There are a few religious TV-Shows that Iran has created like Imam Ali [Peace be upon him] series, Or the series about Mokhtar. These two are the more famous ones, I think even though it is older, the Imam Ali [Peace be upon him] series is the best amongst all of them. It is in the social conscious of almost all Iranians.
I was wondering if other Shia outside Iran have watched those works with either subtitle, or with dubbed version. And what was your opinion on them?
The english version of Imam Ali is on YouTube for free, and the series is 30 years old, the english voice overs on it are not the best to say the least too :D
I could not find the subtitle version to share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttlhbkAvzxo&list=PLR3SsrnJvvsEBDJCbGBVQs6iC9WIOeuIh

Below you'll find information and links to help advocate for Reproductive Freedoms and Abortion care in Canada and emerging policy issues with the Reddit platform. This is a recurring post and will be periodically updated as needed. Feel free to post additional information and discussions in the comments.
Advocating for Abortion Care in Canada:

• There is a serious lack of Abortion Care options in Canada, particularly in the rural areas, and for those living on reserves, they have almost no access to Abortion care. People may have to travel more than 100km and across provincial lines to access abortion. Some have to travel by plane from their rural community to one with an abortion clinic or hospital. This puts an unfair financial and logistical burden on those that need to access abortion care. Provincial Health Insurance Plans do not cover travel costs related to receiving medical care.
• Because many provinces have few facilities that provide Abortion care, this places an unreasonable load on the clinics that do exist, forcing clients to look elsewhere for facilities with capacity to help them. In Alberta, there is one clinic for every 209,077 people who can become pregnant (number of assigned-at-birth females between the ages of 15-29). PEI, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory each only have 1 Abortion care provider. Nunavut only has 2 abortion providers, and of those, only one offers medical abortion covered by the provincial health insurance plan. In fact, 9 (out of a total of 13) Canadian provinces and territories have five or fewer facililities offering abortion care in their entire province. And 10 Canadian provinces and territories have one or fewer (0) rural facililities offering abortion care.
• Some provinces, like PEI, have more restrictive guidelines regarding abortion, limiting access to abortion care to those with a gestational period of less than 12 weeks (meaning, 12 weeks since the first day of your last period, not 12 weeks since you discovered you were pregnant). Many people who menstruate have irregular periods. Some people might only menstruate every 2 or 3 months, and might only discover that they are pregnant near the gestation limit of 12 weeks.
• Insurance coverage also limits access to abortions. Provinces such as Nunavut do not offer coverage for medical abortions unless they are prescribed and performed in a hospital. And being a rural province, there also happens to be only 1 hospital in Nunavut - Qikiqtani General Hospital in Iqualuit. New Brunswick will only cover abortion services in a hospital setting, which means that abortion medical care provided in clinics are not covered by their Provincial Health Insurance Plan.
• Sexual and reproductive health services are among the services that physicians, pharmacists and nurse practitioners are most frequently unwilling to provide on moral or religious grounds. People may be harassed and attacked while visiting an Abortion clinic may experience stigma and/or discrimination from their peers, especially in smaller, rural communities where everyone knows one another. People refused care by health care professionals because of personal beliefs may experience stigma and/or discrimination, forcing them to travel outside of their community to receive the care they need. This can all be particularly daunting for young people or those with limited resources.
• Everyone in Canada is supposed to have equal rights to access health care, regardless of race, age, class, immigration status, gender expression, sexuality and ability. Nevertheless, anyone's right to seek abortion care can be be impacted by discrimination and bigotry, both systemic and as a result of individual prejudice on the part of service providers. Racism, xenophobia, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and ageism in Canada are all direct and intersecting barriers to accessing abortion. It is much more difficult for a person who doesn’t speak English to access abortion services, despite the presence of a translator. Transpeople also experience discrimination at higher rates in reproductive health care settings. Providers may also lack the knowledge or training to provide trans-affirming abortion care and abortion services are typically housed within *women’s* health care departments.
• Further compounding the issue of inequitable abortion access are unregulated crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), which are anti-choice pregnancy centres that advertise in hospitals, doctor's offices, churches, schools and community centre. They deceive people coming to them for options and advice by giving misinformation about abortion or by insisting on options that may delay or interfere with the clients ability to access the care they need. CPCs far outnumber abortion care providers in Canada. In Ontario alone, there are 77 active CPCs but only 38 abortion care providers. Overall, in Canada, there are 165 known CPCs compared to 147 abortion care providers (as of August 2022).

Reference: Policy Options, via the Institute for Research on Public Policy and Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights
What can you do to improve access to abortion care in Canada?

1. Listen, research and learn. This is always the first step to understand any problem.
2. Send a letter to your MP and MPP. Tell them that access to abortion care is important and how difficult it can be to access it in your province. Urge them to prevent anti-choice groups and CPCs from receiving charitable status, and to revoke the charitable status from CPCs that already have it. Encourage them to include reasonable reimbursement for travel costs related to receiving medical care when it is not available in your community. And push them to pass Safe Access Zone Legislation to protect patients, practitioners and their staff from anti-choice harassment and intimidation.
3. Give a donation to a pro-choice charitable organization of your choice. Remember, if you give a total of $201 CDN or more to Canadian charitable organizations, you'll get a credit of 29% of your total annual donations on your income taxes (for those that file Canadian Income Taxes, only).
4. Sign up for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Newsletter. https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/
5. Participate in local marches and rallys in support of access to abortion care.
6. Spread the Word. Tell your friends and family. Encourage them to research, listen and learn. Encourage them to contact their MPP and MPs.
7. If you work in a Doctor's office or as a family physician, consider incorporating Mifegymiso into your practice to ensure patients have timely access to this essential service. If you are a Doctor, or studying to be one, consider opening an Abortion Care practice when you are licensed and qualified to do so, especially in rural areas where there are a lack of options.
8. If you work in politics, consider proposing legislation that will ensure safe access zones for abortion care providers and their clients and covering reasonable travel costs for constituents when medical care is not available in their community.
9. If you are a journalist or work in media, consider preparing pieces sharing the difficulty Canadians can have accessing medical care such as abortions.
10. If you work in the area of Not For Profit/Advocacy, consider partnering with a Pro-choice organization and helping them spread information and lobby for improving access to abortion care for Canadians.
11. If you know someone who needs abortion care, consider giving them a ride to a clinic, helping them access the advice and care they need, and provide non-judgemental support.
12. Ensure persons of First Nations, Metis and Inuit heritage know about Jordan's Principle, which ensures that First Nations children (which includes people who can become pregnant under the age of 18) can access the products, services and supports they need, when they need them. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1568396042341/1568396159824

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Policy Issues with Reddit
On July 1, 2023, Reddit raised the price to make calls to their API from being free to a level that killed every third party app on Reddit, from Apollo to Reddit is Fun to Narwhal to BaconReader. This policy change meant that mobile users would have a lesser experience browsing Reddit, users with visual difficulties could not browse reddit as screenreaders are not compatible with the official Reddit app, and mods lost tools that they depend on to keep communities on-topic and spam-free. Many subreddits protested this change in June 2023, and the Reddit admins enforced draconian measures such as removing and replacing mods who privatized their subreddits in protest of this policy change.
On September 12, 2023, Reddit will eliminate reddit coins, including removing all accumulated coins, a perk that Reddit Premium users pay for every month. Coins are used to reward comments and posts by showing your appreciation for the effort. Some reddit coins offer the ability to use reddit without ads.
What can you do to protest the policy changes at Reddit?

1. Listen, research and learn. Check /modcoord for updates
2. Cancel your Reddit Premium membership
3. Participate in subreddit led protests
4. Look for other forums to patronize. We have a forum on Discord called Auntie Network Canada. Message the mods here for an invite link to the Discord group.
5. Complain. Message the mods of reddit.com, who are the admins of the site: message reddit: submit a support request: comment in relevant threads on reddit. Leave a negative review on their official iOS or Android app.

I think to me what's most disheartening about this Quagmire of a situation is that most people are just aligning with their historical patterns of political/religious/racial/national identities and biases.
Which is not surprising because I just basically described the entire history of the human race and how we generally lean one way or another when it comes to conflicts and beliefs.
I think you know true impartiality is pretty much impossible and that's probably a whole super long discussion about how we even arrive at truth and reality and what pushes us in different directions.
I just it really makes you very depressed and forelorned at times just to see most people reacting as you would expect.
Like most of my social media friend circles are Lefty anarchist types and they pretty much are like fully on board free Palestine movements and busting out the watermelon emojis and all the all these kinds of things which to me is like the the 2024 version of the BLM black/blank profile support solidarity thing.
Of course now that you read that last paragraph you probably already thinking oh this guy is already revealing his cards of where he stands.
Basically my position is leaning pro Israel pro peace pro equilibrium pro stability in the region. This is a departure from my long held leanings of free Palestine because of all of my radical backgrounds and volunteering for things like food not bombs and all this sorts of things in Portland.
I basically am leaning this way and open to shifting of course at any time given new information and new insights, but the two main sticking points for me are what follows:
1.) Wary of the regressive left element within the free Palestine movement that is and on par for the course given the conflict. What worries me is the toxic othering prejudice and often scary anti-Semitic rhetoric coming out because of this. The narrative of the support for the "brown Arab oppressed people versus the white facing European ancestry colonizer Jewish people Israelis". It's alarming.
2.) Wary of extremist radical Islam jihadist intifada sentiments messaging and direct calls to eradicate and harm a people group and a nation. This last point I think doesn't get enough airtime in some circles and this is nothing new and has been a concern of mine for many years, and is often maybe overlooked or people are afraid to bring it up even because it looks like it's bigoted or racist or whatever. But to me it seems like this is why we are in this position most assuredly. You swap out Hamas with some other Hardline Fringe religious group and I don't think you get the same results. There is something uniquely dangerous about a religious Fringe element that promotes martyrdom and jihadism. Ain't nobody ever had issues with Buddhist extremists on this level. Or even Christian extremists on this kind of level, although there have been pockets of hate and othering of course from almost every group of people/ideology in our sordid human history.
Like even I've been trying to track just in the comment sections of let's say various kinds of YouTube videos from all different perspectives and I keep coming back to this weird unsettling feeling when I see a lot of pro Islamic things and from accounts that seem like they come from an Arab origin. Like I just don't know if you can reach common cause and common ground with that sort of extremist ideology, it seems pretty baked in on a deep level. And that's the the real issue in many ways because religious fundamentalism just breathes a kind of lack of discourse and lack of understanding because you can just refer to your book and what all the people around you are saying and shut down your critical thinking skills.
I think a case example of someone like Salman Rushdie.
Dude wrote a book in the late '80s and he got a fatwa set against him...(Which speaking of that it was hilariously satirized in Curb, I'm surprised Larry David also doesn't have a Target on his back at this point).
Then apparently the state sponsored assassins were called off in the late 90s and Rushdie return to some kind of normalcy and interacting with the world.
But then last year he was stabbed on stage at a talk in Chataqua New York, and was almost killed. He actually lost his eye as a result. And the use of his hand.
And as you can imagine the guy who stabbed him wasn't just a random crazy person.. he had Islamic background. He's a Shi'ite Muslim from New Jersey, just 24 years old. Gen Z generation of extremist.
Put another way.. what is the percentage or total number of folks that have a Islamic Arab Middle eastern background that are actually pro Israel?
And then along the same lines how many folks with a Jewish background or connections are actually pro Palestine?
Cuz to me one is not like the other in this regard, and my hypothesis is that the Muslim Arab tribalist group would skew predominantly one way that I think we all can assume is for the free Palestine movement.
Whereas I think the Jewish Community has definitely some elements within it that is more peaceful negotiation and not so caught up in their religiously motivated perspective. This could be because you know maybe a lot of the Jewish Community is leaning more secular or they come from Western countries and all this sort of thing but like I just I don't think people are realizing the fundamentalists difference here in the factions.
I guess my question is how many people have switched historical sides over this conflict right now in the spring of 2024?
Is there something from either side that made you go oh man I need to reevaluate my whole position on this and lean one way or the other?
Or even when I think what is probably more profound and supportive of the general conflict would be to be also aimed at a third way out above The fray if that's even possible. because a third way out often makes me feel like I just need to stay out all together and let people that have a much better idea of what's going on engage.
That last part is really key I think because all these folks are throwing in their positions when they may only have an understanding of like 5% of this thousands of year old conflict. The more I dig into it and ask questions and talk to people the more I feel even more lost and it seems like an unwinnable and unknowable thing.
🙏🕊️🙏

