate inhibitors. From these, imatinib was found to have the most promise in laboratory experiments. First Druker and then other groups worldwide demonstrated that when this small molecule is used to treat patients with chronic-phase CML, 90% achieve complete haematological remission. It is hoped that molecular targeting of similar defects in other cancers will have the same effect.

Another branch in targeted therapy is the increasing use of monoclonal antibodies in cancer therapy. Although monoclonal antibodies (immune proteins which can be selected to precisely bind to almost any target) have been around for decades, they were derived from mice and did not function particularly well when administered to humans, causing allergic reactions and being rapidly removed from circulation. "Humanization" of these antibodies (genetically transforming them to be as similar to a human antibody as possible) has allowed the creation of a new family of highly effective humanized monoclonal antibodies. Trastuzumab, a drug used to treat breast cancer, is a prime example.

The discovery that certain toxic chemicals administered in combination can cure certain cancers ranks as one of the greatest in modern medicine. Childhood ALL, testicular cancer, and Hodgkins disease, previously universally fatal, are now generally curable diseases. Conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy has shown the ability to cure some cancers, including testicular cancer, Hodgkin disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and some leukemias. It has also proved effective in the adjuvant setting, in reducing the risk of recurrence after surgery for high-risk breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer, among others.[when?]

The overall impact of chemotherapy on cancer survival can be difficult to estimate, since improved cancer screening, prevention (e.g. anti-smoking campaigns), and detection all influence statistics on cancer incidence and mortality. In the United States, overall cancer incidence rates were stable from 1995 through 1999, while cancer death rates decreased steadily from 1993 through 1999.[13] Again, this likely reflects the combined impact of improved screening, prevention, and treatment. Nonetheless, cancer remains a major cause of illness and death, and conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy has proved unable to cure most cancers after they have metastasized.

Follow this link:

History of cancer chemotherapy - Wikipedia

International Military Tribunal for the Far East – Wikipedia

Posted on October 16, 2018 by Danzig

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), also known as the Tokyo Trial or the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, was a military trial convened on April 29, 1946, to try the leaders of the Empire of Japan for joint conspiracy to start and wage war (categorized as "Class A" crimes), conventional war crimes ("Class B") and crimes against humanity ("Class C").[1]

Ten countries (Australia, Canada, China, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) provided judges and prosecutors for the court. The defense comprised Japanese and American lawyers.

Twenty-eight Japanese military and political leaders were charged with 55 separate counts encompassing the waging of aggressive war, murder and conventional war crimes committed against prisoners-of-war, civilian internees and the inhabitants of occupied territories. The defendants included former prime ministers, former foreign ministers and former military commanders. In the course of the proceedings, the court ruled that 45 of the counts, including all the murder charges, were either redundant or not authorized under the IMTFE Charter.

Two defendants died during the proceedings and one was ruled unfit to stand trial. All remaining defendants were found guilty of at least one count. Sentences ranged from seven years imprisonment to execution.

The tribunal was adjourned on November 12, 1948.

The Tribunal was established to implement the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, the Instrument of Surrender, and the Moscow Conference. The Potsdam Declaration (July 1945) had stated, "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners", though it did not specifically foreshadow trials.[2] The terms of reference for the Tribunal were set out in the IMTFE Charter, issued on January 19, 1946.[3] There was major disagreement, both among the Allies and within their administrations, about whom to try and how to try them. Despite the lack of consensus, General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, decided to initiate arrests. On September 11, a week after the surrender, he ordered the arrest of 39 suspectsmost of them members of General Hideki Tj's war cabinet. Tj tried to commit suicide, but was resuscitated with the help of U.S. doctors.

On January 19, 1946, MacArthur issued a special proclamation ordering the establishment of an International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE). On the same day, he also approved the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (CIMTFE), which prescribed how it was to be formed, the crimes that it was to consider, and how the tribunal was to function. The charter generally followed the model set by the Nuremberg Trials. On April 25, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the CIMTFE, the original Rules of Procedure of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East with amendments were promulgated.[4][5][6]

Following months of preparation, the IMTFE convened on April 29, 1946. The trials were held in the War Ministry office in Tokyo.

