Podcasts about Dutch

4/8. The Dodo and the Legacy of Extinction — Steven Moss — Moss examines the Dodo as the iconic symbol of species extinction, despite extinction being conceptually incomprehensible to contemporary observers when the species disappeared from Mauritius. Moss explains that the Dodo, having evolved flightless on a predator-free island, was exterminated within 80 years by introduced species including cats, rats, and dogs transported by Dutch sailors. Mossdocuments that early museum Dodo specimens were frequently fabricated because scientists fundamentally disbelieved that an entire species could vanish. Moss notes that the Dodo's tragic extinction subsequently inspired modern conservationists, including Professor Carl Jones, who successfully rescued the Mauritius Kestrel employing innovative techniques including forced double clutching reproduction protocols. 1800

Learn more about the podcast hereLearn more about Give Him Fifteen hereSupport the show

‣ Book Your COMPLEMENTARY CONSULATION and CALORIE CALCULATION call:- how much & what to eat

Send Zorba a message!Zorba's thoughts on recent efforts by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to link autism to common immunizations.Zorba mentions a Dutch study that found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Here is that study:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/(Recorded Nov 30 2025)Support the showProduction, edit, and music by Karl Christenson Send your question to Dr. Zorba (he loves to help!): Phone: 608-492-9292 (call anytime) Email: askdoctorzorba@gmail.com Web: www.doctorzorba.org Stay well!

Today is a little different...I'm pulling back the curtain on what's really happening inside your body during this stage of life—and what most women are never told. If you're in your 40s (or even your late 30s) and you've wondered, "Is this perimenopause… or is something actually wrong with me?" this conversation is for you. As I've moved into my forties myself, and having worked with hundreds of women in this phase, I've become even more aware of how much confusion and noise surrounds this transition. Perimenopause has almost become a buzzword, but very few women understand what it truly is, how long it can last, or why two women the same age can have completely different experiences. I share my own reflections—the way I think about aging, how I look at my life in five-year chapters, and what I want the next decades to look like—not from fear, but from clarity. Inside this episode, I take you behind the scenes of what's happening hormonally: why menopause is defined as a full 12 months without a cycle, what perimenopause actually means, and why your hormone levels don't simply "step down" in a neat little staircase (even though I wish it worked that way!). Instead, it's more like a roller coaster—one that affects mood, energy, weight, sleep, and stress far more than most people realize. And here's the part most women never hear: sometimes what feels like perimenopause isn't perimenopause at all. It's adrenal fatigue. It's stress. It's chronic under-fueling. It's a testosterone drop from years of dieting. It's nutrient deficiencies—like the woman I talk about in this episode who had no idea she was severely B12 deficient until we tested. These things mimic perimenopause almost perfectly, and if you don't know what you're looking at, you can't fix it. That's why I also walk through the kind of testing that actually gives answers—specifically DUTCH testing—and why it's so valuable in understanding estrogen metabolism, progesterone patterns, cortisol, stress response, nutrient status, and more. When you see the full picture, you stop guessing… and you finally know how to support your body through this phase of life. If you've been feeling stuck, confused, or like your body has changed faster than your habits have, this episode will help you reconnect the dots. Because yes—your hormones are shifting. Yes—your needs are changing. But this transition is not something to fear. It's something to understand, so you can move through it feeling grounded, supported, and at home in your body again. If this episode resonated, you'll want to join my mini podcast series, Perimenopause: What it is, What it's not, and What you can do about it This free, short-form series goes even deeper into: • the real signs of perimenopause • the symptoms that aren't perimenopause (but often get blamed on it) • why so many women are dismissed or misdiagnosed • what your hormones should be doing in your 40s • how adrenal function plays a bigger role than anyone tells you • the testing that brings all the answers into one place • practical steps to support your metabolism, mood, and energy right now If you want clarity—real clarity—on where you are in the transition and what your body is asking for, click the link and get immediate access. Listen to the FREE Perimenopause Mini Series

If you've been told you have poor egg quality, you might feel like your options are limited or that your body isn't capable of what you want most. In this episode, 5 Tips to Get Pregnant Even with Poor Egg Quality, we break down what egg quality really means, what affects it, and how to support your fertility through a functional-fertility lens. You'll learn practical, research-informed strategies that influence the environment where your eggs mature and develop. You'll learn: What poor egg quality actually means and why it's about cellular function, not the number of eggs How oxidative stress, thyroid issues, inflammation, toxin exposure, and blood sugar imbalances affect egg development The top functional strategies to support mitochondrial energy, hormone communication, and ovulation How gut health, minerals, detoxification, and nervous system regulation impact egg and embryo quality Research-backed mind–body approaches shown to improve pregnancy outcomes in IVF and natural conception This episode is especially for you if: You've been told you have poor egg quality, low AMH, or high FSH and want to understand what's actually behind those numbers You've had failed IVF cycles or early losses and want to know what else you can do to influence your outcome You want a whole body, functional fertility approach that supports egg development, mitochondrial health, and hormone communication Sarah Clark is the founder of Fab Fertile Inc. and the host of Get Pregnant Naturally. Her team specializes in functional approaches for low AMH, high FSH, diminished ovarian reserve, premature ovarian insufficiency, recurrent miscarriage and helping couples prepare their bodies for pregnancy success naturally or with IVF. Next Steps in Your Fertility Journey Subscribe to Get Pregnant Naturally for evidence-based guidance on functional fertility, and share this episode with anyone on their fertility journey. Not sure where to start? Download our most popular guide:  Ultimate Guide to Getting Pregnant This Year If You Have Low AMH/High FSH it breaks everything down step by step to help you understand your options and take action For personalized support to improve pregnancy success, book a call here. --- Timestamps 00:00 – What Poor Egg Quality Really Means Understanding how oxidative stress, thyroid imbalance, inflammation, mitochondrial issues, and chronic stress affect egg development. 01:42 – Why Functional Fertility Testing Changes Outcomes How deeper testing like GI MAP, DUTCH, and nutrient panels uncovers what IVF and basic labs often miss. 03:20 – Success Story: Improving Egg Quality with Hashimoto's and Low AMH A real case of transforming egg health after being told IVF was the only option. 04:08 – Mitochondrial Support for Better Egg Development Key nutrients like CoQ10, omega 3s, B vitamins, magnesium, and antioxidant rich foods that influence egg energy and embryo potential. 05:04 – Why Fasting, Keto, and Undereating Lower Fertility How shaky blood sugar, cortisol spikes, long fasting windows, and restrictive diets impact ovulation and hormone balance. 07:00 – Blood Sugar, Protein Targets, and Egg Free Breakfast Ideas Optimal A1C ranges, how to stabilize blood sugar, and how protein supports hormone communication and egg maturation. 08:40 – Reducing Inflammation and Daily Toxin Exposure Plastics, fragrances, water filtration, and anti inflammatory eating patterns that support healthy follicles. 09:50 – Functional Lab Testing to Personalize Your Fertility Plan Why combining GI MAP, food sensitivities, mineral testing, and mycotoxin screening gives a clearer picture of egg quality barriers. 13:10 – Thyroid, Adrenals, Liver, and Key Nutrients for Fertility How TSH, ferritin, vitamin D, homocysteine, cortisol patterns, and estrogen detox impact egg and embryo quality. 19:00 – The Mind Body Connection and Research Behind IVF Success What the Domar studies and HRV research show about stress, cortisol, and improving ovarian function. 22:10 – The 90 Day Egg Development Window and IVF Readiness Why creating a low inflammation, nutrient rich environment improves egg quality and IVF response. --- Resources

In September 2025 the Dutch government announced that it would return to Indonesia the fossilized remains of the famous ‘Java Man', the first known example of an early species of human, homo erectus. The remains had been uncovered by a Dutch archaeologist in 1891-2 during the colonial period and taken to the Netherlands. In fact, Southeast Asia has a special place in the history of human evolution. Charles Higham's Early Southeast Asia: From the First Humans to the First Civilizations (River Books and NUS Press, 2025), covers almost two million years of history, from the appearance of the first human species to the flourishing of the civilisation of Angkor. Recent discoveries and new dating technologies are revealing remarkable new insights into the region's early history. We are coming to a much better understanding of the chronology of human settlement in Southeast Asia, the development of socially stratified societies, urbanization, the expansion of overseas trade, and the rise of the first states. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Transcriptie: https://www.eenbeetjenederlands.nl/podcast/volkshuisvestingSteun de podcast! https://petjeaf.com/eenbeetjenederlandsAflevering 81: VolkshuisvestingWonen is een grondrecht in Nederland, iedereen heeft recht op een dak boven zijn hoofd. Een goed dak, dat niet lekt en niet op beschimmelde muren staat. Het is de taak van de overheid om te zorgen dat er genoeg woningen zijn, die van goede kwaliteit zijn en in een buurt staan waar het fijn is om te wonen. Aan het begin van de twintigste eeuw was dat nog heel anders. We gaan deze aflevering kijken hoe de overheid is gaan zorgen voor goede huizen voor de bevolking. Zoals we dat in het Nederlands noemen: volkshuisvesting.Een Beetje NederlandsDe podcast voor iedereen die beter Nederlands wil leren luisteren! Voor mensen op niveau B1/B2. Afleveringen over allerlei onderwerpen in duidelijk en helder gesproken Nederlands. Iedere aflevering heeft een transcriptie om mee te lezen. Leer met deze podcast Een Beetje Nederlands!Learn Dutch with this podcast for intermediate learners (level B1/B2). This podcast lets you listen to a range of different subjects in clear and slowly spoken Dutch. Every episode comes with a free transcript on the website. Learn a little Dutch with Een Beetje Nederlands!

Send Zorba a message!Zorba's thoughts on recent efforts by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to link autism to common immunizations.Zorba mentions a Dutch study that found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Here is that study:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/(Recorded Nov 30 2025)Support the showProduction, edit, and music by Karl Christenson Send your question to Dr. Zorba (he loves to help!): Phone: 608-492-9292 (call anytime) Email: askdoctorzorba@gmail.com Web: www.doctorzorba.org Stay well!

In September 2025 the Dutch government announced that it would return to Indonesia the fossilized remains of the famous ‘Java Man', the first known example of an early species of human, homo erectus. The remains had been uncovered by a Dutch archaeologist in 1891-2 during the colonial period and taken to the Netherlands. In fact, Southeast Asia has a special place in the history of human evolution. Charles Higham's Early Southeast Asia: From the First Humans to the First Civilizations (River Books and NUS Press, 2025), covers almost two million years of history, from the appearance of the first human species to the flourishing of the civilisation of Angkor. Recent discoveries and new dating technologies are revealing remarkable new insights into the region's early history. We are coming to a much better understanding of the chronology of human settlement in Southeast Asia, the development of socially stratified societies, urbanization, the expansion of overseas trade, and the rise of the first states. Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

In September 2025 the Dutch government announced that it would return to Indonesia the fossilized remains of the famous ‘Java Man', the first known example of an early species of human, homo erectus. The remains had been uncovered by a Dutch archaeologist in 1891-2 during the colonial period and taken to the Netherlands. In fact, Southeast Asia has a special place in the history of human evolution. Charles Higham's Early Southeast Asia: From the First Humans to the First Civilizations (River Books and NUS Press, 2025), covers almost two million years of history, from the appearance of the first human species to the flourishing of the civilisation of Angkor. Recent discoveries and new dating technologies are revealing remarkable new insights into the region's early history. We are coming to a much better understanding of the chronology of human settlement in Southeast Asia, the development of socially stratified societies, urbanization, the expansion of overseas trade, and the rise of the first states. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/archaeology