salam everyone, i am a 19m arab student living in sydney for studies on the long term. since i came here last year, alhamdulillah i've been put through countless tests and i kept getting closer and closer to Allah.
im realllyyyy thankful to how close i am to him right now. however, it's backfiring a bit on me. i am a very big overthinker, so every single action i do, i question if haram or halal. ofc we all wanna avoid haram eventually, but lately ive been asking way too many questions about the tiniest details and how i couldn't get a higher level of jannah if i don't suffer in the dunya doing halal and more more. it comes down to "oh if i dont pray sunnah after fardh then Allah wont guarantee me a house in jannah, but i already recite ayatul kursi after fardh so why this why that?"
even when making dua, "no sheikh assim al hakeem said raising your hands is bid'a and you have to ask Allah in arabic" i know arabic alhamdulillah but i mistakenly ask it in english out of despair sometimes and i overthink that. i do tasbeeh, but the "astaghfirullah" doesnt come out perfect, will Allah count it? what if, what if? "dont swear!" "okay fair enough, holy crap hahaha" "no! holy crap is also haram!" and im not mentioning the family-related extreme religious problems
these examples are weak, my head is all over the place atm i cant really place my thoughts properly ro convey my overthinking of my religion. im sorry if this sounds like a rant more than an explanation/question. i dont like talking about myself a lot anymore but i just feel like being free of my shackles for a bit and do my 5 fardh prayers only for a while. any insight would really help, i dont think its a matter of low faith but i could be wrong. jazakum Allah

Hello I am located in Georgia. I'm a geek, historian, and spiritual. I am trans masc and been on testosterone a little over nine months. Looking for something long term or friends. I'm just looking for somebody who is loyal, kind, smart, and honest. I love anything cute and adorable. I love books and academia. I was the boy who you'd find at the library and bookstores browsing for hours. I am liberal. I also love art, dnd, comics, movies, tv, youtube, 420, video games, toys, antiques, thrift, stores, and travelling. I'm spiritual but not religious.
No FWB. I'm looking for a long term relationship.
I'm a bottom and submissive. I prefer someone who is kinky but it's not a deal breaker.
I'm a little bit shy at first to. Not sure what else to but feel free to message me if you're interested.

The Purpose of Life for Man

One of the most direct verses on the subject of "the meaning (or purpose) of (human) life" in the Bible can be found in Revelation:

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."-Revelation 4:11

This, of course, should prompt us to ask what exactly does God take pleasure in?
Conversely, what doesn't He take pleasure in?

"Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"-Micah 6:6-8

God does not take pleasure in mere outward religiosity and ritual, but rather finds honest acts of love towards Him and others as more important when pertaining to our fulfillment of what God expects from us as His creation. God takes great pleasure in us doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with Him. This is what He requires of us. In other words...

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."-Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

The Book of Ecclesiastes is an existential treatise on the futility of finding any meaning or fulfillment in life apart from God. In it, "the Preacher" (or "Teacher" in some translations) explores the limits of human experiences which may provide meaning or fulfillment in this life before the author of the book inevitably concludes that the only thing we can do that has any kind of meaning or permanence in the end is fearing God and keeping His commandments. The reason for this is because the march of time and our own mortality effectively make most human endeavors hevel. The Hebrew word "hevel" is translated as vanity in the King James.
The following is taken from BibleProject:

In Hebrew, hevel literally refers to “vapor” or “smoke.” The teacher uses this word 38 times throughout the book of Ecclesiastes as a metaphor to describe how life is temporary and fleeting, like a wisp of smoke, but also how life is an enigma or paradox. Smoke appears solid, but when you try to grab it, it’s like nothing is there.

[...]

The author’s basic goal is to target all of the ways we try to build meaning and purpose in life apart from God and then let the teacher deconstruct them. The author thinks that people spend most of their time investing energy and emotion in things that ultimately have no lasting meaning or significance. And so he allows the teacher to give us a reality check.

The Preacher gives us a "reality check" by demonstrating how time and death effectively make things like scientific and artistic discovery (1:10-11), mirth (2:1), alcohol (2:3), architecture (2:4), amassing property (2:7-8), and luxury (2:8) all hevel. Materialism and hedonism fail to fulfill, and though wisdom and righteousness are acknowledged by the preacher to be advantageous, the righteous and wise are still often victims of injustice and unfairness in the world while the wicked get to prosper and have longevity at times (1:13-18). Generally, your life will probably be better by living in the wisdom given in Proverbs (Ecc. 7:11-12; 9:13-18), but it's no guarantee that you will have a good life as bad things still happen to good people, and good things still happen to bad people. This isn't entirely "hevel" but it's confusing and disorienting because things don't always work out the way we think they should in this life.
Again, from BibleProject:

So what’s the way forward in the midst of all this hevel? Paradoxically, the teacher discovers that the key to truly enjoying life is accepting hevel, acknowledging that everything in your life is totally out of your control. About six different times, at the bleakest moments in his dialogue, the teacher suddenly talks about “the gift of God,” which is the enjoyment of the simple, good things in life such as friendship, family, a good meal, or a sunny day.
You and I can’t control the most important things in our lives. Nothing is guaranteed, and, strangely, that’s the beauty of it. When I adopt a posture of complete trust in God, it frees me to simply enjoy life as I actually experience it and not as I think it ought to be. In the end, even my expectations about life, my hopes and dreams, are all “hevel, hevel. Everything under the sun is hevel.”
The teacher’s words come to an end, and the author takes over, bringing the book to a close. He says that it is very important to hear what the teacher has to say. He likens the teacher’s words to a shepherd’s staff with a goad, a pointy end that will hurt when it pokes you. But that pain can ultimately steer you in the right direction towards greater wisdom.
The author warns us not to take the teacher’s words too far. You can spend your entire life buried in books trying to answer the existential puzzles of human life. Don’t exhaust yourself, he says. You’ll never get there. Instead, the author offers his own conclusion that we should “fear God and keep his commands; this is the whole duty of humans. For God will bring every deed into judgment, every hidden thing, whether good or evil” (Ec. 12:13-14).

Fearing the Lord doesn’t guarantee success in this life, but it is the right thing to do, and ultimately God will clear the "hevel" and bring His justice on all we have done. Therefore, we ought to keep God's commandments.
Through Jesus, we see the Bible clearing the confusion many have, and still have, about God's commandments and what exactly they are (in essence, at least):

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."-Matthew 22:37-40

The apostle Paul puts it like this:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

The apostle John, like this:

"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."-1 John 4:16

In other words, the first and second greatest commandments can be seen as inextricably intertwined, as one cannot truly love God without loving their fellow man, and vice versa.
So, to put it bluntly, the meaning, or purpose, of (human) life according to the Bible is simply love.

"What Does It Mean to Love Biblically?"

But, what exactly is love anyway? We know that, according to the apostle John, God is love. But, what does that mean exactly?
The ancient Greeks had anywhere between four and eight different words for love (depending on the source):

• Storge: affection
  
• Philia or Phileo: friendship
  
• Eros: sexual, erotic
  
• Agape: unconditional, divine, selfless
  
• Ludus: flirtatious, playful, casual, uncommitted
  
• Pragma: committed, long-standing
  
• Philautia: self-love
  
• Mania: obsessive, possessive, addictive, dependent
  

The word translated as "charity" in the KJV's rendering of 1st Corinthians 13 is agape. A more accurate translation of the word would be "love," more specifically, the love of God. In this passage, Paul talks about the importance of having this kind of love for others compared to all the things we might typically obsess over concerning the things of God. Even things like charity to the poor itself, if not motivated by agape, does not impress God! Our motivations and heart matter to God just as much, if not more, than our actions themselves.
This is what the Bible defines as true love, or at least, is the kind of love it's most concerned about.
In order to demonstrate to another that we love them, we sacrifice something. For God, He sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins (John 3:16). For Jesus, he sacrificed himself to save us from our sins:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."-John 15:13

In essence, true love is self-sacrifice. Putting others before ourselves is the greatest kind of sacrifice.
God didn't have to send His Son, but He did. Jesus didn't have to accept the mission, but he did.
God loves you, and Jesus loves you.
We demonstrate to others that we love them by sacrificing our wants and desires for them. These sacrifices can range from really small, to really big. Loving others is a daily practice of making greater and greater sacrifices.

“You can will to love people. Love is not a feeling. Love is a willing, and the Lord says to love people. He did not mean [to merely] feel love for them” — A.W. Tozer

A stumbling block for many in their walk with God is the inability to love one's enemies and to love unlovable people as Jesus did. It’s difficult for us to show love to people we don’t feel love for; to people we despise or dislike. We also tend to struggle with extending grace and mercy to those who’ve hurt us. I myself often wonder whether I am even capable of loving everyone the way Jesus does.
As I grow in my faith, I realize it’s not that I’m incapable of loving like Jesus; I’m just not always willing to. My unwillingness to love indicates that I am unwittingly adopting the worldly view of love, which is based on feelings and merit. I am choosing not to love people I feel are underserving of my love. The more I study Scripture, though, the more I realize Biblical love is not a feeling or an emotion; it’s a decision. It is an action, and it’s sacrificial. It’s not something you feel; it is, again, something you practice.