On May 3 the prosecution opened its case, charging the defendants with crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The trial continued for more than two and a half years, hearing testimony from 419 witnesses and admitting 4,336 exhibits of evidence, including depositions and affidavits from 779 other individuals.

Following the model used at the Nuremberg Trials in Germany, the Allies established three broad categories. "Class A" charges, alleging crimes against peace, were to be brought against Japan's top leaders who had planned and directed the war. Class B and C charges, which could be leveled at Japanese of any rank, covered conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity, respectively. Unlike the Nuremberg Trials, the charge of crimes against peace was a prerequisite to prosecutiononly those individuals whose crimes included crimes against peace could be prosecuted by the Tribunal. In the event, no Class C charges were heard in Tokyo.

The indictment accused the defendants of promoting a scheme of conquest that "contemplated and carried out...murdering, maiming and ill-treating prisoners of war (and) civilian internees...forcing them to labor under inhumane conditions...plundering public and private property, wantonly destroying cities, towns and villages beyond any justification of military necessity; (perpetrating) mass murder, rape, pillage, brigandage, torture and other barbaric cruelties upon the helpless civilian population of the over-run countries."

Keenan issued a press statement along with the indictment: "War and treaty-breakers should be stripped of the glamour of national heroes and exposed as what they really areplain, ordinary murderers".

The prosecution began opening statements on May 3, 1946, and took 192 days to present its case, finishing on January 24, 1947. It submitted its evidence in fifteen phases.

The Charter provided that evidence against the accused could include any document "without proof of its issuance or signature" as well as diaries, letters, press reports, and sworn or unsworn out-of-court statements relating to the charges. Article 13 of the Charter read, in part: "The tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence...and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value".

Wartime press releases of the Allies were admitted as evidence by the prosecution, while those sought to be entered by the defense were excluded. The recollection of a conversation with a long-dead man was admitted. Letters allegedly written by Japanese citizens were admitted with no proof of authenticity and no opportunity for cross examination by the defense.

The Tribunal embraced the best evidence rule once the Prosecution had rested. The best evidence rule dictates that the "best" or most authentic evidence must be produced (for example, a map instead of a description of the map; an original instead of a copy; and a witness instead of a description of what the witness may have said). Justice Pal, one of two justices to vote for acquittal on all counts, observed, "in a proceeding where we had to allow the prosecution to bring in any amount of hearsay evidence, it was somewhat misplaced caution to introduce this best evidence rule particularly when it operated practically against the defense only".

To prove their case, the prosecution team relied on the doctrine of "command responsibility". This doctrine was that it did not require proof of criminal orders. The prosecution had to prove three things: that war crimes were systematic or widespread; the accused knew that troops were committing atrocities; and the accused had power or authority to stop the crimes.

The prosecution argued that a 1927 document known as the Tanaka Memorial showed that a "common plan or conspiracy" to commit "crimes against peace" bound the accused together. Thus, the prosecution argued that the conspiracy had begun in 1927 and continued through to the end of the war in 1945. The Tanaka Memorial is now considered by most historians to have been a forgery; however, it was not regarded as such at the time.[citation needed]

The defendants were represented by over a hundred attorneys, three-quarters of them Japanese and one-quarter American, plus a support staff. The defense opened its case on January 27, 1947, and finished its presentation 225 days later on September 9, 1947.

The defense argued that the trial could never be free from substantial doubt as to its "legality, fairness and impartiality".[11]

The defense challenged the indictment, arguing that crimes against peace, and more specifically, the undefined concepts of conspiracy and aggressive war, had yet to be established as crimes in international law; in effect, the IMTFE was contradicting accepted legal procedure by trying the defendants retroactively for violating laws which had not existed when the alleged crimes had been committed. The defense insisted that there was no basis in international law for holding individuals responsible for acts of state, as the Tokyo Trial proposed to do. The defense attacked the notion of negative criminality, by which the defendants were to be tried for failing to prevent breaches of law and war crimes by others, as likewise having no basis in international law.