Introduction: Humble Yourself: 4 Truths to Help You (1 Corinthians 4:1–13) Only GOD'S OPINION of me matters. (1 Cor 4:3–5) I've RECEIVED all that I HAVE. (1 Cor 4:6–8) God wants to SHOW everyone how I SUFFER. (1 Cor 4:9–13a) John 15:20 – Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you... 1 Peter 2:21–23 – For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. The WORLD thinks I'm SCUM. (1 Cor 4:13b) Sermon Notes (PDF): BLANKHint: Highlight blanks above for answers! Small Group DiscussionRead 1 Corinthians 4:1-13What was your big take-away from this passage / message?Paul is once again admonishing them on their divisiveness over “who is the best minister”. Why do you think there is so much content on this subject in 1 Corinthians?How would you define humility? Why does the Bible say that you must “humble yourself”, i.e., that job is on you to do?In 1 Cor 4:6, Paul tells them not to “go beyond what is written”? What specifically does he mean by that? How does this principle apply to Bible study in general?BreakoutPray for one another. AUDIO TRANSCRIPT Good morning. My name is Jeff and let me tell you a little bit about myself.That's such an interesting thing, isn't it? Like, let me tell you a little bit about myself.Or when you ask somebody, "Hey, hey, tell me about yourself." It's an interesting thingbecause the first thing that comes out of their mouths is the thing that they want to be knownas, right? Or known for. Let me tell you a little bit about myself. Do you know where you see this a lot?Game shows, right? Let me tell you a little bit about myself. Or if you've ever watched Jeopardy,it's such a cringy moment. You know, they come back from commercial break and some of us remember AlexTrebek, who's the guy now? Ken Jennings, okay? Like, "All right, we're going to meet our contestantsand tell me a little bit about yourself." I'm always so fascinated with the way they identifythemselves, right? It's so fascinating because some are cool, but some are just really, reallyweird. And I'm like, "You're on TV and this is going to go to syndication and this is going to beseen by millions and this is what you came up with." You know what I'm talking about? Like, youknow, this is our challenger Bill. Tell us about yourself. And Bill's like, "Yeah, one time I showedup to work and I had my pants on backwards." "Oh, what'd you do?" "Well, I just kind of stepped intothe bathroom and turned him around." I was like, "Okay. All right, let's meet Glenda." And I'm like,"What was that? Let me tell you a little bit about myself. How do you want to be known?"Well, I was thinking about that a lot this past week as we get to 1 Corinthians chapter 4,because if the Apostle Paul was on Jeopardy and the host says, "All right, well, tell us a littlebit about yourself, Paul." I think we know exactly what he'd say, because it's here in 1 Corinthianschapter 4. Look at the first couple of verses. He says, "This is how one should regard usas servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is requiredof stewards that they be found trustworthy." Tell us a little bit about yourself, Paul. He goes,"Okay, I'm a slave of Jesus Christ." Actually, this word for servant in the Greek is "the lowest slave,"like bottom rank slave. And then he says, "Stewards, what's a steward?" Well, in those days,wealthy people would have someone who was like their house manager. They were in charge ofdistribution and spending and inventory. And you know who got that job? It was one of the slaves,still a slave. Why is he saying this? Well, we've seen throughout 1 Corinthians, the issue wasall of this exalting leaders, putting Paul and Apollo, Sisyphus up on pedestals and all thesefactions. And Paul here in 1 Corinthians is saying, "Look, look, look, you're regarding us as worldchangers. You're regarding us as these elite Christians. You're regarding us as celebritychurch planners." And Paul here is like, "Ah, here is how you should regard us."I'm a slave. That's it. I'm a slave.They had this terrible problem exalting the ministers, and it resulted in them exaltingthemselves. We've seen that. The pride with their alignment, like, "Yeah, I'm one of Paul's guys."Oh, yeah, that's nothing. I'm one of Apollo's guys. And they were proud of their alignment,and they had disdain towards others. Like, "Oh, you must be one of those Paul people."Paul here is saying, "Why are you making so much of us? We're just slaves. All we're trying to dois be trustworthy." That's it. We saw back in chapter, I'm sorry, verse 18, rather, in chapter 3,look back there. Paul says, "Let no one deceive himself."We are so self-deceived. And Paul's like, "Oh, Corinthians, you think you're so wise. You thinkyou have it all figured out. You think you're on the right team. You're so full of pride."Again, that's the issue. You looked down to verse 21 in chapter 3. Pastor Taylor covered this lastweek. He says, "So let no one boast in men." That shouldn't be happening. Not Paul, not Apollo's,not Jeff, not Taylor, not your favorite podcast or YouTube's preacher. We shouldn't be exalting anyone.And when we get to this section here in chapter 4, here's what we're going to see. Paul is giving atrue biblical assessment of himself. And he tells the Corinthians, "Look, you have to takean honest assessment of who we are, and, Corinthians, you have to take an honest assessment of yourselves."So here in this passage, Paul's going to be serving up some humble pie. All right? So,strap on your helmet. This isn't going to be a very comfortable message, because Paul's like, "Hey,stop with the pride. Stop exalting people. Stop exalting yourselves. Here's a reality check. Andharvest, we need a reality check." Because it's real easy for us to point to the Corinthians and belike, "Wow, look at all the pride they have. Look at all the problems they have." That's...Pride is in every one of us problem. You realize that. Every single human has a problem with pride,has a problem with self-exaltation. And it's real easy to do that in a church identity. It was forthe Corinthians, and it's easy for a harvest Bible chapel to begin to exalt ourselves.We can look at some of the nonsense that's happening around us in other churches ororganizations that call themselves churches. And it'd be real easy for us to say, "Well,we're the only ones that are faithful. We are more mature than the other Christians.I don't know what their problem is, but I follow this guy or I listen to this guy.That means I'm one of the smart ones. I'm one of the enlightened ones." Andit's real easy to get on the path of pride.That's what we're going to see in this passage of Bible telling us to humble ourselves.Like, "Hey, hey, knock it off. Stop thinking so much of yourself.You've got to humble yourself." You know, so much in God's Word, we see things that the Holy Spiritdoes in us and through us. Yes, but from what I've studied in God's Word, the command to humbleyourself, that's on you. And that'd be a whole other sermon series, but you and I are commanded.We are commanded to humble ourselves so we don't get carried away in our pride.Because humility is the number one characteristic that God's looking for in people. You're not goingto come to Jesus unless you're humble. You're not going to live a victorious Christian lifeunless you're humble. You're not going to have a fruitful ministry unless you're humble. If you'regoing to be humble, it's on you. So on your outline, I want you to jot some things down.Humble yourself. You're like, "Well, how do I do that?" Paul's like, "Well,here's four things that will help you do that." All right. So I hope you had a good Thanksgivingand I hope you're not too full because you're about to have four slices of humble pie.And I don't feel bad at all because I've had to eat this all week. All right.So pray for me and I'll pray for you. All right. Just pause for a second. Please pray for meas I pray for you. Father in heaven, as we come to your Word, let us not be deceiving ourselves.Every single one of us have this drive to put the spotlight on us, to make much of us,to think too much of ourselves. And Father, this passageis certainly going to give us the attitude that you've called us to have.Father, I pray through the wisdom of your Word, by the power of your Holy Spirit,that you would give us the faith to make the choices that we need to make, to humble ourselvesso we can see the greatness of Jesus Christ manifest in our lives.We pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Humble yourself. Here's four truths that will help you.These are four statements that Paul made about himself and that we would commend to you tomake about yourself. Number one, only God's opinion of me matters. Only God's opinion of me matters.Look at verse 3. Paul says, "But with me, it is a very small thing that I should be judged by youor by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself." Now, quick review when we talk aboutjudge, that's like everybody's favorite verse in the Bible. "Don't judge, don't judge." It'severybody's favorite because they don't understand it. Judging does not mean like, "Hey, don't callme out on sin or you're judging me." That's not what that means. Judging doesn't mean that like,"I can be a jerk and I can't care what other people think of me because of my jerking. Just don't callme out." That's not what judging means at all. Actually, this word for judge in the Greek couldbe translated cross-examined. He's talking about people, listen, he's talking about people judgingyour walk with Christ. That's what he's talking about. Judging your, as he mentioned in verse 2,judging your trustworthiness. Some Bibles say faithful or faithfulness. That's what he's talkingabout. People judging your faithfulness, your trustworthiness. And well, what does that mean toyou, Paul? He says, "Well, that's a very small thing." And in the Greek, do you know what thatmeans? That means the smallest. Your opinion of my spiritual walk does not matter for bad or for good.It doesn't. Here's what I mean. After service, if I was a guest receptionand you walk by and you're like, "Jeff, I think you're a bad pastor."Like, well, sorry, I feel that way, but your opinion doesn't matter. And right now, there's some ofyou that are like, "Yes, I can get on board with that." Your opinion doesn't matter.That's not really my main concern, though. You know what the bigger danger is?It's the guy that walks your guest reception and says, "Jeff, I think you're a great pastor."That's the bigger danger, because then that stuff can start going to your head.Right? You can start to think, "You know what? Yeah, they're right. I am pretty awesome.They nailed it. Come back. Tell me more."But the reality is for bad or for good, the opinion doesn't matter.And that's where there's a danger. I've been talking about this with our ministry team andour conference speakers of these conferences coming up.Yeah, people's opinion of your trustworthiness, your faithfulness, doesn't matter good or bad.But watch out for the compliments, because they're much harder to dismiss becausethey're much easier to go to my head. Look at verse 4. Paul says, "For I'm not aware of anythingagainst myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me."See, Paul says, "What other people think of me doesn't really matter.Neither does what I even think of myself." It doesn't matter either.Right? You need to have the funeral.I realize I'm probably not as great as my grandma thinks I am.And I'm probably not as horrible as my critics think I am.Either way, it doesn't matter. Because a slave only cares about one thing.That's pleasing his master. Look at verse 5. He goes on,"For therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comeswho will bring delight to things now hidden in darkness, and will disclose the purposes of theheart, then each one will receive his commendation from God." Okay, here's what he's driving at.At the end of the day, there's only one opinion that matters. Who's is it?God's, right? That's it. All that matters is what God thinks of me. He's going to make the final judgments.On your heart. Listen, this verse should knock every single one of us down a peg.Because you see what God's word is telling us? God sees what you do. Yes, yes, he does. Butmuch deeper than that. God sees why you do what you do. Your motives, your thoughts, what no oneelse knows, everything that you do in the dark, God is going to drag it to the light. Understandit with God. There are no secrets. You might have secrets from your family, you might have secretsfrom your spouse, you might have secrets from your boss, you might have secrets from your parents,but you do not have any secrets from God. So are you pretending? Are you pretending in yourwalk with Christ? Well, you might fool me, but it doesn't matter. You're an open book to God,and he's going to judge. Are you sincere? Like, look, I'm not perfect, but I'm sincere. I amsincerely seeking to know and honor the Lord. Jeff, I really am seeking to know the Lord.That's great because the Bible says someday you're going to receive your commendation.As far as humbling yourself, my friends, you will never humble yourself until you get to the placewhere only God's opinion of you matters. You've got to get there.Number two, not only do I need to reckon with only God's opinion of me matters. Number two,write this one down. I've received all that I have. I've received all that I have.Verse six, he says, "I have applied all these things to myself and apollos for your benefit,brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written,that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." There is a lot going on inthat verse. All right, let's break it down here because this is so crucial in so many ways. Firstof all, he says, "I've applied all these things to me and apollos for your benefit." You're like,"I've applied what things?" Everything so far that he's been saying about pride and humility,all of this stuff. He goes, "I'm applying all of this to apollos and I for you." In other words,look, all this stuff that he's talking about, this isn't just a preacher thing and it's not just achurch member thing. This stuff about pride and humility, this is an all of us thing.You get that? He says, "Excuse me, we all need to learn not to go beyond what is written."Like, what does that mean? Listen, this is a principle that carries over in everything.You need to learn that you must not, excuse me, you must not go beyond what the Bible says.You must not go beyond what the Bible says.Like, well, what's he talking about? Here's his point. He's telling the Corinthians and he's tellingus harvests because they were exalting others and they had disdain for others and Paul's like,"No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You need to view people only the way the Bible describes people."That's what he's saying. You need to view people only as the Bible describes. That's it.How does the Bible describe people? Every single one of us were born with a sin nature. We inheritedthat from Adam. The Bible says Adam brought sin into the world and he passed it on to his kids,he passed it on to his kids and he passed it on to us. We were born with a sin nature. We arerebellious against God by birth and by choice and we deserve hell. That's what the Bible says aboutpeople. But Jesus came, God in the flesh came, he died on the cross to take away our sins. Herose from the dead to give us the promise of eternal life and he has commanded us to turn from our sinand to believe in him. And when we do, the Bible says that you are born again. When you do the HolySpirit, God's Spirit Himself comes and empowers you to be who God called you to be. And every singleperson who is saved is saved that way. Spoiler alert. If you're going to heaven, you're going to hearthe same testimony a lot. Like, how'd you get here? Jesus! Look, how'd you get here? Jesus! I'mgoing to go ask this lady, how'd you get here? Jesus, you're going to hear that not a lot. You'regoing to hear that exclusively. Paul's point here is, look, you guys are all messed up aboutexalting people. Look, you need to have a biblical perspective of who we are. Don't go beyond that.Or, did you see that at the end of the verse? If you do, you will start exalting yourself, right?He says, you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. Go beyond what the Bible says,you're going to start having pride. You're going to start to think that you're better than others.And then Paul gives them the Dutch uncle. Look at verse 7.He says, he has three questions. Paul says, "For who sees anything different in you?"Like, we're all the same. The Bible describes this is who man is. And he goes,"Who sees anything different in you?" Like, what, you're something different?You're something special? You're a little snowflake?Like, all you're like, "I know what the Bible says, but I'm different. I'm special. Grandmathinks I'm special." He says, "Who sees anything different in you?" Like, what makes you thinkyou're so special? Right? Next question. What do you have that you do not receive?Get back to that in a second. What's that question, Marinette?What is it that you're in possession of that wasn't given to you?All right? Then he drives it home with this third question. He goes, "If then you received it,why do you boast as if you did not receive it?"Paul's like, "Why are you so fully yourselves? Anything and everything about you,you received that." I mean, think about that. Just think about that for a minute.That's true physically, right? Everything about you physically, you received thatgenetically from your parents.You know, occasionally, I'll meet somebody or whatever, and they're like, "How old are you?"I'm like, "Well, I'm 50." And people say, "Well, you look young for your age."And I say, "Have you been to the eye doctor lately?" No, I don't say that. I don't say that.I just smile and say thank you, or like, you know, I got good genes from my mom. But you know what I'mthinking when people say that? Like, that's very nice of you to say, but I contributed nothing to that.Like, this is what I got. That's just what I got. I received this. You're like, "I'm sorry." Well,I received this. This is what I got. This is what was given to me.You're like, "Well, doesn't that upset you?" It doesn't matter how I feel about it. This is what I got.This is the shade of my skin. This is as tall as I'm going to get. But that's true for you.Everything you have was given to you. But I don't really think that's Paul's mainpoint here. I think mainly he was talking spiritually, right? Everything that I havespiritually has been given to me. Salvation? How is a gift from God? God gave me that.What about spiritual giftedness? Where did I get that?The Holy Spirit. God gave me a spiritual gift. He gave you a spiritual gift that was given. That'swhy it's called a spiritual gift. He gave it to you, right? Oh, by the way, your talentsare given to you by God. You know, the Bible says those are given to you by God.You're natural, what we call natural talents. The Bible says those were given to you by God.Look that up. It's in Exodus.Everything about you has been given to you from God directly or from God through your parents.And you're like, not me. I work hard.Who gave you the ability to work hard?You see, why are you acting like you earned anything?And then Paul gets sarcastic with them. Look at verse 8.Obviously, dripping with sarcasm here, he goes, "Already, you have all you want.Already, you become rich. Without us, you would have become kings."That you did reign so that we might share the rule with you.You see the sarcasm? He's condemning their pride. He's like, "Oh, oh, I'm so sorry. I didn't realizethat you were these spiritually elite and wise people. I didn't realize that youattained a level of spirituality all by yourselves. You didn't need us, Madam President.Oh, I beg your pardon for thinking different."What Paul's doing here is he's pulling them back down to earth. He's like, "You guys think you're sosuperior with your pride. Knock it off. Get off of your high horse. Stop it."Because everything you have has been given to you. How in the world can you boast about that?You know, just imagine this scenario. Imagine that five of our kids from Harvest Academy,imagine I gave them each a quarter. Like, "No, don't spend it all in one place."But I gave five kids a quarter. And as you're walking out church, you see the five of those kids.Those five kids are sitting at a table up here by Harvest Academy. And you stop and listen for asecond and they're all bragging. And one kid's like, "I got a quarter. I got a quarter. Lookhow awesome I am. I have a quarter." And then the little girl beside him is like, "I got a quarter.You think you're great. I got a quarter. I'm awesome. I got a quarter." And then the next kid's like,"I got a quarter." And like, wouldn't you be like, "What are you guys bragging about? Like, Jeff justgave you all a quarter. Like, how does that... Why are you so boastful?" And that's what Paul's sayinghere to the Corinthians. You're like a bunch of kids bragging because somebody gave each a quarter.Knock it off. We're all equal in God's eyes. And equal does not mean the same, but equal does meanequal. You're never going to humble yourself until you get to the place where you recognizeevery single thing that you have was given to you. All right? Humble yourself and here'sfour truths that will help you. Number three, this is a hard truth. All right?Number three is God wants to show everyone how I suffer.God wants to show everyone how I suffer. Pick up in verse 9. Paul says, "For I thinkthat God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death,because we have become a spectacle to the world to angels and to men." Paul says,"God put us on display." He says, "We're like the lowest people on the earth." You see the picturethere? Paul says, "You know what we're like? We're like men on death row being escorted to the electricchair while TV cameras all around recording us for the entire world to turn on the TV and watch us."Like, hey, look, there they go. Off to be killed. Look at them. Everybody watch.He says, "That's how God put us on display."And you see in verse 10, Paul gets back into some more sarcasm.He says, "We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong.You are held in honor, but we in disrepute."What's he talking about here? It's more sarcasm.See what Paul's saying? Paul's like, "We're out here suffering serving the Lord. We're out hereactually suffering and you're sitting in your little pews patting yourselves on the back."Like, what's going on? Like, well, suffering how? How are you suffering, Paul? Well, he tells usto the present hour, we hunger and thirst. We are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless.And we labor working with our own hands.What is there to brag about again?Paul's reminding them the following Christ means suffering.I don't really care what the health and wealth church down in the street says about that.And I don't really care what the prosperity preacher on TV says about that.All I care is what the Bible says about that. And do you know what the Bible says?The Bible says if you follow Christ, you are going to suffer.Jesus himself said this, John 15.20. Jesus said, "Remember the word that I said to you,a servant is not greater than his master." Jesus said that a bunch.A servant is not greater than his master. What are you saying, Lord? If they persecuted me,they will also persecute you. See what Jesus is saying?God allowed his only begotten Son to suffer. So you think as an adopted child of God thatyou're exempt from that? You think that because you're adopted that you get a pass on suffering?Listen, God doesn't keep you from suffering. He puts you on display in suffering.Why would He do that? Why in the world would God do that? Are you telling methat God is allowing me to suffer so everybody can watch me suffer? That's what He said.Like why would He do that? He tells us.Continuing verse 12 here, He says, "When reviled, we bless. When persecuted,we endure. When slandered, we entreat."So why in the world would God lead us to suffering?So God can show everyone who's watching how we suffer.So He talks here about being reviled and persecuted and slandered. Have you everseen worldly people react to those things all the time? Right? What does the world do whenthey're reviled or persecuted or slandered? The world reactions are on display everywhere.It's retaliation. It's temper tantrums. I'll get even with you. You can't do this to me.It's pity parties. And oh, what was me? And that's how the world reacts. Listen,God wants you to walk through the same kinds of suffering so that you can exhibit the life ofChrist. Do you realize how awesome this is? That God is going to allow you to suffer so the worldcan watch, so God can point to you and say, "Look at how my people suffer." Oh, you see how the worldsuffers and how they retaliate and how they're bitter and how they're angry. And look at my people.When they suffer, they reflect the character of my son.Look at my people. When they're reviled, they turn around and they look for ways to bless thepeople that hate them. Do you see my people do that? God says, "Look at my people." When they'repersecuted, they don't pack it up. They don't boohoo. I quit. I can't take it anymore. Look at my people.When my people are persecuted, they endure. They are not going to give up.God says, "Look at my people." When they're slandered,they don't slander back. They don't hate the people that speak negatively about them. God says,"Look at what my people do." They entreat. They're trying to reach the people that hate them withthe gospel of my son. Look at my people. This guy sounds familiar, doesn't it?Probably because Peter said something almost identical. Look at 1 Peter chapter 2, verse 21.Look at this. Same thing. Exact same truth. For to this, you have been called because Christalso suffered for you, leaving you an example so that you might fall in His steps.Here's the example. Jesus committed no sin. Neither was deceit found in His mouth.When He was reviled, He did not revile in return. When He suffered, He did not threaten,but continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly.You're going to suffer. The only real question is, how are you going to suffer?Meaning, what is going to be your attitude during your suffering?You're going to lash out because your pride was hurt? You're going to humble yourselfand show them the example that Jesus gave you.But you'll never humble yourself until you understand that you are called to respond tosuffering like Jesus. One more slice of humble pie, are you full?You're like, you know what, Pastor Jeff, I think I'm just the right amount of humble.Can we sing and get out of here? There's one more.Number four, something to tell yourself when you start to think that you're so important.Number four, the world thinks I'm scum.Look at the last part of verse 13. We have becomeand are still like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things.Yeah, we're scum. We're garbage. You know that. We are garbage people.To the lost, they think our message is foolishness. You realize that.You realize that to the lost, they would come in here and hear what we're doing,see what we're doing, and they would say, literally, what a bunch of morons.Look, if you're here for a little ego boost, I'd just like to remind you what the Bible says,you're trash. We're all just trash in the world's eyes.You know, when I was a kid, my dad used to say that he had this little saying that he said allthe time. And as a kid, I never understood what it meant. It was this, anytime somebody was actinguntowardly, somebody was acting like a hog or insulting you or being cruel towards you orspeaking perversely or anytime somebody was acting like that, my dad would just say,well, you got to consider the source. I never knew what that meant until I became an adult. Now I'mOh, I get what he's saying now. And I think that little saying of dad certainly applies here.It's like, hey, hey, you know, the world thinks you're scum.Now consider the source. The brilliant world crucified Jesus Christ.This world who was giving their opinion of me took God in the flesh and publicly executedhim in the most humiliating and painful way. All they think I'm scum, huh? Well,I guess I should just consider the source. You're never going to be popular with the world. If youfollow Christ, you're never going to be popular with the world. It's not going to happen. Theythink you're scum. And the truth is, I'm actually much worse than they think I am.I am. My sin is so bad it took the blood of the spotless Son of God to wash my sin away.That must mean my sin was pretty bad.So it takes us back to point one, right? God's opinion is really the only one that mattersanyways. But you're never going to humble yourself until you're okay with the world regarding youas scum. All right. So if our worship team would make their way back to the platform,I just want to leave you with this. If you're ever a contestant on jeopardy,not likely for most of us, or you start to think that you're pretty important,which is actually very likely for all of us, I'm going to give you your speech.When someone says, "So, tell me a little bit about yourself. If you want to be biblical,here's your speech." Like, my name is, I'm only here to please God. Everything I have has been givento me. God wants me to suffer so that the world can see Jesus. And the world thinks I'm scum.Tell me a little bit about yourself. Let's pray. Father in heaven, I just ask again that you woulduse your word to humble all of us. Our sin is so self-exalting, and we start tothink that we have things figured out, or we reached a level that other people should aspire towhen your word says that we should humble ourselves. Father, remind us of these truthsthat someday we're going to stand before you, and on that day,we will learn the truth that it is only your opinion that means anything.Increase our faith, Father. Give us the drive to humble ourselves. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.