“Biblical love is a choice to do good for another person regardless of what we feel. It is a decision to compassionately and righteously pursue the betterment of another person. This is why you can even love your enemies according to Christ’s command.” — Tony Evans

Jesus commands us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). He also said, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another” (John 13:34). Since the Lord commands us to love, that means it is within our power to do so; therefore, love is a decision we make. Although feelings will accompany love, it’s not an emotion; it’s the decision to love regardless of how we feel.
As believers, we’re taught to love our enemies, and do good to those who hate us, and if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, "turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39). It’s not easy to do; hating our enemies comes naturally to us because of our evil nature. It is impossible to love our enemies on our own strength; we need the help of the Spirit of God.
The decision to love your enemies arises from the decision to obey the will of God and the desire to be Christlike. We choose to love our enemies because God said so and loved us first. Jesus said we are to love as he loved us.

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”-Romans 5:8

So Biblical love is sacrificial love. It is not a feeling but an act of will; the desire to put the welfare of others above your own. This type of love is not a love based on affection or emotion. Instead, it’s agape love, a love that is not concerned with self but is concerned more with the good of others.
We are not going to like everyone, nor are we called to; we are called to love everyone regardless of how we feel about them. It’s possible to love someone without feeling love for them when we decide to love everyone the way God loves us. The more we love through our actions, the decision to love will become a choice the heart is more willing to make.
Again, this doesn’t mean you will like or feel love for everyone, but when you put your trust in the Lord and pursue wisdom and holiness through prayer and Scripture, you will naturally develop a love for others.
To put it succinctly: Biblical love seeks the best interests of others, even our enemies, often to the detriment of ourselves. "Best interests" here doesn't necessarily mean what the other person thinks are their own best interests. It just means we do for them what we know or believe is best for them, and what we know or believe is best for them should be informed by an active participation with the Spirit of God and by His Word (the Bible) itself. Feelings may or may not accompany this, but how we feel towards the other is not what determines whether or not we're exhibiting the love of God, in the view of Jesus and the apostles. In their view, it's about whether or not we can still decide to seek the best interests of those who might harm us, or who we might not even like.

What the Real Heavenly Treasure Is

Now, this all brings us to an important question that needs to be answered: Is it wrong to love God and others while making a reward the objective for doing so?
We must ask this question, because all throughout Scripture we are told that the faithful followers of God will be "rewarded" some day for everything they've done to merit this. Giving an exhaustive list of passages that proves this point would be endless, but here are some examples of just a few:

"Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."-Luke 14:12-14
"I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."-Acts 20:35
"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."-Luke 6:35

The answer to this question depends on what we define as "rewards." Most will typically adopt some vague idea of material possesions that await the believer when they get to heaven as one's reward for faithfulness towards God, or that the reward is simply an escape from punishment for one's own sins, or perhaps even some combination of these things both.
However, none of these are the "rewards" the Lord is promising to those who obey the first and second commandments. If they were, our motivation to love God and others would ultimately be selfish. Think about it. Our motivation for rewards would inherently be me-centered, and not other-centered.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ gives the following command:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."-Matthew 6:19-21

We know there are heavenly treasures, because Jesus says so, but what are they? The issue of heavenly treasures or eternal rewards is riddled with question marks. It’s a subject that has been abused by some (“Store up treasure by giving to my ministry”) and left in the too-hard basket by others.
But the answer here is simple, and two-fold. One of our rewards are God Himself:

"After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward."-Genesis 15:1
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."-Hevrews 11:6

What is the reward of the seeker but to find that which is sought? If you are searching for God, you will find Him and He will be your very great reward.
Now, if you are the newest believer or the eleventh-hour worker, you will be as richly blessed as the oldest, most faithful saint. Eternity will not be divided into the haves and have-nots, for we are all one in the New Jerusalem.
But we can distinguish God our reward from the heavenly treasure that Jesus said can be stored up. You cannot "store up" more of God, after all.
So what are heavenly treasures? The answer may surprise you, but it’s people.

"Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward."-Psalm 127:3

What is the only thing you can take with you? People, a.k.a. eternal friends, a.k.a. spiritual offspring. This Psalm is not just talking about biological children. God has bigger plans for you and they involve spiritual children. Lots of them. Dozens. Hundreds. Thousands. Millions. Don’t limit God.
So much time and effort is spent debating heavenly treasures as though they were some great mystery. What are they? Jesus makes it plain: it's people.

• Just as Abraham was called to be the father of many nations, so are you.
  
• Jesus said those who followed him would be fishers of men. What is a fisherman’s reward? It’s fish, or people in this case.
  
• What is the reward of the one who sows and waters the good seed? It’s a harvest of people.
  
• What is treasure that never wears out and cannot be stolen? It’s people.
  

God's heart cries, “I treasure children. The more, the better!” In Matthew chapter 5, Jesus introduces God as our heavenly Father. In Matthew chapter 6, Jesus says God is a Father who rewards us. And what is a father’s reward?
It is children.
“Sounds great, but I am no evangelist.” You don’t need to be an evangelist to win eternal friends. Believers can live such godly lives that unbelievers will be won to the kingdom (1 Pet. 2:12; Matt. 5:16).
God's desire is to grow the world’s largest family and He treats people like treasure. This is obvious once you see it. Indeed, it’s a theme that runs throughout Scripture:

"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."-Deuteronomy 7:6
"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."-Deuteronomy 14:2
"And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments;"-Deuteronomy 26:18
"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;"-1 Peter 2:4-9

Like Jesus, Paul eagerly gave to the poor (Gal. 2:10). He did not give out of religious duty or to put a shine on his reputation. He did it because he loved people and wanted to share the love of God with as many as possible (1 Cor. 13:3).
Life is a gift that is easily wasted. We can waste it running after inferior rewards that rust, or we can do what Jesus and Paul did and invest ourselves in the only reward that lasts: people.

God Is Faithful

Someone once asked me, "Why would God be concerned as to whether or not we 'have trust and confidence in him' when He's judging us and when He determines what our fate will be?"
Having trust and confidence in God, according to the Biblical authors, is required for us to fulfill His commandment that we love Him, and thus also love others. (See Hebrews 11.)
As with a spouse, you cannot truly love them if you do not have some level of trust or confidence in them, and vice versa. All relationships require trust, from both parties. God wants us to trust Him that He will keep His promises towards those of us who love and follow Him. He also wants to trust us that we will enter the kingdom of heaven with a righteous and loving character. He doesn't want another rebellion in paradise, so He's trying to see if we truly love righteousness for righteousness' sake. A truly righteous person wouldn't want to rebel against Him when the time comes that they enter the kingdom of God themselves, because a person with a righteous character wouldn't ever do such a thing.
As Open Theists, we believe we're being consistent in our belief that God, at times, puts trials before us to test whether or not we will remain trustworthy enough in our character to be deemed worthy of entrance into His kingdom. The Classical Theist doesn't have the luxury of being consistent if they have this same belief.
In the Book of Job, Satan makes an accusation towards someone God has deemed as truly righteous: Job.
Satan assails God’s wisdom and character in running the world by alleging that people only serve Him because of what they get out of it. God protects them from disaster and blesses them in other ways. Their obedience, he is suggesting, isn’t really a free choice. "There is no genuine virtue in the world," Satan is claiming. "There are only self-serving bargains, and obedience for the sake of being protected and blessed is one of them. Hence, true holiness and virtuous obedience are an illusion." "Take away a person’s protection," Satan insists, "and let me have my way with people, and they will stop living for God" (Job 1:9-11; 2:4-5).
God has so much faith in Job that he will not succumb to proving the false accusations being levied towards him and God's way of running things in general that He ends up accepting the challenge. For God, this is as much a test of His faith towards His servant as it is for Job for his Lord. The adversary, we see, was assailing God’s integrity and wisdom in overseeing the creation. Satan was, in effect, accusing God of being a Machiavellian ruler. In the context of this narrative, it was an assault that could only be refuted by being put to the test.
Had God simply forced Satan into silence, without proving him wrong, it would have simply confirmed the accuracy of Satan’s charge. It would have shown that there is no integrity or wisdom in how God runs the world after all. "There is only the exercise of power, used to manipulate beings into obeying Him. People serve God only as a bargain, not out of genuine love."
No, the challenge had to be answered by having it put to the test. The most righteous man on the earth was thus chosen to be tested. If Job failed, the narrative suggests, then Satan will have made his point. If he succeeded, however, then God’s wisdom and integrity in running the cosmos will have been vindicated. Hence, the protective fence around Job is removed and Satan is allowed to afflict him.
In the end, Job proves faithful to God and is even referenced in the New Testament as an example of the kind of faithfulness He expected of first century believers facing persecution and trials:

"Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy."-James 5:11

While most of us aren't dealing with the life-threatening kind of persecution that believers faced in the first century, for the very fact that the eschatological end of physical Israel and the Old Covenant system was fastly approaching for them (and already has approached), we still each face our own trials that God puts in our lives as individuals to see if we truly love Him. Job is simply the ultimate example of one who loved God because they chose to, not because God forced them to.
After all, you never know if your love is pure if it isn't tested...