The defense argued that Allied Powers' violations of international law should be examined.

Former Foreign Minister Shigenori Tg maintained that Japan had had no choice but to enter the war for self-defense purposes. He asserted that "[because of the Hull Note] we felt at the time that Japan was being driven either to war or suicide".

After the defense had finished its presentation on September 9, 1947 the IMT spent fifteen months reaching judgment and drafting its 1,781-page opinion. The reading of the judgment and the sentences lasted from December 4 to 12, 1948. Five of the eleven justices released separate opinions outside the court.

In his concurring opinion Justice William Webb of Australia took issue with Emperor Hirohito's legal status, writing, "The suggestion that the Emperor was bound to act on advice is contrary to the evidence". While refraining from personal indictment of Hirohito, Webb indicated that Hirohito bore responsibility as a constitutional monarch who accepted "ministerial and other advice for war" and that "no ruler can commit the crime of launching aggressive war and then validly claim to be excused for doing so because his life would otherwise have been in danger.... It will remain that the men who advised the commission of a crime, if it be one, are in no worse position than the man who directs the crime be committed".

Justice Delfin Jaranilla of the Philippines disagreed with the penalties imposed by the tribunal as being "too lenient, not exemplary and deterrent, and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence or offences committed".

Justice Henri Bernard of France argued that the tribunal's course of action was flawed due to Hirohito's absence and the lack of sufficient deliberation by the judges. He concluded that Japan's declaration of war "had a principal author who escaped all prosecution and of whom in any case the present Defendants could only be considered as accomplices", and that a "verdict reached by a Tribunal after a defective procedure cannot be a valid one".

"It is well-nigh impossible to define the concept of initiating or waging a war of aggression both accurately and comprehensively", wrote Justice Bert Rling of the Netherlands in his dissent. He stated, "I think that not only should there have been neutrals in the court, but there should have been Japanese also." He argued that they would always have been a minority and therefore would not have been able to sway the balance of the trial. However, "they could have convincingly argued issues of government policy which were unfamiliar to the Allied justices". Pointing out the difficulties and limitations in holding individuals responsible for an act of state and making omission of responsibility a crime, Rling called for the acquittal of several defendants, including Hirota.

Justice Radhabinod Pal of the British empire produced a 1,235-page judgment[14] in which he dismissed the legitimacy of the IMTFE as victor's justice: "I would hold that each and every one of the accused must be found not guilty of each and every one of the charges in the indictment and should be acquitted on all those charges". While taking into account the influence of wartime propaganda, exaggerations, and distortions of facts in the evidence, and "over-zealous" and "hostile" witnesses, Pal concluded, "The evidence is still overwhelming that atrocities were perpetrated by the members of the Japanese armed forces against the civilian population of some of the territories occupied by them as also against the prisoners of war".

One defendant, Shmei kawa, was found mentally unfit for trial and the charges were dropped.

Two defendants, Matsuoka Yosuke and Nagano Osami, died of natural causes during the trial.

Six defendants were sentenced to death by hanging for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace (Class A, Class B and Class C):

One defendant was sentenced to death by hanging for war crimes and crimes against humanity (Class B and Class C):

They were executed at Sugamo Prison in Ikebukuro on December 23, 1948. MacArthur, afraid of embarrassing and antagonizing the Japanese people, defied the wishes of President Truman and barred photography of any kind, instead bringing in four members of the Allied Council to act as official witnesses.

Sixteen defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment. Three (Koiso, Shiratori, and Umezu) died in prison, while the other thirteen were paroled between 1954 and 1956:

Foreign minister Shigenori Tg was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and died in prison in 1949. Foreign minister Mamoru Shigemitsu was sentenced to 7 years. He later served as Foreign Minister and as Deputy Prime Minister of post-war Japan.