In September 2025 the Dutch government announced that it would return to Indonesia the fossilized remains of the famous ‘Java Man', the first known example of an early species of human, homo erectus. The remains had been uncovered by a Dutch archaeologist in 1891-2 during the colonial period and taken to the Netherlands. In fact, Southeast Asia has a special place in the history of human evolution. Charles Higham's Early Southeast Asia: From the First Humans to the First Civilizations (River Books and NUS Press, 2025), covers almost two million years of history, from the appearance of the first human species to the flourishing of the civilisation of Angkor. Recent discoveries and new dating technologies are revealing remarkable new insights into the region's early history. We are coming to a much better understanding of the chronology of human settlement in Southeast Asia, the development of socially stratified societies, urbanization, the expansion of overseas trade, and the rise of the first states. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A rare mix from the Dutch artist also known as A Made Up Sound, 2562 and ex_libris. What makes something sound like Dave Huismans? His music carries a signature you can't quite name, a tension which has defined every chapter of his career. And unlike most producers, he really does operate in phases. A man of many monikers, Huismans resurfaced this year after nearly a decade away with two new aliases, ex_libris and In Transit. His latest ventures, though sonically a world away from the work under his most recognised projects, share the same slipperiness, intricacy and disregard for tidy genre borders. "Naiveté and a lack of prejudice… a really wide-eyed type of open-mindedness," Huismans once told RBMA, recalling his youthful forays into dance music and that ethos is alive and well on RA.1015. Huismans's second RA Mix is as equally thrilling as his first one 15 years ago, traversing a map of influences from Madlib and Gyrofield to Prince and Autechre. There's no shortage of atmosphere (Losoul's "Sunbeams and the Rain" is one particular highlight), but the throughline is groove: soulful, vocal deep house into driving techy depths, walls of glitchy drums and frantic percussion into guitar funk. "I got carried away a bit," Huismans says of RA.1015 below. And that's no bad thing. It sounds like someone enjoying himself again, and perhaps, after letting a few old skins fall away, Huismans is ready to shift shape once more. And if it's anything like the last time, a lot of good music awaits. Find the tracklist and interview at ra.co/podcast/1034 @2562amadeupsound