Oh how sad I am. I've been planning this escape for years. And now that I'm finally here, with one more night on my... not-really-a-bed, just a... mat-on-the-floor with blanket and pillows...
I sob. Sob and cry and wonder why I feel all this pain. I'm the one who wanted to escape. To live my life to the fullest. To do all the things I love. To draw and sing, to wear my hair down and bake, to make friends and wear cute dresses, to have cats and be with the man I love and oh gosh how lucky I am that he loves me dearly and wants the best for me. He and his mum supported me so so much. My friend too. They are my chosen family.
But... why am I feeling so horribly sad...? Its because I'll never see my parents or siblings again. I feel so bad for my mum because she allows people to use her and by that I mean she does everything for my grown ass siblings. And my extended family all use her a lot too.
About my mum.
Sadly, shes religious. Prays constantly. Always telling us to pray. Donates money to needy. Forced me to pay zakkah. Buys counters to constantly recite, it's like digital tasbeehs and stuff to use wherever without looking or counting. You just press and then you get your number on a screen. She takes care of her mum sometimes. Often cooks for her. She often watches her sisters kids because her sister, my aunt... is ever so social and kinda just expects my mum to baby sit them. My mum cooks almost every day. Usually every other day because my dad refuses to eat old food. And when I say cook I dont mean something easy like whip up a pasta. I mean dishes that take at least more than 2 hours to cook. Mind you though, hes a chef and does cook sometimes in the house. But since he works he expects mum to cook and honestly if I were a man, I'd want that too. To come home from work to good food. Anyway...
I have siblings. One of which is a piece of good for nothing shit. Uses and abuses mum psychologically. For real. It's so sad. And mum enables this shit because she believes it's not actually my siblings behaviour. It's apparently a ghost. My other siblings are not of legal age yet. I will miss them terribly. They... will have to grow up a lot. Mum does a lot for them. Cooking. Cleaning. Honestly, I dont cook because mum does it. Nor clean. I avoided being with mum and basically without realising it, did that rock technique with her. Where I basically diffuse the conversation and stuff because I hate talking about Islam and just avoid being around her and stuff. I forgot what the technique is actually called.
I love her. Even if I'm sure her love for me is conditional. I wish to keep contact with her. But I worry about her health. Diabetes and general pressure issues. If she dies, my dad wont be able to take care of my siblings. My dad will cook for them and teach them how to travel to school and stuff. But besides that, he wont know about their medical conditions or history, he cant speak much English just some. He is smart but also not really? It's weird.
Mg siblings and mum is who I worry for most. The two siblings who arent over 18 yet. I dont care for the other one because they ruined my life and became such a horrible person. I get some of it is mental health issues so they need help but I'm speaking very specifically of their character before all this began.
Anyway. I escape tomorrow. Today is technically my last day ever with my family. I do love them. I wish to text or call them from time to time but I do think a period of no contact may be necessary for both them and myself to kind of... let this choice I made sink in. I've bought games for my younger siblings where we can chat and hopefully they keep this private. I do believe that they may understand me when they reach a certain age and be more accepting than my parents.
In my letter, I'm not sure if I should say I left because I wanted to live my life or because "God guided me" and play that card. I'm semi atheist. Sometimes I believe in God and other times I dont. Right now km not really sure what I am so I say semi atheist. I will cry and cry and cry after I've made it to my partner. He and his mum will hold me close and tell me I'm safe and loved and deserve to choose the life I want. I have support. We are gonna do so many things together that we couldn't before!
I'm an artist. In so many ways. I had to hide my art with my family. With my partner, he wanted them all displayed. For Christmas, I drew portraits, more like fantasy portraits of him and his mum and his cat. They still have it displayed in their house. It warms my heart. I draw, sew, sculpt with clay, paint sometimes, do traditional pencils drawings with colour and without, digital art, pixel art for working on my game, make plushies and I plan to sew my own dresses, I like styling my hair although my hair is pretty damaged sadly, no not with heat products, more of just unhealthy hair. What else...? I just love making things with paper like water fall cards and spinning cards and pop up books. When I confessed to my partner, at the time he couldn't be with me because he wanted to make sure he was ready, I made him a well designed pop up book. It had stuff we liked, camping, gaming, sleeping, loads of pop up and sliding elements. Then on our 1st anniversary, I made him an explosion box. He was absolutely in shock as he opened it over Skype. I plan to make an even better gift for next time. For Christmas he attempted something similar, he is very creative too. He made me a book of himself. Like a little toy for my to hold around with funny comments and his cat kinda touring me through his weak knee joints Haha and his heart which loves me 100% and his little nose which if I boop, doesnt do anything, nor the the little mole he has on his face. All these drawings and details, I love it so much.
Why did I write all that... I'm trying to cope right now. I want encouragement. I'm scared. But I know I have to do this. I dont want to cry or be sad. I wanna be happy because I have this opportunity to run away move out and be free. I've saved and saved enough for at least a few years. But I'll be getting a job in the new country after I learn the language officially. By going to school to learn the language I'll keep myself occupied and busy. At my partners house we will be playing games ans cuddling and making Lego stuff and drawing and going for walks and watching films so I know I'll be happy.
I just also know I'll wonder how my family are and worry those thoughts will eat into my happy time. I dont know how to go about this.
Please... I wanna move out on happy terms. I deserve to live. To think 7 years ago I was going to take my life because I prayed constantly to God and he didnt seem to reply to it... and then I became an ex Muslim and found a new friend and then a another one of which who became my partner... I never would have believed if someone told me, hey in some years you'll move away from your family have a loving boyfriend and be free from religion. I'd have slapped them maybe and said shut up you liar. Get lost.
But here I am. I didnt take my life. I won. And I'm gonna win again tomorrow when I take that plane. I'm just sad about missing my family. Even if they were unpleasant at times. I still love them.
But I deserve to live my own life. I can do this. One more night on my not so very comfy floor bed.
Paper Blackstar
I will never post from this account again. For updates on my situation, possibly a tutorial of how I escape, please see my other account, The Paper Blackstar. It has one post saying that it's me, and in the comments a mod confirmed.

Witch Fall / / Rest Now

^vibe
January 8th, 2072.
The Midnight Court - Wewelsburg, Álfheimr
"I had no expectation of being crowned." Princess Kyōko looked towards the crowd of Alfr nobility which had amassed itself in the great hall of the Midnight Court. Excluding the Princess, who stood just in front of the Night King's Throne, the nobility made up of nearly all conquered people remained quiet as the Princess continued to speak - the shock of recent events emanating throughout the room. "And yet death of my uncle...has come as a shock."
The court was somber, the lights dim - only a few skylights pointed towards the Princess whose Golden crown had only just been placed on her head by the same woman who had coronated her Uncle all those years ago. The flags which had once flown as a symbol of the Aesir, now remained furled, awaiting to be revealed as the once Japanese Princess, continued to speak.
"In the years since my Uncle's coronation, our Aesir, has led you all to the well of prosperity, happiness, and security. Under his auspices rule, under the Night King's watchful gaze, you people...you all...have been so very lucky. So very lucky to have survived this long." Gasps from the crowd where audible as members of the Valkyrie of the 1st Sturmtruppen marched into the Great Hall, those members of the Elite Imperial Guard whose loyalty lay only with the Aesir. "Under the former Aesir, you have been...blinded by a shroud of darkness from true enlightenment. The failures of this Imperial Might, whose forces once so easily marched West across France and conquered Western Europe, come from your blind faith in my Uncle. You have been bested in a Gothic War which saw the needless deaths of so many of the Aesir's Chosen. And yet you cry out for more conflict?"
The new Aesir could see the daggers as she looked out at the crowd, as her words struck the very heart of the Alfheim's Imperial Center. From the corner of her eye, she could barely make out one figure leaving the Hall, shooting an icy yet aware glance towards the Throne, however, now was no time to stop, she had a mission here.
"At every step, your former ruler...has ensured that the entire weight of the world would come crashing down on his Empire. Even now, you face a rebellion in Italy, and the possibility of war in the outer colonies of Svartálfar and Mexico. And if not for the idleness of the great Goliath of Eastern Europe your very homeland would have most assuredly been lost by now."
By now, only the Æsir's Chosen had remained without reaction. The nobility long in uproar, confusion, and fear as the former second-rate Princess from Japan gave lecture on the future of the Empire.
"You all...I...have never seen throughout history, an Empire so reviled that even my own Father's machinations have gone unheeded by the world." The newly crowned Aesir cared little for choosing her words, knowing that ultimately, they'd have to all bend the knee either way. "Your world has failed, and I am here to save you."
The murmuring of the crowd would have become overwhelming if it was not for the clerics who raised and slammed the ends of their banners on the ground, unfurling the new flag of the Imperial Álfheimr while sending the crowds into a fervor of chanting.
“Long live Æsir!”
“Long live Æsir!”
“Long live Æsir!”
As the Midnight Sun rose over the old world, those nobility knew a new era had begun.

Mombasa, The Union of African Socialist Republics 

vibe

"The Malagasy Terror returns to South Africa, Mexico falls into the grips of Japanese Empire"

Bandung Daily Issued January 31st, 2072 - 12:00 Mombasa, The Union of African Socialist Republics
MOMBASA - As the world continues to feel the shockwaves from the death of former imperialist dictator Dederick Lohengrin, it has been confirmed that the Malagasy Terror otherwise known as Japanese Rear Admiral Sentaro Omori has been confirmed as the new Imperial Governor of Marley. According to reports from the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Kamisato Ayaka, the handover of South Africa represents the 16th Imperial Administrative Zone of the ever growing Japanese Empire. Likewise, according to reports coming out of the JIIA - Rear Admiral Takagi Daisuke has been named Imperial Governor of Azteca (known globally as Mexico), as the newest and 17th Imperial Colony. The news has forced the resurfacing of existing fears within the UASR, and by extension broader Bandung Pact as to ongoing colonialism by the Japanese Empire which has despite its claim to "isolation", come to control vast swathes of the globe.
The annexation of South Africa, or rather, the repeated annexation of South Africa by Japan showcases the ongoing Imperial ambitions of a Japan which has frequently been known to break the conventions on human rights with its rumors of prison camps and genocide. Now following the death of the former Aesir of Alfheim who himself was a scourge on the continent of Africa, Japan has only further pushed the boundaries of its Imperial borders, using the second born Princess Kyōko as a way of wrestling control over the once antagonistic German Empire. While the hand-over of the Alfr's two most valued colonies was ostensibly done under the pretense of the possibility of outright war from a Bandung Pact led liberation of either South Africa or Mexico, experts across the Globe have come to other theories.
Specifically, experts within the UASR have begun theorizing that the recent withdrawal of the Alfheim from its Imperial ambitions, is largely, due to the possibility of an ongoing internal conflict between various factions within the Alfheimr Empire - namely, it is believed that there are several dissenting factions attempting to wrestle control out of Japanese hands. While outright war seems unlikely, the possibility of conflict cannot be understated as [Kyrr Von Lohengrin](), the Æsir's Chosen, and Danubian Habsburgs have been seen far more frequently in official affairs - while Alfheimr military assets appear to be on the constant move. While it is believed that much of the Aesir's non-Human population has as dictated by central processing units in both Wewelsburg, Berlin, and Paris been accepting of the new Æsir, more complex androids like the Æsir's Chosen and the vast majority of the religiously indoctrinated human population is rumored to be far less tolerant of both the official explanation of the Æsir's death and of the new ruling Æsir. Ultimately, while most experts believe outright conflict to be unlikely, some like those within the INC (GIGAS), have begun to whisper about the possibility of coming conflict.