The verdict and sentences of the tribunal were confirmed by MacArthur on November 24, 1948, two days after a perfunctory meeting with members of the Allied Control Commission for Japan, who acted as the local representatives of the nations of the Far Eastern Commission. Six of those representatives made no recommendations for clemency. Australia, Canada, India, and the Netherlands were willing to see the general make some reductions in sentences. He chose not to do so. The issue of clemency was thereafter to disturb Japanese relations with the Allied powers until the late 1950s, when a majority of the Allied powers agreed to release the last of the convicted major war criminals from captivity.[15]

More than 5,700 lower-ranking personnel were charged with conventional war crimes in separate trials convened by Australia, China, France, the Netherlands Indies, the Philippines, the United Kingdom and the United States. The charges covered a wide range of crimes including prisoner abuse, rape, sexual slavery, torture, ill-treatment of labourers, execution without trial and inhumane medical experiments. The trials took place in around fifty locations in Asia and the Pacific. Most trials were completed by 1949, but Australia held some trials in 1951.[16] China held 13 tribunals, resulting in 504 convictions and 149 executions.

Of the 5,700 Japanese individuals indicted for Class B war crimes, 984 were sentenced to death; 475 received life sentences; 2,944 were given more limited prison terms; 1,018 were acquitted; and 279 were never brought to trial or not sentenced. The number of death sentences by country is as follows: the Netherlands 236, Great Britain 223, Australia 153, China 149, United States 140, France 26, and Philippines 17.

The Soviet Union and Chinese Communist forces also held trials of Japanese war criminals. The Khabarovsk War Crime Trials held by the Soviets tried and found guilty some members of Japan's bacteriological and chemical warfare unit, also known as Unit 731. However, those who surrendered to the Americans were never brought to trial. As Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, MacArthur gave immunity to Shiro Ishii and all members of the bacteriological research units in exchange for germ warfare data based on human experimentation. On May 6, 1947, he wrote to Washington that "additional data, possibly some statements from Ishii probably can be obtained by informing Japanese involved that information will be retained in intelligence channels and will not be employed as 'War Crimes' evidence". The deal was concluded in 1948.[19]

The United States had provided the funds and staff necessary for running the Tribunal and also held the function of Chief Prosecutor. The argument was made that it was difficult, if not impossible, to uphold the requirement of impartiality with which such an organ should be invested. This apparent conflict gave the impression that the tribunal was no more than a means for the dispensation of victor's justice. Solis Horowitz argues that IMTFE had an American bias: unlike the Nuremberg Trials, there was only a single prosecution team, led by an American, although the members of the tribunal represented eleven different Allied countries. The IMTFE had less official support than the Nuremberg Trials. Keenan, a former U.S. assistant attorney general, had a much lower position than Nuremberg's Robert H. Jackson, a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Delfin had been captured by the Japanese and walked the Bataan Death March.[21] The defense sought to remove him from the bench claiming he would be unable to maintain objectivity. The request was rejected but Delfin did excuse himself from presentation of evidence for atrocities in his native country of the Philippines.[22]

Justice Radhabinod Pal argued that the exclusion of Western colonialism and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the list of crimes and the lack of judges from the vanquished nations on the bench signified the "failure of the Tribunal to provide anything other than the opportunity for the victors to retaliate".[23] In this he was not alone among Indian jurists, with one prominent Calcutta barrister writing that the Tribunal was little more than "a sword in a [judge's] wig".

Justice Rling stated, "[o]f course, in Japan we were all aware of the bombings and the burnings of Tokyo and Yokohama and other big cities. It was horrible that we went there for the purpose of vindicating the laws of war, and yet saw every day how the Allies had violated them dreadfully".