SHOW 11-28-25 CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR 1963   The Genius of Early Photography: Nadar, Daguerre, and Dangerous Chemistry — Anika Burgess — Burgess details the risky and adventurous origins of photography as a practical medium. She examines Nadar, a visionary figure who deployed a giant balloon named Léon to fund experiments in heavier-than-air flight, having previously conducted innovative photographic expeditions into Paris's catacombs. Burgess also recounts Daguerre's 1839 presentation of the daguerreotype—a remarkably realistic, singular image created using hazardous chemicals including iodine and mercury, which posed significant occupational and health risks to early practitioners. Early Photography's Scientific Reach: Lunar and Underwater Photography — Anika Burgess — Burgessexplores early photography's critical scientific applications, noting that François Arago predicted the daguerreotype would enable detailed mapping of the lunar surface. Early astrophotographers encountered formidable technical challenges involving distance calculations, celestial motion, and insufficient ambient light. James Nasmyth controversially photographed plaster casts and molds of the lunar surface, which contemporary observers praised as scientifically truthful. Burgess also highlights Louis Boutan, who persistently developed practical underwater photography using pressurized hard-hat diving equipment, establishing a new scientific capability. Photography and Social Justice: Riis, Watkins, and the Question of Truth — Anika Burgess — Burgessdemonstrates how photography became a transformative tool for social advocacy and reform. Jacob Riis, a newspaper journalist documenting Manhattan's tenement poverty, employed flash powder ignited in cast-iron frying pans to photograph the grim, overcrowded interior conditions of slums for his landmark book How the Other Half Lives, frequently without obtaining subject consent. Burgess also discusses Carleton Watkins, who transported over 2,000 pounds of large-format photographic equipment to Yosemite Valley, producing images that proved instrumental in securing federal preservation and protection of the landscape. From X-Rays to Motion Pictures: Expanding the Photographic Medium — Anika Burgess — Burgess traces the expansion of photographic technology beyond conventional image capture. She examines Alice Austin'sintimate and playful photographs documenting her social circle with candid authenticity. The discovery of X-raysby Wilhelm Röntgen was rapidly branded as "the new photography" or "shadow photography," adopted swiftly for both entertainment and medical diagnostic applications despite practitioners possessing no understanding of severe radiation hazards. Burgess concludes with Paul Martin's candid street photography using concealed cameras hidden within top hats and Eadweard Muybridge's sequential motion studies, which directly enabled the invention of motion pictures. Angelica Schuyler: Albany, Elopement, and the Start of the Revolution — Molly Beer — Beer discusses her book Angelica, focusing on Angelica Schuyler Church, daughter of General Philip Schuyler. Her mother, Katherine, oversaw construction of their Albany residence, The Pastures, a substantial estate reflecting family prominence. Angelica received a rigorous education consistent with Dutch cultural traditions emphasizing women's financial and business literacy for family management. In 1777, during Burgoyne's invasion of New York, Angelica profoundly disappointed her mother by eloping with John Carter, an Englishman she found intellectually engaging and cosmopolitan. Angelica and the Founders: The Revolution and the Hamilton Connection — Molly Beer — Beer examines Angelica's pivotal role during the American Revolution, including her service alongside Rochambeau's army, traveling to Yorktown shortly after delivering her third child. Her sister Elizabeth ("Betsy") married Alexander Hamilton, who deliberately married into the prominent Schuyler family to elevate his social standing and political prospects. Following the war, Angelica's eldest son, Philip, founded the town of Angelica in western New York, the community where Beer herself was subsequently raised. Angelica in Europe: John Church, London Society, and Diplomacy — Molly Beer — Following ratification of the peace treaty, Angelica and her husband sailed to Paris to collect outstanding payments owed by the Frenchgovernment. John Carter leveraged the wartime amnesty to settle accumulated debts, reconcile with his estranged family, and legally adopt the name John Barker Church. Angelica relocated to London's elegant Mayfairneighborhood, where she established herself as a prominent American patriot. She strategically positioned herself at the intersection of cultural and diplomatic negotiations, entertaining influential figures including Lafayette and the Adamses, while exerting subtle influence over American diplomatic representatives toward negotiated peace. Angelica's Later Life: Return, Tragedy, and Founding Angelica, NY — Molly Beer — Angelica visited the United States for President Washington's 1789 inauguration but quickly returned to London, disappointed that the nascent republic fell short o Woke Capitalism: Origins, ESG, DEI, and the Power of BlackRock — Charles Gasparino — Gasparinotraces the origins of "woke capitalism," detailing how corporate America shareholder returns toward stakeholder capitalism models. L The Flashpoints of Woke Capitalism: Occupy Wall Street and the SEC — Charles Gasparino — Gasparinoidentifies the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing progressive populist backlash, including the Occupy Wall Streetencampment at Zuccotti Park, as pivotal flashpoints accelerating corporate woke adoption.... Disney and ESPN: Running a Blue Company in a Red State — Charles Gasparino — Gasparino analyzes the radicalization of the Walt Disney Company, noting that CEO Bob Iger brought progressive cultural affinities while the company.... Go Woke, Go Broke: The Financial Backlash and Corporate Retreat — Charles Gasparino — Gasparinoreports that woke capitalism is experiencing significant financial retrenchment as corporations suffer bottom-line consequences... Freedom's Forge: FDR, WWII Mobilization, and Bill Knudsen — Arthur Herman — Herman discusses his book Freedom's Forge, detailing the extraordinary challenge FDR confronted in May 1940 to prepare America for modern industrial warfare. The preeminent industrialist summoned for this task was Bill Knudsen, CEO of General Motors. Knudsen, a Danish immigrant and former Ford executive, possessed unparalleled expertise in flexible mass production—the capacity to modify production line processes continuously while maintaining output. Knudsen applied these revolutionary manufacturing techniques to transform the American automobile industry into an "Arsenal of Democracy," producing critical war materiel including military trucks and armored tanks. Henry Kaiser: The Builder of Liberty Ships — Arthur Herman — Herman profiles Henry Kaiser, the second transformative figure in Freedom's Forge. Kaiser, a road construction entrepreneur who had previously coordinated monumental infrastructure projects including the Boulder Dam, demonstrated relentless commitment to ambitious thinking and delivery ahead of schedule and under budget constraints. In late 1940, Kaiser persuaded both Britishand American governments to contract him to construct "throwaway freighters"—Liberty ships—despite possessing no prior shipbuilding experience. Between 1941 and 1945, Kaiser successfully built 2,710 Liberty ships, fundamentally enabling Allied logistics and supply operations. The B-29 Superfortress and the Battle of Omaha — Arthur Herman — Herman recounts the genesis of the B-29 Superfortress bomber, conceived after General Hap Arnold consulted with Charles Lindbergh in 1939. The B-29 represented the ultimate expression of air supremacy doctrine, demanding revolutionary technologies including pressurized crew cabins and remote-controlled gun turrets that did not yet exist. Bill Knudsen directed the program, overcoming severe delays and persistent technical deficiencies. Knudsen won the "Battle of Omaha" by insisting that aircraft be extensively modified after assembly to achieve operational flight status, thereby integrating a massive female industrial workforce into B-29 production processes. Lessons from WWII: Unleashing Private Enterprise — Arthur Herman — Herman explores the strategic tension during WWII between New Deal administrators favoring centralized government command and industrialists prioritizing private sector innovation and operational flexibility. FDR and Knudsen learned from the disastrous centralized economic control failures of WWI, choosing instead to permit American private enterprise to "determine production methodologies and develop solutions for urgent national requirements." The fundamental secret to Allied victory was unleashing private sector dynamism, entrepreneurial expertise, and competitive energy. Herman draws contemporary parallels, arguing that modern defense strategy must replicate this model, contrasting bureaucratic NASA operations with innovative private enterprises including SpaceX.

Get your learning gifts for the month of December 2025

Is Georginio Wijnaldum the most underrated genius of his generation? In this episode, we look past the stats to analyze the "Art of the Invisible Game" perfected by the Dutch maestro. We break down Gini's evolution from the engine room of Jürgen Klopp's Liverpool—reliving those seismic goals against Barcelona—to his current reign as the tactical general and captain of Al-Ettifaq. Tune in to discover how this midfield metronome uses high football IQ and selfless positioning to control matches, proving that the most important player on the pitch is often the one you least expect. Georginio Wijnaldum, Liverpool FC, Al-Ettifaq, Saudi Pro League, football tactics

PREVIEW — Molly Beer — Angelica Schuyler, Alexander Hamilton, and the Schuyler Family in the Revolution. Beerdiscusses her book examining Angelica Schuyler, an exceptionally well-born young Dutch woman and Revolutionary War hero. Angelica, the older sister, became the trusted confidante whom Alexander Hamilton—who married her younger sister Elizabeth—regularly consulted on matters of strategy and politics. Hamilton, frustrated by his failure to secure promotion despite his marriage into the prominent Schuyler family, ultimately resigned his position as General Washington's secretary. 1789

Angelica Schuyler: Albany, Elopement, and the Start of the Revolution — Molly Beer — Beer discusses her book Angelica, focusing on Angelica Schuyler Church, daughter of General Philip Schuyler. Her mother, Katherine, oversaw construction of their Albany residence, The Pastures, a substantial estate reflecting family prominence. Angelica received a rigorous education consistent with Dutch cultural traditions emphasizing women's financial and business literacy for family management. In 1777, during Burgoyne's invasion of New York, Angelica profoundly disappointed her mother by eloping with John Carter, an Englishman she found intellectually engaging and cosmopolitan. 1758 FORT TICONDEROGA

Learn more about the podcast hereLearn more about Give Him Fifteen hereSupport the show

Prepare to clutch your pumpkin spice latte a little tighter, friend, because today we're diving into the chaotic, deadly, and surprisingly dramatic history of spice. Yes — that cozy sprinkle on your latte once launched wars, bankrupted empires, fueled colonization, and led to one of the worst genocides of the 1600s. Delicious! In this episode, we explore how everyday seasonings like nutmeg, cinnamon, and black pepper sparked global conflict and reshaped world history. From the pepper-obsessed Portuguese to the Dutch colonizers who committed atrocities in the Banda Islands, the spice trade was anything but fragrant. You'll learn: Why black pepper was basically 17th-century Bitcoin How European explorers weren't “discovering” anything except their own incompetence The wild propaganda Arabic traders used (giant birds! flying snakes!) The brutal rise of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) The horrific Banda Islands genocide and the 4-year Nutmeg War How smuggling spice plants undermined European monopolies And the absolutely iconic Buddha Tooth Bamboozle — the ultimate “you thought!” moment in colonial history This episode is a chaotic cocktail of world history, women's history, weird history, humor, and righteous rage. If you never look at your spice cabinet the same again… mission accomplished. Call to Action: If you love a spicy historical deep dive, share the episode or leave a rating — we're almost at our goal! Patreon  Instagram  Website TikTok Merch Store YouTube Key Words history of spice spice trade history deadly spice trade nutmeg war Banda Islands genocide Dutch East India Company VOC history history of nutmeg history of black pepper colonialism and spices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Good morning. This week saw the beginning of this year's Reith lectures in which the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman is calling for a moral revolution. This annual lecture series is the chance to hear a distinguished person speak philosophically on a subject which concerns us all. The lectures are named after the BBC's founder John Reith who believed it was the BBC's mission not only to inform and entertain but also to educate the public, to help us gain not only knowledge but wisdom. I remember an inspiring series by Atul Gawande on the Future of Medicine, in which he invited us to confront our mortality, and then there was Mark Carney's series on Financial Value and Human Value. The lectures which had the most impact on me were by Onora O' Neill, in 2002, and was called A Question of Trust. She discussed why it was that our society, both as individuals and institutions had become so lacking in trust. Though she was speaking over twenty years ago the issue has become even more urgent today. Only yesterday on this programme, the Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride was lamenting the lack of trust in our institutions. Onora O' Neill argued that our problem with trust was that we had come to put our faith not in each other but in processes. Analysing problems, constructing rules, monitoring behaviour, keeping records. All this is important of course, especially if you're flying a plane or working in an operating theatre. But trust, trust, involves something different which goes beyond paperwork. It's a kind of faith in the integrity of others, the belief that others are capable of behaving with more than their own interests in mind. It is much more risky, of course, and can be betrayed; but equally paperwork can be falsified and conversations denied. Trust at best is a virtue, and it is demanding of ourselves and others. Often it is when others instinctively trust us that we are inspired to trust others. On Sunday the Church begins the season of Advent, a time of looking forward in hope for the coming of Christ. Much of the imagery of the Advent season calls on the experience of Israel in exile as described by the Old Testament prophets. The prophets speak of restoration and salvation. Everything depends on trust, trust in God and a rejection of false gods, trust that a good life is possible in a homeland which is a real home. The hoped for restoration will put things right between people and nations, between friends and neighbours and between humanity and God. Trust ultimately is an essential ingredient of wisdom, the quality that John Reith hoped that his new broadcasting organisation would come to bestow on its audience.

On this Thanksgiving edition Mike Pesca serves up two revitalized classics, starting with Henry Winkler (The Fonz), who joins to discuss his Hank Zipser books, the unique Dutch font designed for dyslexic readers, and his tenure-granting plan to design the world's first consumer jet pack. Then, we revisit a conversation with counterterrorism expert Clint Watts, breaking down his viral congressional testimony advising senators to "follow the trail of dead Russians" while analyzing the distinction between a "Manchurian Candidate" and a "useful idiot", the Russian doctrine that "there is no truth", and why the term "fake news" has become a catch-all for "anything I don't want to hear". Produced by Corey Wara Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack

Learn more about the podcast hereLearn more about Give Him Fifteen hereSupport the show

‣ Book Your COMPLEMENTARY CONSULATION and CALORIE CALCULATION call:- how much & what to eat

Are you over 40 and feeling like your body's not responding the way it used to—despite doing "everything right"? Fatigue, stubborn weight, restless sleep, and slow recovery aren't signs of failure… they're signs of adaptation. In this powerful deep-dive episode, Coach Debbie Potts unpacks the real root causes behind midlife metabolic slowdown—through the lens of mitochondria, detox pathways, hormones, and nervous system balance. You'll learn how to read your body's feedback, retrain your biology, and build your Future You from the inside out. Drawing on the latest research from Dr. Robert Naviaux, Ari Whitten, and leading functional medicine labs, Debbie guides you step-by-step through:

HOF Bert "Be Home" Blyleven inducted in 2011 - the first Dutch born player to receive the honor. 287 Wins 3701 K's Unmatched curveball

This episode focuses on Liverpool's shambolic 4–1 defeat to PSV, the tactical and structural failings that allowed the Dutch side to dominate at Anfield, and the growing feeling that the team has reached its lowest point under Arne Slot. Dave and David analyse the broken press, the lack of build-up structure, the players' collapse in confidence, and the alarming sight of a manager visibly shaken on the touchline. The discussion centres on why this performance has intensified doubts over Slott's future and why Liverpool are spiralling rather than stabilising. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

learn about Aruba

Learn more about the podcast hereLearn more about Give Him Fifteen hereSupport the show