For the Republic, Part Five: Born is the Fourth

Rare are the times that Kyrr von Lohengrin, former Imperial Vizikong of North Amerika and Minister of Foreign Affairs had found himself in this office. Its white walls, mirroring those of the exterior, was one of the few buildings permitted to be rebuilt in the wake of the Third Republic's destruction. And yet here he was all the same, the slow ticking of a grandfather clock in the corner the only audible noise that could be heard even with his enhanced hearing. Not even the breathing of the man sitting at the restored Resolute Desk was enough to break Kyrr out of his state of shock. It was only when the man and his hulking frame spoke, that Kyrr's attention drifted back to the present.
"I once sat where you are now." President Armstrong who had once betrayed the Third Republic mused as he stared down the nimble looking Alfr. "I offered your King a Kingdom, and look at him now...laying in dirt.
If not for the desperation of Kyrr's current situation, he would have ordered this so-called President's execution for disrespecting the Aesir.
"And for that matter, look at you, you proud Alfr who once strode in here so high and mighty declaring a new world order. You know? Katherine might have been right...hahaha." Armstrong spat out his tobacco as he leaned back in his chair, resting his legs on the desk. "Your worse than us now, at least we never lost our homes."
The disdain in Armstrong's voice was palpable, as his baritone voice echoed throughout the office. Kyrr could barely hide his own contempt, and disgust at what was nothing more than a sub-human caveman lecturing to one of the Aesir's closest confidants.
"And now, as those Jap fucks stretch their god damn Midnight Sun across Europe...you come to me, Papa Armstrong for help." Armstrong's face broke into a wicked smile; violence, rage, and hatred spewing from his eyes. "Well your in luck, kid. Because you've come to a land where the people are free, there is no slate to wipe because I've already burned the fucking thing to the ground."
"Look, I'm not here for a monologue. We both have things we can off-...."
"Shut the fuck up and sit there, quietly. You came here for whatever I can offer, not the other way around." Armstrong's smile only continued to widen as it reached comedically lengths. "And as I said, your in luck, because I can offer you a place in my new America. People will die, and kill, and you can be one of the killers."
Kyrr continued to stare at the American whose smile literally reached from ear to ear.
"So...whaddya think?"

Warsaw, The Commonwealth 

vibe

"Fall Dämmerung and the Álfheimr Civil War"

CNN (Commonwealth) Issued October 16th, 2072 - 12:00 Warsaw, The Commonwealth
PARIS - As the Black Fleet lay smoldering at the bottom of the Atlantic, the Global Interoperable Guarantee for Allied Support has announced the end of the Álfheimr Civil War which had started in the late Spring of 2072. While the ACW had begun largely due to factional disputes on an internal level within Imperial Álfheimr government following the coronation of the new Æsir, too most experts, it didn't officially begin until the secession of what is now informally known as the "Republic of New Álfheimr". The New Republic which exists in an unrecognized status (by Imperial Japan, the INC, and GIGAS at large), is now formally made up of the "Imperial Dominion of Amerika" which was the former Third American Republic before its conquest by the late Greater Aryan Empire (GAE). The secession of America was allegedly brought about by an alliance between certain Dederick Lohengrin loyalists including Kyrr von Lohengrin, alongside Steven Armstrong the titular "Governor" of the American colony. While the Civil War had originally been fought solely between the Imperial Álfheimr under the recently crowned Æsir Kyōko and Kyrr's New Republic, the follow-up secession of Danubia from the Imperial Álfheimr quickly brought new levels of severity - forcing GIGAS's hand and involvement.
The secession of Danubia under the command of Ferdinand Habsburg, as advised by Gloria von Habsburg led to the creation of "The Grand Imperium of Europa", a new so-called Empire claiming to be the true successors of the Greater Aryan Empire. To even greater surprise however, it would appear that the Danubian secession was supported by the O-5 Council and broader Æsir Chosen including "The Advisor, Commander, and Mother" among others. This was a major blow to Æsir Kyōko's legitimacy, and additionally led to a significant loss of human manpower within the Imperial Álfheimr which coupled with the creation of Kyrr's Republic - undoubtedly forced Álfheimr's call for aide.
These events ultimately led to a "forced peace" between the Imperial Álfheimr which is ostensibly still "independent" from the Empire of Japan, the Republic of New Álfheimr, and Grand Imperium of Europa by GIGAS through the destruction of the feuding Black Fleet in the Atlantic operated by the Republic of New Álfheimr. At the same time however, efforts by the Bandung Pact and Eastern Union to capitalize on these events have largely fallen flat - as crises in Israel, Kaabu, and even Eastern Siberia have led to a new level of unprecedented global tension. Nevertheless, while a tacit "white peace" currently exists between the three "Álfheimr successor states", none are certain that such a peace will hold even under GIGAS oversight.

CLAIM REVEAL: THE POST-ALFHEIM STATES (MAP)

The Grand Imperium of Europa

• DETAILS
• Head of State: Ferdinand Habsburg
  • Other Important Characters (meta control)
  • Gloria von Habsburg
  • The Æsir's Chosen (those otherwise not listed under the RNA)
• Population: 203,994,000
• Claim Starting Allotments (IE. Special Starting Scenario)
  • Claimant receives special/secret information at the start of the Campaign

Things to Consider
The Grand Imperium of Europa is unique in its existence as a fortress state among fortress states, nestled in the heart of Central Europe and shielded from the broader "Japanese Alfheim" (Berlin/Paris, etcetera), the Grand Imperium claims not only to be the true successor of the GAE - but has in many ways, the military might to back it up. Having retained much of the human-based military, and significant portions of the non-human army as well, its only lack is in naval capability.
The Grand Imperium like the RNA also has the benefit of having total access to the Alfheim technology base (anything Tion, Eagan, 8th, etcetera posted). At the same time however, while starting at "peace" with the other Alfr successors and neighbors, the Grand Imperium must be careful as overt aggression against Imperial Alfheim may incur Japanese intervention - although, this is not assured by any means. However due to the ACW, it will likely take 1-2 years to rebuild the ability to produce more.
The Grand Imperium of Europa represents a strong, mid-level claim in a precarious yet flexible geopolitical starting position.

The Imperial Protectorate of the Italian Social Republic

• DETAILS
• Head of State: Player Choice
  • Other Important Characters (meta control)
  • None - Player freedom available
• Population: 94,964,006
• Claim Starting Allotments (IE. Special Starting Scenario)
  • Begins under the protection of the NPC "Imperial Alfheimr"

Things to Consider
The Imperial Protectorate of the Italian Social Republic begins in the unique position of being forgotten in large part by its recent conquerors, and having seen rebuilding investment under the deceased Aesir. The claim ostensibly has multiple factions but players must be cautious as the wrong move to quickly might see the gaze of Imperial Alfheimr or possibly the Grand Imperium of Europa (among other claims) turn towards either putting down a rebellion or imperial conquest.
The Imperial Protectorate of the Italian Social Republic has access to all Alfheim technology, and thanks to the rebuilding investment - has the ability to produce all of it.

The Republic of New Álfheimr

• DETAILS
• Head of State: Steven Armstrong
  • Other Important Characters (meta control)
  • Kyrr von Lohengrin (Former Foreign Affairs Minister under Dederick)
  • Ingel Faedryk (Former Reichsfuhrer-SS under Dederick)
  • Svipul von Lohengrin (Former Imperial Spymaster under Dederick)
• Population: 143,863,000
• Claim Starting Allotments (IE. Special Starting Scenario)
  • Has access to large portions of in-production Alfheimr military equipment (refer to Tion's posts) - Continental European in-production units largely destroyed unless in NPC territories.
  • Has a secret alliance with certain NPC claims (informed to the player)

Things to Consider
The Republic of New Álfheimr while a democracy, still considers itself the true successor to Dederick von Lohengrin, and has the geographic, military, and economic position to be immediately independent should its cards be played correctly. They are the strongest military of the three main successors, and similarly have a strong geopolitical starting position, alongside a network of secret diplomatic alliances.
The RNA is in a unique position to quickly assert itself as an independent state, having inherited the same technology base as the Grand Imperium - but in greater existing asset quantities. The RNA also has a large portion of the former GAE's "android" soldiers - making for a lethal and incredibly loyal army right out of the gates.

ALFHEIM CLAIMS MILITARY SPLIT

Questions please send on discord through private messages or comment on this post.

The global sports footwear market size is projected to reach USD 134.99 billion in 2028. The increasing investments in the research and development of low cost and efficient products will bode well for market growth. The increasing number of sporting events across the globe will have a huge impact on market growth. According to a report published by Fortune Business Insights, titled “Sports Footwear Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Gender (Men, Women, and Kids), End-User (Professional Users and Recreational Users), Distribution Channel (Online and Offline), and Regional Forecasts, 2024 - 2028."
Top Key Companies Covered in the Sports Footwear Market:

• Nike Inc. (Beaverton, U.S.)
• Adidas Group (Herzogenaurach, Germany)
• MIZUNO Corporation (Chiyoda City, Japan)
• Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)
• Under Armour, Inc. (Baltimore, U.S.)
• Sketchers, USA Inc.( Manhattan Beach, U.S.)
• Fila Holdings Corp (Seoul, South Korea)
• Converse (Boston, U.S.)
• Diadora S.p.A. (Caerano di San Marco, Italy)
• ASICS Corp. (Chuo City, Japan)

Get a Free Sample PDF Brochure: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/request-sample-pdf/sports-footwear-market-102216
Sports footwear have evolved tremendously over the past few decades. With more experimental studies and innovations, there have been major advances in the build and quality of sports footwear across the world. The rising demand for the product has been pivotal to the growth of the market in recent years. The increasing demand has resulted in the presence of numerous local brands as well as globally operating companies. The massive investments in manufacturing as well as marketing of sports footwear will create a huge platform for rapid market growth. The constantly rising demand makes it easier for smaller companies and this is a major reason why there are numerous start-ups as well as small scale brands across the world. The increasing market competition will bode well for the growth of the global sports footwear market in the foreseeable future.
Ban on Sporting Events during the Covid-19 Pandemic to have a Negative Impact on Market Growth
The recent coronavirus outbreak has had a negative impact on all major industries, barring a few healthcare sectors. The rapid spread of the disease has compelled governments across the world to implement strict measures to curb the negative effects. These measures have limited business operations and with social distancing practices in place across all major countries, it has become increasingly difficult to operate seamlessly. Accounting to increasing Covid-19 cases, sporting events have been shut down in the past few months. With strict shutdowns on global sporting events, the demand for sports footwear has gone down drastically in the past few months. Having said that, the efforts put in lift the bans will provide opportunities for companies to recover.
Increasing Number of Product Innovations and Variants will Emerge in Favor of Market Growth
The report encompasses several factors that have contributed to the growth of the market in recent years. It is observed that the global market has shaped up as a highly competitive space, with several large scale companies operating in numerous countries across the globe. With increasing demand for the product, these companies are coming up with newer strategies, with innovations and product variants among the leading marketing strategies. In July 2020, FILA announced the launch of a new range of sports footwear, making it available for sale on the company’s website with retail store limitations in the ongoing pandemic. The company introduced GH3ONE3 collection of sports shoes as well as a few other limited edition variants. The efforts taken to lift lockdowns across the world have certainly encouraged the company and such new variants are likely to accumulate in the coming years.
Ask for Customization: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/ask-for-customization/sports-footwear-market-102216
Industry Developments:
February 2019 - Xiaomi announced the launch of a new sports footwear range, ‘Mi Men’s Sports Shoes 2,’ in the Indian market.
About Us:
Fortune Business Insights™ offers expert corporate analysis and accurate data, helping organizations of all sizes make timely decisions. We tailor innovative solutions for our clients, assisting them to address challenges distinct to their businesses. Our goal is to empower our clients with holistic market intelligence, giving a granular overview of the market they are operating in.
Contact Us:
Fortune Business Insights™ Pvt. Ltd.
9th Floor, Icon Tower,
Baner - Mahalunge Road,
Baner, Pune-411045, Maharashtra, India.
Phone:
US: +1 424 253 0390
UK: +44 2071 939123
APAC: +91 744 740 1245
Email: [sales@fortunebusinessinsights.com](mailto:sales@fortunebusinessinsights.com)