However, in respect to Pal and Rling's statement about the conduct of air attacks, there was no positive or specific customary international humanitarian law with respect to aerial warfare before and during World War II. Ben Bruce Blakeney, an American defense counsel for Japanese defendants, argued that "[i]f the killing of Admiral Kidd by the bombing of Pearl Harbor is murder, we know the name of the very man who[se] hands loosed the atomic bomb on Hiroshima", even though Pearl Harbor was classified as a war crime under the 1907 Hague Convention, as it happened without a declaration of war and without a just cause for self-defense. Similarly, the indiscriminate bombing of Chinese cities by Japanese Imperial Forces was never raised in the Tokyo Trials in fear of America being accused the same thing for its air attacks on Japanese cities. As a result, Japanese pilots and officers escaped prosecution for their aerial raids on Pearl Harbor and cities in China and other Asian countries.[24]

Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal raised substantive objections in a dissenting opinion: he found the entire prosecution case to be weak regarding the conspiracy to commit an act of aggressive war, which would include the brutalization and subjugation of conquered nations. About the Nanking Massacrewhile acknowledging the brutality of the incidenthe said that there was nothing to show that it was the "product of government policy" or that Japanese government officials were directly responsible. There is "no evidence, testimonial or circumstantial, concomitant, prospectant, restrospectant, that would in any way lead to the inference that the government in any way permitted the commission of such offenses", he said.[23] In any case, he added, conspiracy to wage aggressive war was not illegal in 1937, or at any point since.[23] Pal was the only judge to argue for the acquittal of all of the defendants.[14]

The Japanese Emperor Hirohito and other members of The Imperial Family might have been regarded as potential suspects. They included career officer Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, Prince Fushimi Hiroyasu, Prince Higashikuni and Prince Takeda. Herbert Bix explained, "The Truman Administration and General MacArthur both believed the occupation reforms would be implemented smoothly if they used Hirohito to legitimise their changes".[27]

As early as November 26, 1945, MacArthur confirmed to Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai that the emperor's abdication would not be necessary. Before the war crimes trials actually convened, SCAP, the IPS, and court officials worked behind the scenes not only to prevent the imperial family from being indicted, but also to slant the testimony of the defendants to ensure that no one implicated the emperor. High officials in court circles and the Japanese government collaborated with Allied GHQ in compiling lists of prospective war criminals. People arrested as Class A suspects and incarcerated in the Sugamo Prison solemnly vowed to protect their sovereign against any possible taint of war responsibility.

According to historian Herbert Bix, Brigadier General Bonner Fellers "immediately on landing in Japan went to work to protect Hirohito from the role he had played during and at the end of the war" and "allowed the major criminal suspects to coordinate their stories so that the emperor would be spared from indictment".

Bix also argues that "MacArthur's truly extraordinary measures to save Hirohito from trial as a war criminal had a lasting and profoundly distorting impact on Japanese understanding of the lost war" and "months before the Tokyo tribunal commenced, MacArthur's highest subordinates were working to attribute ultimate responsibility for Pearl Harbor to Hideki Tj". According to a written report by Shichi Mizota, Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai's interpreter, Fellers met the two men at his office on March 6, 1946, and told Yonai, "it would be most convenient if the Japanese side could prove to us that the emperor is completely blameless. I think the forthcoming trials offer the best opportunity to do that. Tj, in particular, should be made to bear all responsibility at this trial".[31]

Historian John W. Dower wrote that the campaign to absolve Emperor Hirohito of responsibility "knew no bounds". He argued that with MacArthur's full approval, the prosecution effectively acted as "a defense team for the emperor", who was presented as "an almost saintly figure" let alone someone culpable of war crimes. He stated, "Even Japanese activists who endorse the ideals of the Nuremberg and Tokyo charters, and who have labored to document and publicize the atrocities of the Shwa regime, cannot defend the American decision to exonerate the emperor of war responsibility and then, in the chill of the Cold War, release and soon afterwards openly embrace accused right-winged war criminals like the later prime minister Nobusuke Kishi".