Rod Khleif is a Dutch immigrant, multifamily investor, and high-performance mentor who has owned over 2,000 single-family homes and thousands of apartment units across the U.S. He hosts “Lifetime Cash Flow Through Real Estate Investing,” one of the largest commercial real estate podcasts, where he teaches investors how to use multifamily, senior housing, and other commercial assets to create long-term wealth. After watching his net worth jump $17 million in 2006 and then losing roughly $50 million in the 2008–09 crash, Rod rebuilt by focusing on mindset, goal setting, and identity work—turning that “seminar” into a blueprint he now shares with students worldwide.​ On this episode we talk about: Rod's journey from broke Dutch immigrant kid in Denver to watching his mom buy a $30,000 rental that appreciated $20,000 and realizing real estate could change his life. Getting his broker's license at 18, struggling for two years, then jumping to over $100k in income after discovering the power of mindset, psychology, and the right mentor. Building a massive portfolio of single-family and multifamily properties, seeing his net worth rise by $17 million in one year, and then losing around $50 million in the 2008 crash. How Rod reframed that loss as a “$50 million seminar,” refused to let real estate become his identity, and used aggressive goal setting and identity statements to rebuild. The current state of commercial real estate, including distressed multifamily deals due to interest rate shocks, emerging opportunity in senior housing/assisted living, and why he's cautious on office but bullish on other asset classes. Top 3 Takeaways Your business is just a vehicle—if it fails, you are not a failure; separating identity from outcomes is essential if you want to recover from big losses and take bigger swings. Clear, emotionally charged goals combined with “I am” identity statements and massive action create the momentum needed to push through fear, limiting beliefs, and comfort zones. Right now is a rare window for prepared buyers in commercial real estate and small business acquisitions, with distressed multifamily assets and retiring Baby Boomer owners creating outsized opportunities. Notable Quotes "They're only failures if you don't get back up—otherwise they're just very expensive seminars." "Anything you put the words ‘I am' in front of becomes an identity statement, and your life will rise or fall to match it." "Don't fear failure; fear regret—because not living the life you're capable of is the real nightmare." Connect with Rod Khleif: Rodkhleif.com Rodspodcast.com

Murph continues with undercover expert Dutch McAlpin to pull back the curtain on one of the most dangerous jobs in law enforcement—going undercover inside violent criminal networks. Dutch shares raw, unfiltered stories from high-risk operations, including tense encounters with cartels, organized crime groups, and traffickers who wouldn't hesitate to kill an undercover agent caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Steve and Dutch dive deep into the mindset and adaptability required to survive undercover work, emphasizing why integrity is the foundation of public trust and why every operation—big or small—carries massive stakes. They discuss the personal costs of a law-enforcement life, the strain on families, and the quiet battles that don't make headlines.

Today's post was taken from the book Relationship Authority, Authentic Leadership, written by Clay Nash. You can learn more about Clay at ClayNash.org.Learn more about the podcast hereLearn more about Give Him Fifteen hereSupport the show

Thanks to our Partners, NAPA Auto Care and NAPA TRACS Watch Full Video Episode Recorded Live at ASTA 2025, Dutch Silverstein delivers a powerful reframing of how the automotive industry can approach customer interaction—shifting from high-pressure sales tactics to a relationship-first model built on the idea that “People hate to be sold, yet they love to buy. Advocates, Not SalespeopleDutch's relationship-based shop model stands in stark contrast to transactional sales environments. No Salespeople:Dutch does not employ “salesmen,” he employs “advocates.”Role of an Advocate:Advocates collaborate with customers to understand what they want for their vehicle and their long-term plans, then help design solutions that support those goals.Eliminating Pressure:The shop enforces a strict “no pressure, ever” philosophy. There are no commissions, no sales quotas, no whiteboards, no competitive bonuses—removing any incentive that could create a conflict of interest. The episode also dives into several controversial but important topics: The need to revisittechnician licensing, with Dutch arguing current standards are “window dressing.”Theflat-rate paradox, especially when contrasted with the younger generation's desire for work-life balance rather than solely financial incentive.Determining anoptimal labor ratein a way that supports sustainability and talent retention. The TakeawayThe conversation reinforces that effective sales—better yet, advocacy—are rooted in trust. When customers feel supported rather than sold to, they embrace their decisions with confidence. This shift from selling to serving creates a healthier, more sustainable customer experience and business model. https://astausa.org/pages/asta-expo Thanks to our Partners, NAPA Auto Care and NAPA TRACS Learn more about NAPA Auto Care and the benefits of being part of the NAPA family by visiting https://www.napaonline.com/en/auto-care NAPA TRACS will move your shop into the SMS fast lane with onsite training and six days a week of support and local representation. Find NAPA TRACS on the Web at http://napatracs.com/ Connect with the Podcast: - Follow on Facebook:

Hello everyone, a big thanks to all of you who joined the patreon and voted for this to be the next episode, you all are awesome. This is a part 2 about Hirohito's responsibility during the wars of 1931-1945, so if you have not heard part 1, perhaps go do so, or maybe you just don't care about 1931-1940 and just want to hear about the 1941-1945 period, hell by all means enjoy.   So last time we kind of left it on a bit of a dramatic cliff hanger. I spoke about Emperor Hirohito's involvement in what was called at the time the “China Incident”. It was not an official declared war until December of 1941. We left off in 1940, Hirohito was struggling with a situation of juggling two things: 1) how the hell to finally end the China War 2) how to do it without receiving horrible ramifications from the international world. On July 22nd of 1940, Konoe was back and formed a second cabinet. Notably General Hideki Tojo went from vice to army Minister during this time. If you guys ever want a podcast on Hideki Tojo, let me know, he is one rather bizarre figure that's for sure. Konoe tackled his job by holding an imperial HQ government liaison conference. For 90 minutes everyone worked on a new national policy designed to exploit the international situation, IE: Germany bulldozing europe.  The result was a document on national policy dated July 27th. It shifted focus to the “southern area” IE: southeast asia and the Pacific if the China war did not end quickly. Its basis was to exploit the foreign nations that had their hands full in europe, France, Britain and the Netherlands. It called for an invasion of French Indochina to establish bases to launch assaults against the Dutch East Indies for natural resources if diplomatic means failed. It acknowledged if the Dutch East Indies were seized through military means, Japan would also seek to fight Britain, but not the US, instead Japan would prepare for a possible war with the Americans. To all of this Hirohito approved. The army also kept pressuring its desire to ally with Germany. Throughout 1939-1940 Hirohito rejected this idea, not because of any ideological differences, it was because of Germans anti aggression pact with the USSR. If Japan were to ally to Germany, Hirohito wanted it to be mutually to fight the USSR. The Navy likewise opposed allying to Germany because they believed it would force Britain and the US to increase their aid to Chiang Kai-shek.   However the Blitzkrieg changed everything. Everyone was shocked at how well Germany was doing. Prince Chichibu repeatedly argued with Hirohito to change his mind over the alliance idea. Then suddenly the Navy changed their mind and began favoring an alliance. This changed came about in June of 1940 when the France fell. The Navy changed their mind based on a few factors, a major component was the belief if Germany and the USSR were allied, than at least Japan would not have to worry about the USSR and could focus on the pacific. Both the IJA and the IJN believed Hitler would soon take Britain and thus there was a huge desire to join the new international order on the winning side. A third factor was a new clause in negotiations with Germany and Japan, that if they allied Japan would not automatically be drawn into a war with Britain against her will. Some in the navy also believed perhaps Germany could help their diplomatic situation with the Americans. So the army and navy were now both demanding an alliance with Germany, it was all up to hirohito.    At an imperial briefing on June 19th of 1940, Hirohito asked chief of staff Prince Kan'in and the Army Minister Hata “At a time when peace will soon come in the European situation, will there be a deployment of troops to the Netherlands Indies and French Indochina?” Such as question revealed Hirohito's perception at the time that Germany was on the verge of victory and that he was gradually considering the deployment of troops in French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies as neither parent nation were in a position to defend their holdings. In regards to the China war, the Japanese sought to end leaks of materials getting into China from places like Hong Kong. Hirohito received reports indicated Britain would not accept closing the movement of materials into China via Hong Kong. The military acknowledged it would probably be required to invade Hong Kong and thus declare war on Britain. Upon hearing of this Hirohito remarked “Should that happen, I am sure America will use the method of an embargo, don't you agree?” To this his lord of the privy seal, Kido reassured him stating “the nation must be fully resolved to resist to proceed cautiously and not to be dragged into events precipitated by the overseas agencies”. Konoe's second cabinet resolved to end the China war, construct a new order in greater east asia and to complete war preparations as a national defense state. On July 27th at a liaison conference a document was adopted, affirming a course of advancing to the south and to ally with Germany. Japan would incorporate the Dutch East Indies, British Malaya and other resource rich areas of Southeast Asia into its new order while simultaneously bolstering its relationship with the Axis states. After hearing and reading everything, Hirohito sanctioned it all. Thus Hirohito had sanctioned the preliminary actions that would set Japan into a collision course with the US.   In September Japan began sending troops into northern French Indochina after concluding its Tripartite alliance with Germany and Italy. Now Hirohito was briefed beforehand by Army Minister Tojo and other chiefs of staff about securing bases in northern French indochina. Hirohito agreed to this under the belief acquiring such bases would stop more leaked materials going into China and thus contribute to the fall of Chongqing. But Hirohito also sanctioned it under the full knowledge it was preparing the Nanshin-ron advance and that carried a risk of going to war with Britain and by proxy the US. Naturally he wanted to thwart any war breaking out with the US by it seems his officials had convinced him they could manage most of their plans without aggravating the US.   On July 29th with the German offensive aimed at finishing off Britain, Hirohito summoned his chiefs and vice chiefs of staff to the imperial HQ. He began to question the prospects of war with the US. Prince Fushimi replied “[u]nless we complete our domestic preparations, particularly the preparation of our material resources, I do not think we should lightly start war even if there is a good opportunity to do so.” Hirohito then asked if  “the Army were planning to occupy points in India, Australia, and New Zealand.” But overall Hirohito seemed to be the most concerned about the US, Germany and the USSR. “Could Japan, obtain a victory in a naval battle with the United States as we once did in the Battle of the Japan Sea? . . . I heard that the United States will ban exports of oil and scrap iron [to Japan]. We can probably obtain oil from other sources, but don't you think we will have a problem with scrap iron?” In regards to the USSR “If a Japan-Soviet nonaggression treaty is made and we advance to the south, the navy will become the main actor. Has the army given thought to reducing the size of its forces in that case? . . . How do you assess the future national power of Germany? . . . Both Germany and the Soviet Union are untrustworthy countries. Don't you think there will be a problem if one of them betrays us and takes advantage of our exhaustion fighting the United States?I]t seems as though you people are thinking of implementing this plan by force because there is a good opportunity at this moment for resolving the southern problem even though some dangers are involved. . . . What does a good opportunity mean? [To this question Sawada replied: “For example, if a German landing in England commences.”] In that case wouldn't the United States move to aid Britain? . . . Well, I've heard enough. I take it, in short, that you people are trying to resolve the southern problem by availing yourselves of today's good opportunities.”   You can tell Hirohito understood the very real threat of an Anglo-American alliance and was very cautious. It seemed to Hirohito, that his officials were trying to take the limelight off the abysmal situation in China but emphasizing a southern advance. Well Americans response to the Japanese movement into northern French indochina was to see it as a direct threat. Something I have not paid much attention to was Hirohito's decision making being the direct result of trying to mediate between competing entities, ie: the IJA and IJN. At this point in time the IJA and IJN top officials had the power to simply stop governmental functions from occurring altogether whenever they were displeased with a decision. As you can imagine the IJA and IJN were also competing for resources and political power. Thus Hirohito spent a lot of time and effort trying to formulate decisions that at a minimum kept the governance going.    In the end Hirohito sanctioned Imperial HQ army order number 458, ordering the area army to begin the entry into French Indochina. Thus once again Hirohito sanctioned aggression aboard. America began what it called a “moral embargo” on aircraft parts, scrap iron and aviation gasoline. This was one of many gradual steps America took to incrementally sanction Japan, while aiding China to keep it bogged down. Japan's direct response was joining the Axis with a clause “to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if attacked by a power at present not involved in the European War or in the Sino-Japanese conflict”. This clause was designed specifically to check Britain and the US. Hirohito knew this was a turning point carrying the possibility of war with the US. Later he would blame some officials and even his brothers Chichibu and Takamatsu, but not his own actions sanctioning the Axis pact.    Speaking of his brothers, at this time Chichibu got severely ill with tuberculosis and as a result retired from active public life, now Prince Takamatsu stood as next regent. Thus Takamatsu would begin reading reports and advise Hirohito. Takamatsu like Chichibu approved the Tripartite Pact and found his brother Hirohito's performance lacking. Meanwhile Britain responded to the Tripartite pact by opening up the Burma road and America made a loan to Chiang Kai-shek.   The Soviets came to Japan for a neutrality pact and sweetened the deal by offering Soviet coal and oil concessions in North Sakhalin. Hirohito ratified the treaty on April 25th of 1941. 5 weeks later on June 5th, the Japanese ambassador to Berlin, General Oshima Hiroshi reported to Hirohito and the high command that Hitler was about to invade the Soviets. The Army high command sprang into action drafting plans to open a war with the Soviets while simultaneously advancing south into French Indochina. But many in the military also sought to wait until the time was ripe, and a rift emerged. Operation barbarossa commenced and on June 23rd the IJN high command gave their opinion that Japan should seize all military bases and airfields in southern French Indochina even at the risk of war with Britain and America. Can you say boy that escalated quickly?   There was obvious temptation to invade Siberia towards Lake Baikal, but at the same time the western powers were tightening sanctions on Japan, she needed resources. At this point Japan had been stuck in China for 4 years and 5 months, the army had expanded from 17 divisions totalling 250,000 men in july of 1937 to 51 divisions at 2.1 million men in December 8th of 1941. On July 2nd, 10 tens into Operation barbarossa, Konoe summoned an imperial conference to debate actions going forward. The consensus was that southern French Indochina needed to be taken and that it probably would not provoke the US going to war with Japan. Hirohito sanctioned it and on July 30th made a major operational intervention by advising General Sugiyama to build up forces in Manchukuo to prevent the Soviet Far Eastern Army.   Japan negotiated with Vichy France to allow Japanese troops to occupy southern parts of French Indochina. What was to be originally just 40,000 IJA forces turned into 185,000 and in response America increased sanctions and began preparing the Philippines for war. Roosevelt froze Japanese assets in the US on July 26th and by August the 1st a total embargo of oil and gasoline exports to Japan. Konoe's cabinet, the military high command, pretty much everyone was shocked by how harsh the economic sanctions were. Emperor Hirohito told Sugiyama to halt mobilizing forces in Manchukuo and the army basically dropped all plans of attacking the USSR. A month after the US oil embargo suddenly the army had changed its mind to go all in on the southern advance. Britain likewise began sanctions against Japan and both Britain and the US managed to convince the Dutch to follow suit by refusing to sell oil to Japan. The Dutch even took it a step further and followed Americans lead in freezing Japanese assets.    Konoe was in full panic mode, be believed his ambassador to washington was a moron and sought to go in person to speak to Roosevelt. At 11:40am on August 4th Konoe spoke to Hirohito about the plan, but Washington kept making up excuses prolonging any meeting from taking place. Meanwhile Washington was building up its navy, and the IJN were stressing, in the words of Admiral Takagai “As time passes and this situation continues, our empire will either be totally defeated or forced to fight a hopeless war. Therefore we should pursue war and diplomacy together. If there is no prospect of securing our final line of national survival by diplomatic negotiations, we must be resolved to fight.” Hirohito understood the predicament full well, that each day Japan was wasting its oil reserves, if they were to strike it had to be quickly.    On september 3rd at a liaison conference it was decided Japan was to prepare for a war against the US, UK and Netherlands while simultaneously pursuing diplomacy. If diplomacy failed by early October the decision for war would be made. Konoe presented everything to Hirohito on September 5th and requested an imperial conference on the matter. The most important decision of his life was about to be made.    Now take a second to feel the moment. Germany's invasion of the USSR was in its 6th week and not producing a decisive victory; Britain was still in the fight and the Japanese ambassador to London reported back Britain would allow Japan to maintain its great power status and exert influence in asia if they stayed out of the European War and “re-examined their current policy”. An olive branch. Hirohito had options is what I am arguing. He could stale things, he could mobilize units into Manchukuo to simply threaten the Soviet border, he could simply stay out of new wars, even it the China war would get worse, but try to profit from the situation in Europe. He could stop the southern advance, lose the chance to seize the resource in southeast asia, but perhaps the US, UK and Netherlands would lift some sanctions.   After speaking back and forth with Konoe while scolding Sugiyama here is a bit of their conversation:    Emperor: In the event we must finally open hostilities, will our operations have a probability of victory?  Sugiyama: Yes, they will.  Emperor: At the time of the China Incident, the army told me that we could achieve peace immediately after dealing them one blow with three divisions. Sugiyama, you were army minister at that time. . . .  Sugiyama: China is a vast area with many ways in and many ways out, and we met unexpectedly big difficulties. . . . [ellipses in original]  Emperor: Didn't I caution you each time about those matters? Sugiyama, are you lying to me? Nagano: If Your Majesty will grant me permission, I would like to make a statement.  Emperor: Go ahead.  Nagano: There is no 100 percent probability of victory for the troops stationed there. . . . Sun Tzu says that in war between states of similar strength, it is very difficult to calculate victory. Assume, however, there is a sick person and we leave him alone; he will definitely die. But if the doctor's diagnosis offers a seventy percent chance of survival, provided the patient is operated on, then don't you think one must try surgery? And if, after the surgery, the patient dies, one must say that was meant to be. This indeed is the situation we face today. . . . If we waste time, let the days pass, and are forced to fight after it it is too late to fight, then we won't be able to do a thing about it.  Emperor: All right, I understand. [He answered in a better mood.]  Konoe: Shall I make changes in tomorrow's agenda? How would you like me to go about it? Emperor: There is no need to change anything.   There is no need to change anything. Konoe grabbed Hirohito for a private audience afterwards and tried to get Hirohito to revise the outline, but Hirohito ignored this. Hirohito at that point could have stopped or at least slowed down the countdown to all out war. Hirohito instead did not want to displease the pro-war factions in his military, perhaps he saw them as a threat to his authority. Hirohito was not at all pleased with the policy plan. When he was shown in on september 5th, he looked extremely irritated and blew up on Sugiyama and the army high command as a whole. 20 minutes before the Imperial conference on September 6th, Hirohito spoke with his lord of the privy Kido and told him he was going to raise some questions at the meeting. Kido told him that it would be best to leave the questions at the very end, basically he was advising to allow for things to go through. Thus Hirohito sat through the meeting and sanction the preparations for war. Here is a conversation between Hirohito and the Chiefs of the general staff:   Emperor: You may go ahead and mobilize. But if the Konoe-Roosevelt talks go well, you'll stop, won't you?  Chief of the General Staff: Indeed, your majesty, we will.  Emperor: I will ask you one more time: Is there any possibility that the north [that is, the Soviet Union] may move against us while we are engaged in the south [emphasis added]?  Chief of the General Staff: I cannot say that will absolutely not occur. However, because of the season it is inconceivable that large forces will be able to attack us   Meanwhile Konoe's deadline to reach a diplomatic resolution with the US was fast approaching. On October 13th Hirohito told Kido “In the present situation there seems to be little hope for the Japan–U.S. negotiations. If hostilities erupt this time, I think I may have to issue a declaration of war.” The next day Konoe held his last cabinet meeting and Army minister Tojo took the lionshare of talking:   For the past six months, ever since April, the foreign minister has made painstaking efforts to adjust relations [with the United States.] Although I respect him for that, we remain deadlocked. . . . Our decision was “to start the war . . . if by early October we cannot thoroughly achieve our demands through negotiations.” Today is the fourteenth. . . . We are mobilizing hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Others are being moved from China and Manchuria, and we have requisitioned two million tons of ships, causing difficulties for many people. As I speak ships are en route to their destinations. I would not mind stopping them, and indeed would have to stop them, if there was a way for a diplomatic breakthrough. . . . The heart of the matter is the [imposition on us of] withdrawal [from Indochina and China]. ...If we yield to America's demands, it will destroy the fruits of the China Incident. Manchukuo will be endangered and our control of Korea undermined   And so Konoe resigned two days later, but before he did his last official action was to recommend Prince Higashikuni to succeed him, in fact he got Tojo to do the same. Prince Higashikuni was deemed capable of controlling both the Army and Navy. And what did Hirohito say to this? He said no, and appointed Hideki Tojo. Why? As going back to the beginning of this series, to protect the Kokutai. He did not want a member of the royal family to hold the seat as Prime Minister during a time when war might be declared, a war that Japan might lose, which would toss the responsibility onto the imperial house. It was a threat to the Kokutai. Hirohito chose Tojo because Tojo was 100% loyal subject to the emperor. Tojo was the perfect fall guy if one ever existed.    Between November 8-15th, Hirohito received a full rundown of the Pearl Harbor surprise attack plan and sanctioned it. The deadline to reach a diplomatic solution with the US was set for midnight December 1st.    Hirohito ever since the Mukden Incident had expressed fear that not taking warlike actions, not pumping up the kokutai or not suppressing dissent would jeopardize the imperial system of government and damage the imperial institution itself. For Hirohito domestic conflicts were more dangerous than external ones, because they carried the risk of eroding the monarchy. As the time approached for his finally decision on declaring war, Hirohito requested a last round of discussion. The carriers enroute to Pearl harbor departed on november 27th, while on December 1st, 19 leaders, the entire Tojo cabinet and Emperor met. Tojo pulled a rather cheeky maneuver, he reported the response from America, the famous Hull note by stating “the United States . . . has demanded that we withdraw troops from all of China [emphasis added],” but in fact, Hull had used only the word “China.” Hara asked “I would like to know,whether Manchukuo is included in the term ‘China'? Did our two ambassadors confirm this point?” Togo's reply to this was “However . . . the American proposal [early in the negotiations on] April 16 stated that they would recognize the state of Manchukuo, so Manchukuo would not be part of China. . . . On the other hand . . . there has been a change in their position . . . they look upon Chungking as the one and only legitimate regime, and . . . they want to destroy the Nanking regime, [so] they may retract what they have said previously” A nonsensical gibberish answer, intentionally done to make everyone think America did in fact include Manchukuo, thus forcing everyone to see the demands as impossible to comply with. Togo finished the meeting : “Once His Majesty decides to commence hostilities, we will all strive to meet our obligations to him, bring the government and the military ever closer together, resolve that the nation united will go on to victory, make an all-out effort to achieve our war aims, and set his majesty's mind at ease. I now adjourn the meeting.” Hirohito simply nodded. Sugiyama remarked that the emperor did not show the slightest sign of anxiety, in fact he looked like he was in a good mood.   Hirohito's naval aid Jo Eiichiro wrote minutes on the first day of the pacific war, recording the emperors actions. 4 A.M. (Japan time): Japan issued a final ultimatum to the United States. 3:30 A.M.: the Hawaiian surprise attack was successful. 5:30 A.M.: Singapore bombed. Great results. Air attacks on Davao, Guam, Wake. 7:10 A.M.: All the above was reported to the emperor. The American gunboat Wake was captured on the Shanghai front. The British gunboat Petrel was sunk. From 7:15 to 7:30 the chief of the Navy General Staff reported on the war situation. At 7:30 the prime minister informally reported to the emperor on the imperial rescript declaring war. (Cabinet meeting from 7 A.M.). At 7:35 the chief of the Army General Staff reported on the war situation. At 10:45 the emperor attended an emergency meeting of the privy council. At 11:00 A.M. the imperial rescript declaring war was promulgated. 11:40 A.M. Hirohito conferred with Kido for about twenty minutes.] At 2:00 P.M. the emperor summoned the army and navy ministers and bestowed an imperial rescript on them. The army minister, representing both services, replied to the emperor. [At 3:05 P.M. the emperor had a second meeting with Kido, lasting for about twenty minutes.] At 4:30 P.M. the chiefs of staff formally reported on the draft of the Tripartite (Germany-Italy-Japan) Military Pact. At 8:30 P.M. the chief of the Navy General Staff reported on the achievements of the Hawaii air attack. . . . Throughout the day the emperor wore his naval uniform and seemed to be in a splendid mood.   Hirohito believed Germany would win, thus if with their help he believed Japan could thwart off the US until a negotiated peace. Having made his choice, Hirohito devoted himself to presiding over and guiding the war to victory at all costs. He was a extremely cautious person, every single campaign he looked for what could go wrong, made worse case scenario predictions and was very suspicious of reports from his high officials. He was notably very harsh and critical on said high commanders. Although he did not visit the war theaters as did other commanders in chief, he exercised and controlled influence on theater operations, both in the planning and execution whenever he chose to do so. As was the same case with the China war before it, he issued the highest military orders of the Imperial HQ, performed audited conferences and led to decisions transmitted in his name. He received generals and admirals to the imperial palace who gave full reports of the battlefront. He visited bases, battleships, various army and naval headquarters. He inspected military schools, you know the full shebang.    After 26 months of war, the naval air force had lost 26,006 aircraft, nearly a third of its total power, thousands of veteran pilots were dead. Hundreds of thousands of tons of warship was sunk, the merchant and transport fleet was crippled. Late 1943 saw the Americans turning the initiative of the war, Japan was on the defensive. Guadalcanal had been the major turning point. During the staled battle for the philippines, Hirohito pressed upon Army chief of staff Sugiyama to increase troop strength to knock out Bataan. The problem persisted, on February 9th and 26th Hirohito pressed Sugiyama again about getting more troops to take Bataan.   Hirohito was confronted with the prisoner of war issue after the doolittle raid. When the pilots were caught, Togo initially opposed executions, but many in the IJA sought all 8 men executed. Hirohito chose to intervene and commuted the execution of 5 out of the 8. Why just 5, no one knows to this day, but its theorized it was to demonstrate his benevolence while simultaneously giving a bit of what the army wanted.    The CBI theater took the lionshare of his attention in 1942, he continuously pressed up Sugiyama when a final blow would be delivered against Chongqing. When the Midway disaster occurred, Hirohito was given a full report of what happened, but he chose to hid the extent of the loss from the IJA. In fact in response to the Guadalcanal campaign he was heard once asking “I wonder if this is not the start of the AmericanBritish counteroffensive?” He urged his commanders to increase offensive activities and to toss all weapons possible at the enemy, because Japan needed more time to secure its reserves of vital oil, rubber and iron. When he heard the first report of the Ichiki detachment being wiped out, he simply stated “I am sure it [Guadalcanal] can be held.” With numerous reports pouring in about the men dying from tropical disease and starvation, Hirohito kept demanding greater efforts from them. Hirohito continuously applied pressure on his naval and land commanders to recapture the island. On September 15th, November 5th and November 11th he called for more IJA troops and aircraft to be allocated to it. Sugiyama was nervous about sending more IJA pilots as they were inexperienced in transoceanic combat and he sought to reinforce the north china army to hit Chongqing. Hirohito demanded it a second time and Sugiyama replied the IJA had deployed its air power instead to New Guinea and Rabaul. Hirohito continuously hammered the issue despite the high level commanders disagreeing with it. By late november it was clear guadalcanal was a lost cause.    At an imperial HQ conference on December 31st of 1942, the chiefs of staff reported they would cancel the attempts to recapture guadalcanal. Hirohito sanctioned it but stated “It is unacceptable to just give up on capturing Guadalcanal. We must launch an offensive elsewhere.” Hirohito forced the issue and it was decided the new strategic points would be in the solomons north of New Georgia and the Stanley range on New Guinea. Hirohito in fact threatened not to authorize the withdrawal of men from Guadalcanal until such a plan was made. Hirohito would go on to oppose the withdrawal from the Munda airfield on New Georgia since it contradicted the new defensive line. As the defensive perimeter in the central and northern solomons was crumbling, Hirohito continued to demand the navy fight decisive battles to regain the initiative so ships could begin transports supplies to the countless soldiers trapped on islands without them. When Hirohito heard of the navy's failure to reinforce Lae on March 3rd he stated  “Then why didn't you change plans immediately and land at Madan? This is a failure, but it can teach us a good lesson and become a source of future success. Do this for me so I can have peace of mind for awhile.” “Do this for me” would become his signature message.    In August of 1943 as the fall of the solomons progressed, Hirohito lambasted “Isn't there someplace where we can strike the United States? . . . When and where on earth are you [people] ever going to put up a good fight? And when are you ever going to fight a decisive battle?Well, this time, after suffering all these defeats, why don't you study how not to let the Americans keep saying ‘We won! We won!'[emphasis added]”” Hirohito berated his chiefs of staff and in the face of mounting defeats he remained undismayed, rigidly self disciplined and aggressive as ever. When he received a report on September 21st of 1943 that the allies were heading for Finschhafen he replied “Being ready to defend isn't enough. We have to do the attacking.”   When the Americans destroyed the main naval anchorage at Truk forcing the navy to evacuate it, leaving behind numerous tanks, the dream of fighting one great decisive naval battle in the central pacific was over.    On February 21st of 1944, Hirohito took the unprecedented action to force Sugiyama to resign so Tojo could assume his position, alongside that of army minister and prime minister. He did this to end dissent. Hirohito and Tojo oversaw the haymaker attempts in 1944, like operation Ichi-go and the Imphal campaign fall into ruins. It looked like the Philippines, Taiwan, Okinawa, the Bonin islands and eventually the home islands would be invaded. When Saipan fell, the home islands had at last come into range of the dreaded B-29 Super flying fortresses. Hirohito had warned Tojo “If we ever lose Saipan, repeated air attacks on Tokyo will follow. No matter what it takes, we have to hold there.” For two days his chiefs of staff explained the dire situation on Saipan was hopeless, but Hirohito ignored their advice and ordered Admiral Shimada to recapture it, the first department of the navy general staff immediately poured themselves into the problem. Day and night they worked, until a draft plan was created on June 21st, 3 days later the combined fleet gave opposition. Tojo and Shimada formally reported to Hirohito the recapture plan needed to be canceled. Hirohito refused to accept the loss of Saipan and ordered his chief aide General Hasunuma to convene in his presence the board of field marshals and fleet admirals. They all met on the 25th, upon which they all unanimously stated the reports indicating Saipan was a lost cause were valid, Hirohito simply told them to put it in writing and he left the room.    Hirohito finally decided to withdraw his support of Tojo, allowing Tojo's numerous enemies to take down his cabinet on July 18th 1944. But Hirohito was undaunted in determination to steal victory from the allies. Imperial HQ on October 18th ordered a decisive naval battle and the battle of Leyte Gulf was it. After the war Hirohito would go on the record stating “Contrary to the views of the Army and Navy General Staffs, I agreed to the showdown battle of Leyte thinking that if we attacked at Leyte and America flinched, then we would probably be able to find room to negotiate.” This statement shows the facts as they were, Hirohito and his chiefs of staff forced the field commander, General Tomoyuki Yamashita to engage the American invasion force in a place Yamashita did not want to fight nor prepared adequate defenses. It was a horrible loss.   The Kamikaze attacks increased as Japan's desperation wore on. On new years day of 1945 Hirohito inspected the special last meal rations given to departing kamikaze units. Iwo Jima fell. Okinawa remained, and Hirohito lashed out “Is it because we failed to sink enemy transports that we've let the enemy get ashore? Isn't there any way to defend Okinawa from the landing enemy forces?”  On the second day of Okinawa's invasion Hirohito ordered a counter landing by the 32nd army and urged the navy to counterattack in every way possible. It was a horrible failure, it cost the lives of up to 120,000 Japanese combatants, 170,000 noncombatants. The Americans lost 12,500 killed and 33,000 wounded. An absolute bloodbath.    Konoe re-entered the stage writing to Hirohito pleading with him to order a surrender because from his perspective “The Soviet Union is Japan's biggest threat. Defeat was inevitable, but more to be feared than defeat was the destruction of the Kokutai. Sue quickly for peace, before a Communist revolution occurred that would make preservation of the kokutai impossible”. Hirohito was taken aback by this, as he shared his military's hope that the Soviets would help Japan reach a peace settlement. So he rejected the advice of Konoe. Hirohito remarked “If we hold out long enough in this war, we may be able to win, but what worries me is whether the nation will be able to endure it until then.” Then Japan's intelligence units reported the Soviets were going to break the neutrality pact and join the war once the Germans were done. Meanwhile Tokyo was turned to rubble on March 9th 1945 by 334 B-29's dropping firebombs, 40% of the capital was destroyed, up to 100,000 were dead. Hirohito remained undaunted. 60 Japanese cities were leveled by firebomb campaigns. Europe's war finished. Then the battle for Okinawa was lost, suddenly Hirohito began looking for ways to end the war.   On June 22nd Hirohito personally informed the supreme war leadership council his desire to see diplomatic maneuvers to end the war. A special envoy was sent to Moscow, while Hirohito publicly issued an imperial rescript ordering the nation “to smash the inordinate ambitions of the enemy nations and achieve the goals of the war”. B-29's began dropping leaflets with joint declarations issued by the US, UK and China requesting the citizens of Japan demand their government surrender. Prefectural governors, police chiefs and officers began submitting home ministry reports on the rapid deterioration of the nations spirit.   Germany signed the unconditional surrender documents on May 7th and 8th of 1945, Japan was alone. Newly installed President Truman declared on May 8th, Japan's surrender would not mean the extermination or enslavement of the Japanese people, but the unconditional surrender principles remained unaltered. The Japanese meanwhile were awaiting word from the Soviets. The Americans unleashed their first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th of 1945 killing up to 140,000 people. Then on August 8th the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and began an invasion of Manchuria. On August 9th the second atomic bomb hit Nagasaki killing around 40,000 people.   Thus began the surrender clock as I like to say. After the first atomic bomb, Hirohito said and did nothing about the surrender terms. Hirohito then authorized Togo to notify the world on August 10th that Japan would accept the allied terms of surrender with one condition “that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.” The next day, Secretary of State Byrnes replied by alluding to the subordination of the emperors authority to the supreme commander of the allied powers. It was ambiguous as hell. The Japanese leaders erupted into arguments, and on August 14th, Hirohito went before a microphone and recorded his capitulation announcement which aired on August 15th to all in Japan, they surrendered. Why did it take so long?   The peace talks between the Japanese and Soviets went on through June, July and early August. Japan offered the Soviets limited territorial concessions and they refused to accept the envoy on July 22nd because the Japanese were being too ambiguous in their terms. There was continuous back and forth between the intelligence of Moscow and Japan trying to figure out the stance of the other, but then Stalin heard about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, he was shocked and ordered an invasion of Manchuria in response. In the meantime the Japanese were tossing all sorts of concessions at Moscow, they stated they would allow Japanese to be used as forced laborers in Siberia, a form of reparation as it were, that they would demobilize the military and so on. The response was the invasion of Manchuria.    Hirohito knew prior to the bombing of Hiroshima that the cabinet was divided on accepting the Potsdam terms. Hirohito also knew he and he alone could unify governmental affairs and military command. Why then did he wait until the evening of August 9th to surrender?   The reality of the matter is its complicated, numerous variables at play, but let me try to pick at it. The people of japan under the firebomb campaigns were becoming hostile towards the military, the government and many began to criticize the emperor. Hirohito was given reports from the Home Ministry from governors and police chiefs all over Japan revealing people were speaking of the emperor as an incompetent leader who was responsible for worsening the war situation. Does that sound like a threat to the Kokutai? People were starving en masse, the atomic bomb is flashy, but what really was killing the Japanese, it was starvation. The home islands were blockaded and the sea approaches mined as pertaining to the optimally named “operation starvation”. Hirohito knew full well how bad his people were suffering but he did not surrender for so long.   After Hiroshima was bombed, Hirohito delayed for 2 days before telling Kido at 10am on August 9th “quickly control the situation, the Soviet Union has declared war and today began hostilities against us”. Now here is a piece of Hirohito's surrender proclamation to the citizens of Japan    “Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers... The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable ”.   Hirohito wanted to obfuscate the issue of accountability, to prevent expressions of strife and anger and to strengthen domestic unity around himself, to protect and raise the kokutai. Did you know there was a rescript of this proclamation that was made to the entire IJA and IJN? Yes Emperor Hirohito gave out two different proclamations for surrender, here is what the armed forces heard.   “ Now that the Soviet Union has entered the war against us, to continue . . . under the present conditions at home and abroad would only recklessly incur even more damage to ourselves and result in endangering the very foundation of the empire's existence. Therefore, even though enormous fighting spirit still exists in the Imperial Navy and Army, I am going to make peace with the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, as well as with Chungking, in order to maintain our glorious national polity”.   The proclamation does not speak of the atomic weapons, but emphasizes the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Hirohito was presented as a benevolent sage and an apolitical ruler that had ended the war. Hirohito sought to justify the surrender upon the bombs to the public, but did he believe so, did his armed forces believe so? People debate to this day why the surrender occurred, I love the fact there are two message offered because both are true. Hirohito's decision to surrender was based on numerous variables, the atomic bombs, the invasion of Manchuria by the soviets, but above all else, what really was important to the man, the emperor, the god? The kokutai. The Soviets were more of a threat to the kokutai, thus Hirohito jumped into the arms of the Americans. The language between the Americans and Japanese in the communications for unconditional surrender were ambiguous, but Hirohito and the high commanders knew there was zero chance of the kokutai surviving if the Soviets invaded Japan, perhaps the Americans would allow it to continue, which is just what they ended up doing. The entire purpose of this series would to emphasize how Hirohito definitely had a active role in the war of 1931-1945, he had numerous occasions where he could put the hammer down to stop the situation from escalating. But in the end when his back was against the wall, he did what he did to cling on to the Kokutai.   I shall leave you with this. On August 12th, as Hirohito came to inform the imperial family of his decision to surrender, Prince Asaka asked him whether the war would continue if the Kokutai could not be preserved, what do you think he said? “Of Course”. 