15M. I want to start off by saying that I am not judging anyone. I've taken the whole, "Who are you to judge me, only Allah can judge me, don't judge me," nonsense hundreds of times. I just want to clarify that it is not my intention to put anyone down.
I reverted to Islam about 6 months ago and I have been learning as much as I can about the religion from reliable scholar's and following Allah's commands to the best of my ability.
I want Islam to have a good image, and I want others to join Islam as well. But at the same time, I don't want its followers to start putting fitnah into practicing believers. I know people take time to adapt to changes, but you can tell they're genuine because they know they have a problem that they're working on. However, I'm talking about people who sin but then use the Deen to justify it. They use statements like, "It's between me and Allah, and only Allah can judge me."
Yes, it is between you and Allah and yes, only Allah can judge you. But my problem is, is that they put a negative look onto Islam and twist not only the religion but also the Prophet (SWS) by saying things about him that aren't even true. My reason is that it is fitnah for Muslims and it also makes non-Muslim repel Islam because non-Muslims don't read Qur'an and don't read sunnah, they read you.
I've dealt with this and still am. I've started lowering my gaze, not having physical contact with non-mahram women. I've stopped visiting family when there is music, free mixing, women without hijab, smoking, and drinking. I've stopped watching movies. I'm sad that I've had to cut these off but I know it's for my own good. But many Muslims who I know have seen my religious shift and now that I have changed they say things like, "Don't turn into a Mawlawi, your being an extremist, you're being disrespectful (When kindly refusing to shake hands with non-mahrams), this is just a phase and you'll learn to be more moderate one day, etc."
I believe that I can handle the fitnah that some people bring to Islam, but I don't want others to go astray because of them.
Overall, I feel like it's wrong for me to feel irritated by this but I want to know what you guys think and whether or not my feeling is justified.
اَلسَلامُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ ٱللَّٰهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ

I don't really no where to start. I feel I've lost myself, consumed with anxiety and guilt and fear and regret and I fear, this new fear, that it's going to be the end of me if I don't start to get it out in some way, shape or form.
I guess I'll begin at the beginning...
​
I had a difficult childhood with fairly neglectful parents. A mother who openly expressed she never felt she really stepped into her mom shoes until she gave birth to my younger sister, who is three years younger than me. She is my only sibling. My mother told me when I was a kid that she "had to love me", but when my sister came around "she was finally a mother and over the moon", or simply "I always always wanted a girl". I'm not sure if this could be attributed to Post-partum depression, not that she ever researched that or was daignosed with it. That's probably just me trying to pardon my mother or something to the effect. She was 17 when she had me and I'm sure times were different then, my parents both were raised religious, father christian, mother mormon. Maybe their guilt. I ask myself why they brought me into this world if I wasn't wanted to begin with. Or, give me up for adoption to a set of guardians that would have loved me better. I know I was an accident and that's not what gets me down, I get that life be lifing and what happened happened. My difficulties stem from the feeling that my presence never gave my mother any sense of purpose, responsibility or love, or concern. She was emotionally unavailable to me virtually my entire life and I feel like that caused many issues later in my life and how I perceive myself and what I deserve. Coupled with the fact that my neglect met such extremes that I am frankly shocked that I was never picked up by child care services, maybe things were different in the 90's. I'm not sure, I was just a child then.
Much of my upbringing I didn't receive a lot of the things most people would consider essential. As a baby my crib was the sock drawer, then I grew large enough to have a closet, then slept on the floor of a walk-in closet, then I had a single bed from what I recall for maybe a year or maybe two years and I remember feeling metal springs poke me in the my ribs and I recall it being uncomfortable enough for me to move back to sleeping on the floor next to the ratty old used mattress my father found from who knows where. I remember feeling like I had to keep that secret, that the mattress they gave me was uncomfortable enough for me to sneak sleeping on the floor next to it. I think I was really afraid as coming across as ungrateful. My father came from a third world country, so the "gratefullness issue" was address frequently by my mom because "I don't have it even half as bad as what my father had to endure. And she was probably right. But it just silenced me ultimately, didn't put things into a mature context for me. I just learned that I can't complain about anything ever. Anyway, that trend didn't really change when I grew older. grade 9-10 I was sleeping on the living room couch so my sister could have privacy and a bedroom to exist in for herself - which I realize is important for an individual so I encouraged her to have the bedroom. Although I figured my parents expected me to do this for my sister regardless. I was okay with making sacrfices for those I love, it was instilled in me from a very very young age.
I do feel like my father took advantage of me in the form of labour as well, having to do custodial work with my father from 10pm to 3am, at two highschools I believe he was contracted, at that young age I honestly enjoyed just spending time with my father I think, working alongside him. When I was in grade 2 and 3 I had garbage bag duty for all the students bathrooms, and I remember loving snapping the bags open by rushing air into the bag and making it blow up like a baloon. I remember the scary unlit shadowy hallways that I couldn't perceive the ends of. No bodies to see, it felt eerie but exciting in a way - like it was a whole different world.
School was a different experience for me. It was very stressful, my parents had to move a few times a year because they would dodge rent or just generally be selfish with their dual income. They loved to party hard on the weekends. I remember wondering why my father did this to himself all the time. Hoping that we could spend quality time on a saturday, but he wouldnt get out of bed until just before dinner. I didn't really understand hangovers or alcoholism and how it meant our plans would get cancelled. I think I remember trying to wrap my head around willful self-poisoning for entertainment and how could that be more enjoyable then spending time with your son? I couldn't tell my mother why I was so sad about it. Why I didn't want to move again and again and again. Why I found it so difficult to make new friends everytime I had to switch schools. Why I couldn't just do one single full school year with one class of students. It was so hard and at the time, I didn't know anything different. It was so hard to make friends and I think it created this approach to making a "new family" of friends when I became a teenager and young adult.
​
I remember always wanting to be a "good kid". The "best kid" for my parents. I feel like my parents attached this moniker to me that made things harder for me to mature into a rounded adult later in life. My parents always flaunted me as this point of accomplishment, the accomplishment that I was "so extremely well behaved". I would strive to be super polite, and a good host, try to help out when my parents had their friends over, literally fill their cups when the opportunity presented themselves. I think I did this because I must have made the conclusion that if I was quiet, super polite, helpful and useful then I had value. That I could be loved. That I could earn this love from my parents through acts of service.
I remember feeling like my sister and I had extremely different experiences growing up. When my parents were at work I took care of her, cleaned and cooked. one time my sister told my mom to eff off when she was 5 and I was 8. My mind was blown. I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that she had the bravery and courage to defy my mother. Looking back, my sister was just mirroring the language she learned from my parents from whenever they fought. I remembering seriously worrying and getting scared that my father was going to belt her, or use the coat hanger, which was his preference with me. I feel like my mom was always checked out and I'm hurt that she allowed my father to take his rage out on me. That my mom could care less about me being beat, but never my sibling. It was very confusing and difficult for me to process. Not that I really processed it much as a kid. I honestly just wanted to be loved and be the best child possible. Honestly though, 'm seriously so glad that my sister was spared all of that complete non-sense. I don't wish that on anyone in the world. There were some punishments where he would walk in and tell me to pull my pants down without explanation. I have memories of tearing up and saying I didn't know why this was happening, asking what I did wrong and he would just remind me that if I resisted then I would get it worse and to hurry up and get ready. My father has since apologized. I think it is how he was raised. I didn't know what to say in response, but I told him I loved him and it's in the past. But I don't know if I was being honest when I said that. My mother would still gaslight me to this day if any of this became topic of discussion, not that I'm guessing. A year ago she told me that much of my pained memories were false and this never happened. My father on the other hand typically stays pensive and unchallenging.
It seems so damned crazy writing all of this out, it feels like a heartbreaking novel and not my life at all. But it was and is my life. I have difficulties opening up and expressing my feelings and advocating for myself when the moments are true and appropriate to do so. I know it's the healthier way to communicate, but I was literally taught to stay quiet and be useful. Fast forward 20-25 years and I'm going to be 35 and I feel like just ending it all. Every year my birthday passes and I'll get a text from my family happy birthday. But they know I'm in a difficult place, they know I miss them, they know I love them and forgive them, I try the high road whenever I can but I just don't see the point anymore. they won't celebrate my life and existence, but they'll throw family gatherings for each other, birthdays, christmas, fathers day and mothers day.
On that note, another mother's day has recently passed and my mother never invited me over, I texted my father three weeks in advance in hopes of securing a time to come over and celebrate my mothers life with my family as a family. I felt particularly stung this mother's day when they celebrated and didn't text or call to invite me over. I live in the same small town so it's easy to hop over. I literally live three blocks away.
Anyway, my mother was diagnosed with cancer over christmas this year and I have been worrying for my mother ever since and thinking about my life with her and the mortal coil and the finite mount of time I may have with her. I feel like there is a large empty part in my heart that wishes my mother and I could go grab a coffee together. She can show me her ipad app art that she has been really excited about for a couple years now. She loves showing off her digital art and I love seeing her joy and how proud she is about her art. I just don't know why she couldn't feel the same for me, her only son. Maybe I'm just a her dissapointment.
I dropped out of highschool and left the family home when I was 16. I just couldn't work for my dad during the night AND go to highschool AND socialize. Something had to give. Unfortunately it was highschool and my parents didn't really care about that at all. They were just... fine with it. they supported my sister through college and she was fortunately able to graduate with a veterinary degree of sorts. she still lives with them now as she pays off her student debt, but I left and travelled and worked on music for over a decade so I admit that I was entirely out of the family picture for some time. But as I get older, not wanting to repeat the mistakes of my parents I fear that that is precisely what's been creeping up in my life.
five years ago I met the absolute most wonderful human being and I am so lucky to have my partner in my life. She and I are engaged now and set to be married. I hoped that the news would overwhelm my parents with excitement and joy. Maybe a facebook post about their son, share some family pictures or something. But they did nothing at all. I think they showed off pictures of the trip to Mexico that week instead.
I just don't really understand how I'm this unworthy of their love and unfortunately now I'm realizing that illusion that I am unworthy has infected my relationship with my fiance. I love her so much but when I can't fix everything in her life I feel like I am the failure and the guilt overhelms me so much and the guilt is such a strong motivator for me, and it usually motivates me into becoming the biggest doormat in the world. I've never worked harder for a relationship or invested this much energy. I feel she deserves it. But I don't advocate for myself. So I build up resentment. Like I clean the house constantly and work and help bail out of her bad spending habits and cover her rent without question and this and that. To be clear, she doesn't take advantage of me and that's not how I feel about it. But I do let this annoyance build up inside of me because I don't know how to communicate my feelings in a healthy way. I'm scared I'll lose the person if I speak up, or I'll be gaslit. Again, that's not my partner that gaslights. That's just generally how I feel I'll be treated if I open up with people. It all goes back to my childhood. It's affected every friendship and work relationship I've had since.
When I was 20-ish, 15 years years ago I did the classic, "seek the relationship that most comfortably fits into the patterns you experienced with your parents". And so I trapped myself in a horrific and extremely damaging relationship with a girl I'll call K. She has undiagnosed bipolaBPD, she would never seek help but self-medicate. She ended up in the hospital maybe four times for self-harming and this where she was considered to have these diseases by a few doctors on different occasions. Anway, it turned into a relationship of abuse and it wasn't exactly new territory for me. I was ashamed in that 8 year relationship. I wanted out so bad, but she would threaten to unalive everytime I tried to get away. Of course, some weeks would go by and i would get my hair pulled out of my scalp, a knife waving in the air in front of my face, spat in the face, kicked, punched, bit, a pot of freshly boiled ramen soup thrown in my face and eyes. What's worse is that I seeked police intervention on multiple occasions. Every single time the police visited, they talked me out of pressing charges, asking me " well if she doesn't have any place to go, then do you have a place you can stay at, or the shelter?". twice they talked me out of a restraining order, that legal proceedings would take forever. Adn de-escalting me from wanting to take measures to ensure my safety because she may end up on the street as a result. To this day, I absolutely wish I advocated for myself here and pushed for a restraining order. I'm so mad at myself for not doing so.
Unfortunately, fast forward a couple years into that relationship and one evening everything would finally hit the fan. I told her to never touch me again and I absolutely meant it. she had just yanked out the largest chunk of my hair to date, to the point where my scalp was bleeding and I could even see epidermal matter still attached to the folicle ends that were in her clenched fingers. My head bled a bit and I pushed her off of me. Telling her that I needed to leave, that I was walking to my secure jam space just a 10 minute walk away. It had a leather couch in a cold concrete basement, but hey at least I would be safe for the night and I could play my drums and try and blow off this anxiety and fear in a way that was safe albeit very noisy.
She hated that I wanted to leave and convinced herself I would never return. To be fair, that was the energy I had. I never wanted to see her face again and have her name on my lips after that night. So her tactic was simple, to threaten me with calling the cops and tell them that I violently pushed her. I called her bluff and said "go ahead and I will just tell them everything you've done - yet again. All I am doing is going to the space to sleep, I said, maybe play drums." She called the cops and told them she was pushed into a wall, and she felt very unsafe. Which yes, I did push her off me when she attacked me. In the past, I tried various tactics, to run away didn't work, she just always chased me down. Or sometimes I would just sit there while she was violent against me and I just "dissapeared" kind of like how I would when my dad used his coat hanger. This time, I just pushed her off of me, I was done with the relationship at that point and we both knew it. Anyway, she called the police, they arrived and when questioned I told them that I pushed her off of me in self-defence. I was drinking that night and it didn't help my case as I was arrested without question that evening and I was charged on the spot without question with domestic assault. It devasted me. I asked the police how this could happen lawfully. That she is an abuser and there is a history of this multiple times. That I've requested a restraining order. They explained that in quebec the laws are a little different and in the case domestic cases, if there is a male aggressor against a female, then the male is automatically charged to the fullest extent. I was absolutelyu devasted by this. I can't tell you the amount of fear and anger I felt in that jail cell that night.
I feel so incredibly betrayed by the justice system, keep in mind, this is law that from what I understand is only in Quebec, I was there for music at the time with an old friend whom I am no longer in contact with. I don't think the rest of the country operates under law in this way. Now I appreciate that they are vigilant about woman abuse victims, but the law shouldn't be this absurdly biased. It just doesnt feel just and fair to me. Covert abusers shouldn't be able to take advantage of the justice system in this way, but it happens.
It was an awful experience, I was homeless for a couple months afterward, not allowed to retrieve my belongings, so I lost all of my life "crap" that I had built up, years of hardwork and investment. I mention this because I realize later in life that I have intense collecting behaviour. maybe as a self-soothing behaviour. But I love building up collections of my hobby stuff as I have many and I feel they keep me regulated and it's a form of therapy for me. In any case, I lost everything when I left that whole situation. It sucks, although ultimately it's clearly best that I got out of that dreadful circumstance. I flew across the country to my hometown and to be closer to my family and old friends from highschool. It's quite a small town mind you.
Unfortunately, my classic tendency to hide and not advocate for myself created an opportunity for my abusive ex. A year following those events, despite me assuring her that I had to block her because I flew away to start a new life provinces away. That I wished her the best. That I even promised I would never tell a soul what she did to me. Not to mention that unfortunately we live in a society where nobody really has an ounce of sympathy for a male abuse victim. I had every intention to keep that promise, but she couldn't trust me ultimately. I think her logic was maybe to just beat her ex to "the punch". Kill or be killed or something like that. I don't live my life like that so I don't really know what her plan was. But she made a bunch of posts on various social media platforms for all of our mutual friends, music friends, coworkers etc. that the relationship was over and she was free. That she got out of a cycle of abuse and she was ready to start a new chapter of her life. She never used my name, just that she was glad she got away from her toxic and abusive ex once and for all.
It was exactly like that night a year prior, she threatened me with this outcome she could design for me, and I called her on her bluff by saying I was still going to block her and I can't control what she does with her life or how she conducts herself, but that I was out and to never contact me ever again. She made me regret that decision.
The posts she made that day got so many likes and support from so many of our mutual friends, even musician mates that were closer to me than her, and it absolutely destroyed me, not just internally but socially. I no longer make music anymore and it hurts to go outside into the world because it feels like everybody sees me as this monster. And still I don't have a voice to inform anyone otherwise - except my family and my fiance. I have no friends anymore. They all left my life with the belief that I did all of these horrible and awful things.
I just don't trust people anymore as a result and it's just caused me to become extremely bitter and depressed. I ruminate on the past, maybe in attempts to fix the past so I can move on. So I could do better, so I don't have to punish myself for my mistakes in the past. But it just reopens every emotional wound I have and they never get a chance to heal. That was maybe 7 years ago now and I'm still replaying these events in my head every single morning for about 1 - 2 hrs. Then I go completely numb for the majority of the rest of the day, shallow breathing, and the mildest sadness that mascarades as fatigue and disinterest.
There are some days where I seriously fear for the future and I just feel like every cruel soul will inherit this earth and that's the future, they built this world of suffering and they deserve to inherit it. Their toxic flag staked so deep into the earth in reclamation. The future isn't holding any seats for people like us. I'm so heartbroken and defeated. I feel like white-wolfing my fiance because she deserves better than this traumatized person that hides from the world. I feel like giving her my collection of collections so she can sell it all off and pay off her 10k of credit debt, then with this act of kindness I can go out not feeling like a guilt-ridden defeated loser. And leave on a high note.
When I'm alone, I get trapped in these ruminating cycles and it's the angriest I ever get. It's reached the point where I feel like I am actually reliving all this past trauma every morning and I can't do it anymore. I just feel like I am so at the end of whatever this ride was.
I don't have any friends anymore and everyone but my fiance thinks I am a monster and it's just unbearable.
I just don't even know. I am even afraid that someone will read this post and suss through all of this and make the connection. Then I'll get another new email or random throwaway account with an insta message that says "I told you you would never be able to get over me. You can move on, but you will never be able to erase the past. Never truly. You know where to find me."
It's haunting and it's poisonous. I just feel haunted and poisoned and I don't know if there is a snake oil potent enough or antitode true enough to get me back to the generous, lighthearted, energetic kid I once was.
To whoever was willing to read through all of this, thank you for hearing me out. I don't know what advice I am even asking for here. I'm hoping just speaking this out into the world in some way can alleviate this misery. I don't know.