Three justices wrote an obiter dictum about the criminal responsibility of Hirohito. Judge-in-Chief Webb declared, "no ruler can commit the crime of launching aggressive war and then validly claim to be excused for doing so because his life would otherwise have been in danger...It will remain that the men who advised the commission of a crime, if it be one, are in no worse position than the man who directs the crime be committed".

Justice Henri Bernard of France concluded that Japan's declaration of war "had a principal author who escaped all prosecution and of whom in any case the present Defendants could only be considered as accomplices".

Justice Rling did not find the emperor's immunity objectionable and further argued that five defendants (Kido, Hata, Hirota, Shigemitsu, and Tg) should have been acquitted.

Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731 received immunity in exchange for data gathered from his experiments on live prisoners. In 1981 John W. Powell published an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists detailing the experiments of Unit 731 and its open-air tests of germ warfare on civilians. It was printed with a statement by Judge Rling, the last surviving member of the Tokyo Tribunal, who wrote, "As one of the judges in the International Military Tribunal, it is a bitter experience for me to be informed now that centrally ordered Japanese war criminality of the most disgusting kind was kept secret from the Court by the U.S. government".[34]

Forty-two suspects, such as Nobusuke Kishi, who later became Prime Minister, and Yoshisuke Aikawa, head of Nissan, were imprisoned in the expectation that they would be prosecuted at a second Tokyo Tribunal but they were never charged. They were released in 1947 and 1948.

The International Prosecution Section of the SCAP decided to try the seventy Japanese apprehended for "Class A" war crimes in three groups. The first group of 28 were major leaders in the military, political, and diplomatic sphere. The second group (23 people) and the third group (nineteen people) were industrial and financial magnates who had been engaged in weapons manufacturing industries or were accused of trafficking in narcotics, as well as a number of lesser known leaders in military, political, and diplomatic spheres. The most notable among these were:

All remaining people apprehended and accused of Class A war crimes who had not yet come to trial were set free by MacArthur in 1947 and 1948.

Under Article 11 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, Japan accepted the jurisdiction of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Article 11 of the treaty reads:

Japan accepts the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan, and will carry out the sentences imposed thereby upon Japanese nationals imprisoned in Japan. The power to grant clemency, reduce sentences and parole with respect to such prisoners may not be exercised except on the decision of the government or governments which imposed the sentence in each instance, and on the recommendation of Japan. In the case of persons sentenced by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, such power may not be exercised except on the decision of a majority of the governments represented on the Tribunal, and on the recommendation of Japan.[35]

In 1950, after most Allied war crimes trials had ended, thousands of convicted war criminals sat in prisons across Asia and Europe, detained in the countries where they had been convicted. Some executions had not yet been carried out, as Allied courts agreed to reexamine their verdicts. Sentences were reduced in some cases, and a system of parole was instituted, but without relinquishing control over the fate of the imprisoned (even after Japan and Germany had regained their sovereignty).

The focus changed from the top wartime leaders to "ordinary" war criminals (Class B and C in Japan), and an intense and broadly-supported campaign for amnesty for all imprisoned war criminals ensued. The issue of criminal responsibility was reframed as a humanitarian problem.

On March 7, 1950, MacArthur issued a directive that reduced the sentences by one-third for good behavior and authorized the parole after fifteen years of those who had received life sentences. Several of those who were imprisoned were released earlier on parole due to ill health.

Many Japanese reacted to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal by demanding parole for the detainees or mitigation of their sentences. Shortly after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, a movement demanding the release of B- and C-class war criminals began, emphasizing the "unfairness of the war crimes tribunals" and the "misery and hardship of the families of war criminals". The movement quickly garnered the support of more than ten million Japanese. The government commented that "public sentiment in our country is that the war criminals are not criminals. Rather, they gather great sympathy as victims of the war, and the number of people concerned about the war crimes tribunal system itself is steadily increasing".