How can gratitude transform your perspective—even in the hardest times?In this Thanksgiving message, Jim Revelle, a chaplain serving Nussbaum Transportation through Corporate Chaplains of America, shares powerful stories of faith, resilience, and thankfulness.Jim begins with a personal account of his father's World War II experience—being rescued from a sinking ship after a kamikaze attack—and draws parallels to spiritual rescue and salvation. He also discusses his own practice of keeping a gratitude journal, filled with hundreds of daily entries throughout the year.The centerpiece of his message is the inspiring story of Betsy and Corrie Ten Boom, Dutch sisters imprisoned in Ravensbrück concentration camp for hiding Jews during WWII. Despite horrific conditions, including flea infestations in their barracks, the sisters chose to give thanks for everything—even the fleas. That gratitude ultimately protected their secret Bible study meetings from guard interference.Jim encourages listeners to find gratitude even in difficult circumstances, reminding us that God can work through challenges for greater purposes. He concludes with a heartfelt prayer for the Nussbaum community, emphasizing divine mercy, grace, and care for each individual.Press play to hear this uplifting message and discover how gratitude can change your life!FROM TODAY'S PODCAST• Guest: Jim Revelle, Corporate Chaplains of AmericaLET'S CONNECT• Visit us online at terminalexchange.org • Follow The Terminal Exchange on social media! • Facebook• Instagram • XABOUT NUSSBAUM Employee-Owned, Purpose Driven | Nussbaum is an industry-leader in over-the-road freight transportation. For more information on our award-winning services and top-paying driver careers, visit nussbaum.com or nussbaumjobs.com.