I have already posted on here somewhere about how I and my current bf are looking to hopefully get married sometime in the not too distant future. He is the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I could not be happier.
This is about my first boyfriend, let's call him Dick.
I was 24 and he was 19. We met while I was working on a college campus at a Burrito Bowl. Well, actually, that's not strictly true. Although I did not attend that particular college, I was often involved in a religious organization that met on that college campus-in addition to working there. We met when I joined the Discord server for that religious organization, and offered to bring dinner to meet new people. He was the only person to take me up on my offer, and so on a storming night in the middle of a week in October, I rolled up to the campus meeting center with a wagon full of:
-a pot of soup
-tortilla chips
-seasoned bread
-butter
-shredded cheese
-sour cream
-fork, knives, spoons, glasses, and folded cloth napkins
Yes, I basically brought an absolute stranger a full meal. For free. On a college campus. In a wagon.
We hit it off and became really fast friends. Really fast friends. Fast forward to end of April the following year. He and I were hanging out together because he wasn't going to be coming back to that college the following semester. He had lost his scholarship because of bad grades. The night before he was supposed to leave, I took him to one of my favorite restaurants as a farewell treat. It was going to be two years before I could see him again. After I dropped him back off at his dorm, I went to run a few errands of my own. Meanwhile, he is texting me that he hasn't packed anything and he doesn't know where to start. I offered to come help, and he said please.
I was at the store while he was texting me, so I bought for myself a 1.25L bottle of coke, and some chocolate. I got THE text as soon as I had finished checking out: "Hey when you get here, I'd like to talk to you about something that's been on my mind."
I pull up to the dorm and go up to his room, plop myself onto the couch. He left to go get something out of his car that he had forgotten. When he came back, he nervously sat down on the arm of another chair in the room, and proceeded to drink MY coke and chowed down on MY chocolate, while rambling on about how he thought I was super sweet and that he really like me and that he hadn't intended to come back, but now, it was his entire goal to come back one day for me. He didn't ask me right then to be his gf, but said he wanted time to think about it, but would I also think about what my answer would be?
I said I would, and proceeded to get his entire dorm room cleaned and packed by 9 am the next morning. A week later, he asked me to be his girlfriend. I said yes and we were incredibly happy--for three weeks.
At the end of three weeks, we were talking while he was traveling to and from work, but there just wasn't anything there anymore. He started ("inadvertently") giving me lists of people, animals I would have to please and things I would have to do in order to be his gf. He didn't want to talk to me anymore, I never knew if he would call me or not, or if he would just randomly hang up on me in the middle of a call. He would constantly rather play video games or listen to music than talk to me. I was becoming more and more discouraged and feeling very boxed in. Also, I never received any gifts, flowers or presents from him our entire relationship. I know it is kind of hard to do long distance, but I managed to send TWO packages to him containing meaningful gifts. Side note for those interested: my current bf either sends me flowers/gifts via DoorDash, Instacart, etc., or has me go out and buy what I like and then refunds me the money. I love this so much.
I went away to go volunteer at another religious organization. Right before I left, I bought a plane ticket to go visit him for my birthday week. Everything was arranged. During the camp, we broke up. Here's how.
He knew that he was my first ever for everything. First bf, first serious relationship, first KISS. He played that, and played it hard. He knew that I had boundaries and that I would stick to them, even if I was embarrassed or thought it would hurt him. I was not going to budge on what I thought was right. He told me that his plan was basically to kiss me the minute I stepped off the plane to see if there was any "spark" there. Idk what would have happened if he didn't find the "spark". When I hinted that I might not be comfortable with that, he asked me why, and I said it was the way I was raised. He got upset, told me that he was starting to hate my parents and said that this was the way things were going to go. I hung up with him, called my mom and told her everything. I got her to begrudgingly allow me that if Dick wanted to kiss, I could. That is all I wanted, sex wasn't even on the menu.
At this point, I am mad at Dick. So I called him back and ranted off on him about how I felt about the entire thing, but mentioned that I had "permission" from my mother to kiss him IF I chose. He didn't let it go, but got his mother involved. We argued back and forth for two days. Finally, two days before camp ended, he texted me, asking if we could have an honest conversation. The basics of what he said, over TEXT:
"I love you, and when I say it I do mean it, but I mean it more in the way that you would tell your sister."
I was so distraught and stressed out that I couldn't think of anything else to do other than pray. Over the period of an hour, I literally typed out my heart and feelings to the God I thought I believed in, to Dick. At the end of it, Dick's entire response? "Don't you know that would've been better said to the Big Man Upstairs?"
I ended things immediately.
We tried to remain friends (at first this was mutual agreement, and then entirely his idea) but it didn't work out well at all. All I can say is that Karma is an absolute bitch, and in this matter I am 100% on her side. Hell, I would've even given her the weaponry needed to screw Dick over, even without her asking.
A few months go by and he ends up getting into another relationship. The gf doesn't know me, but tells him that he needs to block me or else. So he does, I end up having to leave the Discord server for the religious group, and I lost contact with most of my support group because of this. I should mention here that these were MY friends, not his. He wasn't even from the same state as I was. I found out from my best friend that just a few short weeks later, Dick went into the server and posted a prayer request about how his gf was missing. Later, he posted another, and even later posted a third. My best friend rang my phone off the hook that night trying to get in touch with me.
Apparently, Dick's gf was incredibly mentally unstable. She had threatened to go end her life, and disappeared. Nobody knew where she was. Dick eventually called the cops, and when they found her, she GASLIT him saying that he was so untrusting, was just the worst, he made her feel that way, all the jazz. They broke it off and I believe she may have been institutionalized for a little bit.
So yeah. I think I'm way happier now, just sayin. :)