The parole for war criminals movement was driven by two groups: people who had "a sense of pity" for the prisoners demanded, "just set them free" (tonikaku shakuho o) regardless of how it is done. The war criminals themselves called for their own release as part of an anti-war peace movement.

On September 4, 1952, President Truman issued Executive Order 10393, establishing a Clemency and Parole Board for War Criminals. Its purpose was to advise the President regarding recommendations by the Government of Japan for clemency, reduction of sentence, or parole of Japanese war criminals sentenced by military tribunals.[36]

On May 26, 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles rejected a proposed amnesty for the imprisoned war criminals but instead agreed to "change the ground rules" by reducing the period required for eligibility for parole from 15 years to 10 years.[37]

By the end of 1958, all Japanese war criminals were released from prison and politically rehabilitated. Hashimoto Kingor, Hata Shunroku, Minami Jir, and Oka Takazumi were all released on parole in 1954. Araki Sadao, Hiranuma Kiichir, Hoshino Naoki, Kaya Okinori, Kido Kichi, shima Hiroshi, Shimada Shigetar, and Suzuki Teiichi were released on parole in 1955. Sat Kenry, whom manyincluding Judge Rlingregarded as the one least deserving of imprisonment, was not granted parole until March 1956, the last of the Class A Japanese war criminals to be released. With the concurrence of a majority of the powers represented on the tribunal, the Japanese government announced on April 7, 1957, that the last ten major Japanese war criminals who had previously been paroled were granted clemency and were to be regarded henceforth as unconditionally free.

In 1978 the kami of 1,068 convicted war criminals, including 14 convicted Class-A war criminals were secretly enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.[38] Those enshrined include Hideki Tj, Kenji Doihara, Iwane Matsui, Heitar Kimura, Kki Hirota, Seishir Itagaki, Akira Mut, Yosuke Matsuoka, Osami Nagano, Toshio Shiratori, Kiichir Hiranuma, Kuniaki Koiso and Yoshijir Umezu.[39] Since 1985, visits made by Japanese government officials to the Shrine have aroused protests in China and South Korea.

Arnold Brackman, who had covered the trials for United Press International, wrote The Other Nuremberg: The Untold Story of the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, a rebuttal to charges that the trial had been "victors' justice"; this rebuttal was published posthumously in 1987.[40]

In a survey of 3,000 Japanese people conducted by Asahi News as the 60th anniversary approached in 2006, 70% of those questioned were unaware of the details of the trials, a figure that rose to 90% for those in the 2029 age group. Some 76% of the people polled recognized a degree of aggression on Japan's part during the war, while only 7% believed it was a war strictly for self-defense.[41]

A South Korean government commission cleared 83 of the 148 Koreans convicted by the Allies of war crimes during World War II. The commission ruled that the Koreans, who were categorized as Class B and Class C war criminals, were in fact victims of Japanese imperialism.[42]

Some time before the situation emerged about his expected accession to the Chrysanthemum Throne at the end of April 2019, some degree of concern was voiced by current Crown Prince Naruhito on the occasion of his 55th birthday in February 2015, about how Japanese history in regards to its World War II involvement would be remembered by his future subjects; as Naruhito put it at that time: that it was "important to look back on the past humbly and correctly", in reference to Japan's role in World War II-era war crimes, and that he was concerned about the ongoing need to, in his own words: "correctly pass down tragic experiences and the history behind Japan to the generations who have no direct knowledge of the war, at the time memories of the war are about to fade".[43]

MacArthur appointed a panel of 11 judges, nine from the nations that signed the Instrument of Surrender.

The famous legal scholar Roscoe Pound was also apparently favourably disposed to replacing John P. Higgins as a judge but an appointment did not eventuate.[45]

The chief prosecutor, Joseph B. Keenan of the United States, was appointed by President Harry S. Truman.

Twenty-eight defendants were charged, mostly military officers and government officials.

Follow this link:

International Military Tribunal for the Far East - Wikipedia

Select Page ::