Peter Faiman's 1991 Thanksgiving odd-couple road comedy, DUTCH, is our feature presentation this week! Did John Hughes phone it in with this script? Why didn't Ed O'Neill have a bigger film career? Was Ethan Embry a road block to enjoying the movie? We ask all these questions and more! We also pick our Top 7 John Hughes Screenplays Not Directed By John Hughes in this week's Silver Screen 7!  Join our Patreon ($2.99/month) here linktr.ee/brokenvcr to watch the episodes LIVE in video form day/weeks early. Find us on Instagram @thebrokenvcr and follow us on LetterBoxd! Become a regular here at THE BROKEN VCR! 

Episode 1577: Jive Turkeys

This week we're going to share ideas for putting together advents, unique ideas, low cost or free holiday gift ideas, epic personalized gift ideas and neighborly gift ideas. And we'll also share our book report.   Thank you to this week's sponsor: 40% off your first month at Ritual.com/ABM   Adult Advent Ideas: Books Lipgloss Hair oil Dutch oven Water bottle Small treats T-shirt   Kid Advent Ideas: Reuse old toys Cookies Candy Snacks   Creative Gift Ideas: Watercolor post cards Fancy set of watercolors Journal   Low Cost (or free): Used book that you loved Pictures   Epic personalized gift ideas: Leather bound of their fave book CD player with CDs Record player with records Go on Etsy Jewerly Recipe engraved on cutting board Quilts Fancy food Snow outfit (for kids) Art   Neighborly gifts: Teachers - Have kids make cards with picture and money inside Jar of baking ingredients Free library   Book report Elsie: Piranesi by Suzanna Clark Emma: Apprentice to a Villain by Hannah Nicole Maehrer   You can support us by leaving us a couple of 5 star recipe reviews this week at abeautifulmess.com Have a topic idea for the podcast? Write in to us at podcast@abeautifulmess.com or leave us a voicemail at 417-893-0011.  

Murph sits down with Dutch McAlpin, a seasoned law enforcement officer with more than 20 years of boots-on-the-ground experience. Dutch takes us deep inside the world of small-town crime, narcotics investigations, corrections work, and real-life policing, sharing stories that are equal parts humorous, intense, and deeply human. From his humble beginnings in a small Iowa community to becoming a respected figure in patrol and narcotics enforcement, Dutch reveals the grit, danger, and emotional toll of police work—along with the camaraderie and purpose that keep heroes like him going. He explains how networking, community relationships, and trust can make or break an investigation, and why every cop—big city or small town—faces moments that test their courage, judgment, and resilience.

Today's post was taken from the book Relationship Authority, Authentic Leadership, written by Clay Nash. You can learn more about Clay at ClayNash.org.Learn more about the podcast hereLearn more about Give Him Fifteen hereSupport the show

‣ Book Your COMPLEMENTARY CONSULATION and CALORIE CALCULATION call:- how much & what to eat

In this episode, I'm breaking down exactly how specific herbs in our cycle-based tinctures support your hormones in a real, clinical way—not just "woo" or wishful thinking. We talk through five key herbs you'll find in my Estrogen support and progesterone-support tinctures—red clover, angelica, white peony, Vitex, and red raspberry leaf—and what they actually do in the body: How red clover helps your estrogen receptors work properly (without "adding more estrogen") so you can calm brain fog, mood swings, and night sweats. Why angelica and white peony are powerful blood- and yin-tonics that support your liver, improve hormone metabolism, and ease estrogen dominance symptoms like heavy bleeding and ragey PMS. How white peony and Vitex work on the luteal phase to support progesterone, stabilize your cycle, and improve PMS, sleep, and even fertility. Why red raspberry leaf is a true uterine tonic that supports cramping, irregular cycles, and overall uterine health. I share how these tinctures are used in a cycle-specific way (Estrogen days 1–14, progesterone support days 15–28), why tincture form is so much more potent and adjustable than a one-size-fits-all capsule, and how they fit into a functional medicine approach—layered with nutrition, lifestyle, and, when needed, hormone testing. Black Friday deals  If you've been curious about trying the tinctures or finally getting a DUTCH hormone test, this is the best time all year to do it: Black Friday Tincture Sale (11/24–12/1) 15% off all tinctures Plus free shipping Use code BFSALE at checkout https://nutritionforyourhormones.com/ These are ideal if you're dealing with: Heavy or painful periods Mood swings, anger, or "rage" PMS Night sweats, brain fog, or irregular cycles Perimenopause shifts that suddenly make your cycle feel unpredictable DUTCH Test Black Friday Offer (now through 12/1) If you're ready for deeper answers and a customized plan, pair your tincture support with a full comprehensive hormone test and consultation. $100 off the DUTCH test through 12/1 Grab your discounted test here:

If you've ever been told your FSH is too high or that you're not a good candidate for IVF, today's episode will help you understand what that number actually means and the many ways you can still support your fertility. When most people hear "high FSH," they immediately think poor ovarian reserve or low egg count. That's not the full story. In this episode, we look at what high FSH signals, how to interpret it alongside other markers, and what both conventional and functional fertility options can help you move forward with clarity. You'll learn: • What high FSH actually measures and why context matters when paired with AMH, estradiol, and AFC • How inflammation, stress, thyroid imbalance, sleep, and environmental toxins influence FSH • Conventional treatment options such as mini IVF, natural cycle IVF, Letrozole, and individualized stimulation protocols • How functional fertility improves the internal environment so your ovaries respond better to any treatment • The key labs, nutrients, and lifestyle factors that support egg quality and hormone communication in high FSH cases This episode is especially for you if: • You've been told you have high FSH or diminished ovarian reserve and worry the window is closing • You've had canceled IVF cycles or poor responses and want to understand what else you can do • You want to see how a functional fertility approach can support egg quality so your next steps feel strategic and not desperate Sarah Clark is the founder of Fab Fertile Inc. and the host of Get Pregnant Naturally. Her team specializes in functional approaches for low AMH, high FSH, diminished ovarian reserve, premature ovarian insufficiency, recurrent miscarriage and helping couples prepare their bodies for pregnancy success naturally or with IVF. Next Steps in Your Fertility Journey Subscribe to Get Pregnant Naturally for evidence-based guidance on functional fertility, and share this episode with anyone on their fertility journey. Not sure where to start? Download our most popular guide:  Ultimate Guide to Getting Pregnant This Year If You Have Low AMH/High FSH it breaks everything down step by step to help you understand your options and take action For personalized support to improve pregnancy success, book a call here. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 – What High FSH Really Means for Fertility What FSH actually measures, why it does not reflect egg quality, and why high FSH is often misunderstood in conventional fertility care. 01:00 – The Emotional Impact of High FSH and Canceled IVF Cycles Understanding why high FSH triggers fear, how it influences IVF decisions, and how a functional lens shifts your strategy. 02:00 – Real Case Story: FSH in the 60s Reduced to 7 A Fab Fertile client lowered FSH dramatically after three failed IVFs and conceived with her own eggs after being told donor eggs were the only option. 03:00 – Drivers of High FSH: Inflammation, Stress, Thyroid, Sleep, and Toxins FSH as feedback, not failure. Exploring how inflammation, poor sleep, blood sugar imbalance, thyroid dysfunction, and environmental toxins impact ovarian response. 04:00 – Conventional Treatment Options for High FSH Mini IVF, natural-cycle IVF, Letrozole, Clomid, individualized protocols, medication dosing considerations, and how clinics determine next steps. 05:00 – Why Medication Alone Isn't Enough: The Functional Fertility Lens How functional testing identifies hidden blocks like gut infections, food sensitivities, chronic inflammation, nutrient deficiencies, and nervous system dysregulation. 06:00 – Hidden Stressors That Disrupt Egg Quality and Hormone Signaling Parasites, H. pylori, bacterial overgrowths, mold exposure, toxin load, fragrances, plastics, and irregular cortisol patterns that impact egg development. 09:00 – Key Fertility Labs for High FSH Optimal vs normal ranges for thyroid markers, vitamin D, ferritin, fasting insulin, A1C, homocysteine, and how methylation affects hormone detox and ovarian health. 12:00 – Functional Testing That Personalizes Your Fertility Plan GI-MAP, food sensitivity testing, DUTCH hormone mapping, genetic testing (MTHFR, COMT, GST), and vaginal microbiome tests for implantation and inflammation insights. 18:00 – When to Pause IVF and Re-Evaluate Your Strategy Why repeating protocols isn't effective when the internal environment isn't optimized. When a 3–6 month reset can improve ovarian response and IVF success. 19:00 – Final Takeaway: High FSH as a Message, Not a Verdict High FSH is information, not a dead end. How combining functional optimization with conventional care improves egg quality, hormone signaling, and overall fertility outcomes. RESOURCES

Send us a textAbout Eef van der Worp, BOptom, PhD, FAAO, FIACLE, FBCLA, FSLSEef van der Worp is an educator and researcher. He received his optometry degree from the Hogeschool van Utrecht in the Netherlands (NL) and has served as a head of the contact lens department at the school for over eight years. Eef received his PhD from the University of Maastricht (NL) in 2008. He now runs his own research & education consultancy 'Eye-Contact-Lens' which is based in Amsterdam (NL), and gives courses on ‘How to Present'.He is a fellow of the AAO, BCLA and the SLS, a lifetime fellow of IACLE and a honorly life member or the Dutch contact lens association ANVC. And he is on the education committee for a number of conferences, including the Global Specialty Lens Symposium (GSLS) in the US and the Dutch Contact Lens Conference (NCC) and Dutch Optometric Society meeting (OVN). He is a board member of the BCLA journal Contact Lens & Anterior Eye.Eef is adjunct assistant Professor at Pacific University College of Optometry (Oregon, USA), and adjunct Professor at the University of Montreal University College of Optometry (CA) and he is lecturing extensively worldwide and is a guest lecturer at a number of Universities in the US and Europe.---If you're considering or have ever considered getting a virtual team member for your practice check out hiredteem.com, mention The Myopia Podcast when signing up for a $250 dollar discount off of your first month's teem member.https://hireteem.com/myopia-podcast/

Some things my clients & I find useful when that pre-period bloating hits.Why is this happening?-Hormone imbalances/changes or gut issues-Add foods that have: potassium, fibre, complex carbs, magnesium, diuretic abilities-Reduce foods that have: lots of salt, added sugar, alcohol, dairy, ultra processed foodsSupplements:-Magnesium-B6-Dandelion-Vitex-L-glutamine (I like GI revive by DFH)-Probiotics-Fibre-Enzymes, bittersLifestyle:-lower your stress-30 mins of moving your body-castor oil packsConnect with me:- Free call: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠work with me here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Have period cramps? Check out my online course⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠DUTCH test⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (hormone test)- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠GI Map test⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (gut test) - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Free resources⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- IG: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@nutritionmoderation⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@nutritionmoderation⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠nutritionmoderation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠DISCOUNTS:- 15% off ⁠⁠⁠Eversio ⁠⁠⁠with code: ALEXKING - 15% off at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠MUDWTR⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ using code: ALEXADELE- 10% off at ⁠Pascoe⁠ using code: ALEXKING10- Discount on Canadian Supplements: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ca.fullscript.com/welcome/aking⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- Discount on US Supplements: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://us.fullscript.com/welcome/aking1654616901⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠For podcast inquiries, email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠holisticwomenshealthpodcast@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

This week, things get steamy… or rather, extremely awkward, as Vic and Hamish dive into the sweaty, slippery world of sex and sobriety. From brewer's droop and boozy blunders to the awkward reality of sober intimacy, this episode explores how alcohol shaped our sex lives — and what happens when the booze is gone and the lights are on.Vic shares how lager gave her false confidence and a free pass to the “downstairs disco,” while Hamish confesses his reliance on Dutch courage to even make a move. Together, they unpack the myths around alcohol and sex, laugh about some deeply mortifying bedroom misadventures, and explore how connection changes when you're sober, present, and fully clothed until at least 9:15pm.With raw honesty, community confessions, and more innuendos than should be legally allowed, this episode is for anyone navigating sex in sobriety, whether you're avoiding it, faking it, missing it, or finally starting to enjoy it.It's awkward, it's real, and it's very, very Sober Awkward.

What can Diogenes teach us about the roots of Stoicism? In today's episode, Ryan and classicist Inger Kuin break down the real gap between Stoicism and Cynicism, discussing why one trusted order and structure while the other thought most of society was nonsense. They get into Diogenes' legendary stunts, the Stoics' attempt to distance themselves from him, and why the world still needs people who question absolutely everything.Inger Kuin is a researcher, writer, and teacher focused on the intellectual history of ancient Greece and Rome. She is Associate Professor of Classics at the University of Virginia. Originally from The Netherlands, she publishes both in English and in Dutch.Check out Inger's website: https://ingerkuin.com/Be sure to pick up a copy of Inger's new book Diogenes: The Rebellious Life and Revolutionary Philosophy of the Original Cynic.

The Trump administration has unveiled plans for a huge expansion of offshore oil drilling. Federal law requires the Interior Department to come up with five-year schedules of oil and gas lease sales. The most recent proposal includes as many as 34 potential offshore lease sales, near the coasts of Alaska, California, and Florida. Also on the show: why the Dutch government wanted to take over a Chinese-owned chip company.