Bonjour to you, I'm Aidan! 😊
I'm looking for a serious relationship (open to long-distance). About me:

• I'm a 25-year-old white male from Melbourne, Australia.
• I'm 6"0 (183cm) tall, relatively slim and athletic. I eat healthily and look after myself.
• I am a lawyer with a Law/Science degree.
• I have numerous hobbies and interests, and I enjoy meeting new people!

My interests include:

• Learning new things (I was on TV on a trivia show)!
• Socialising and meeting new people.
• Watching and playing sports - especially football (soccer) and tennis.
• Going out on adventures with people - hiking, exploring museums, etc.
• Watching movies - especially action and comedy.
• Being creative - I enjoy graphic design!
• Exercising, staying fit and healthy.

I'm interested in a relationship with a kind and compassionate female who cares about their career and future, is also non-religious and looks after themselves health-wise.
If you feel there may be a spark between us, feel free to reach out and I'd love to talk with you. :) Thanks!

I think desert harvest and intimate rose Aloe vera are something every person needs to try if they are these urinary and bladder issues. One of the most important things I've learned about this is that you CAN'T judge efficacy until tried it for at least 2 and you understand the dosing tiers, and how to use it.
The first month, I was not so impressed. The first WEEK I'll even say I was disappointed. I have little patience to begin with, and before accepting I have a condition, my views in supplements were the typical nay-sayer. By the third day I took them, I did have the shits a bit and my gut feel too great. Although they the rings that has the highest concentrations of laxative and latex, it still can have a laxative effect IN THE BEGINNING. it was bad enough that I could see how a significant amount of people stop right there. But I was desperate, they were 70 bucks and I persisted. That laxative effect and upset did subside greatly within about a week or two. I started on the first dose tier,3 every 12 hours. By the second month though, I still had symptoms. Get mildly improved from taking the aloe that rate, but to write home . I got my second order, and it came with the booklet that tells you how to dose. If you do not have relief a they want you to add an extra dose, and take 3 every 8 hours instead of 12. it also suggests intense symptomatic flares to take 3-6 on the spot that ppl can take up to 21 a day safely. Welp I added that dose, I took an extra 3 on top of that, took a hydroxyzine and went to for a nap. 4 hours I woke up symptom free. I notice a big difference with this dosing regimen, and there is still one dosing tier of c doesn't work. Once you the dose that works, you it for 60;days straight, then you drop to a maintenance dose until you feel the symptoms flaring up then you go back to the dose that worked before. There is a man who takes 2 bottles ofa month at 12 caps a day but they were life changing for him so he it's worth it.
So I definitely recommend this but only if you have the ability to commit to taking them everyday and possibly having to find the right dose! My flare up was coming back and I took a handful of these and have been religiously taking them and it does help for sure.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

Hello everyone, I have had an interesting trip to say the least.
Backstory, me and the bride met in middle school at a summer Christian camp. We went to the same school, but she was a year older than me. We were close friends in high school but drifted during college because that’s what typically happens.
Fast forward, she graduated last year and moved back with her fiancé. We linked up afterwards and our friendship is doing great. I was invited to the wedding, not a bridesmaid which is not a problem because I am so happy that she met someone who cares for her. I just wanted to clear that up because I know some will jump to conclusions (looking at you Charlotte, if you’re even reading this).
Now, the bride invited me to the bachelorette weekend and of course I accepted because who doesn’t like a girls exclusive weekend?! She got it for free from one of the bridesmaids and asked if she could bring me since one of the other bridesmaids just gave birth. She accepted!
We will call the owner of the beach house Stella. Stella was fun to be around and seemed to have a great sense of humor. I found her to be passive aggressive towards me, after seeing my necklace (I have a birthstone that my bf gave me, a cremation necklace for my dog who recently passed {bf also got me that bc he’s a sweetheart and we love a good gentleman around here}, and lastly a cross with an infinity thing). She stared at my chest a lot, I originally thought that she was just enamored or jealous by my enormous jugs (I am a size H) and shrugged it off.
Later we were playing drinking games in the house (still the first night) and every thing was great! Stella suggested that we play truth and dare, which I didn’t like because I thought that it was too high-schooly, but I went along anyways. After everyone had gone around, Stella suggested spicing things up. I was interested by replacing the truth rule with drinking, but immediately thrown off when she suggested stripping.
As I stated earlier, I have size H boobs, I have always been self conscious about them, especially since they have scars from open heart surgery. Stella said we would have to work our way from the top to the bottom and then first one out of clothes had to streak. I thought it was an insane idea, but really who am I to judge as a Christian? That’s Gods job, not mine.
I politely declined and told the girls that I would be on the balcony watching the waves because I was uncomfortable with showing my boobs to everyone because I am not good with dares.
Needless to say Stella threw a fit and called me a boring Bible thumper. I had not mentioned my faith at that point during the ENTIRE day. The bride stepped in and asked if we could just cut out the stripping part. That must have hit a few nerves because Stella told her that there was no way that she was taking my side because she knew what Christians had done to her in the past.
Now I had no idea that she had any religious trauma and I feel bad that evil people severed her relationship with God because of their selfishness. I think it’s awful that so many hijack Christianity for evil and I do not blame her for the conclusions that she had jumped to about all Christians.
Turns out my friend had never mentioned that she was a Christian because of Stella’s disdain. Shit hit the fan when the bride told Stella that she was a Christian and that we became friends at a Christian camp. She freaked out and said that she could not believe that she had been lied to all of these years (they became friends 2 years ago) and that she could not stand to be around ‘disgusting Bible thumpers for any longer’.
We were all drunk. None of us could drive. And Stella wanted me and the bride out. The other bridesmaids were trying to calm Stella down and reassure her that not all Christians are menaces. Stella went to her room rambling about how I had made her friend (the bride) a homophobic witch.
We stayed the night, hoping Stella was too drunk to remember (which is where we might have been in the wrong) and hoped for an apology if she did. I honestly thought she would be embarrassed by her behavior. Instead the morning after she doubled down, BROKE DOWN THE DOOR OF THE BEDROOM I WAS STAYING IN, and demanded that the bride and I leave. The bachelorette weekend was then spent in our hometown bar hopping at the few bars there and sleeping at my parents house.
The bride asked Stella to step down and she told the bride to fuck off because she was going to step down anyways. I cash apped her 150 for ‘I’m sorry, here’s some money for a new door’ and she sent it back under ‘I don’t take money from homophobic Bible thumpers’.
I think that was her only insult, I have no fucking idea but man did my friend dodge a bullet. Imagine what Stella’s reaction would have been if a pastor had shown up to the wedding and she had to watch my friend and her fiancé announce their love to Jesus Christ and form a marriage in his name.
And for the question you all may be asking, no, I will not be a bridesmaid because I am graduating college and am broke.
Edit: I was splitting the post into paragraphs to make it easier to read

I am NOT OOP, OOP is u/MediumGrouchy5547
Originally posted to TrueOffMyChest
I found my sister who disappeared from everyone more than 15 years ago after she ran away from home
Trigger Warnings: abandonment, depression, self-harm, eating disorder, possible mental health issues
Editor’s Note: TCA stands for trastornos de la conducta alimentaria which translates into “eating disorder”
Rastafarian: a religious movement
Original Post: April 26, 2024
I'm really happy and confused and I really don't know if I can talk about this with friends and family but I need to share my experience with someone because I missed my sister. I don't need or want any advice since no one really knows the situation to be able to give a good advice without assuming things they don't know and it's weird to read people talking about my sister like if they know what she lived, I just want to share this and I know a lot of people have had experiences like this too so maybe someone can relate.
When I was 10 years old my older sister who was 22 at that time disappeared after leaving a note to our parents saying that she's okay and just wants to start over her life.
My sister was always a lonely but outgoing person, she always told me that she enjoyed solitude from time to time and noisy things took away from her quality of life because tbh it was loud LOUD where we lived and it was annoying even for me (we lived in a dangerous neighborhood so it wasn't too safe and she hated not being able to go for a walk at night or do things at night alone), she was depressed and I remember seeing her suffering from severe anxiety attacks, she used to hit herself to stop them and she had a strong TCA that triggered those things. She suffered from other mental issues as well and talked freely about that, she talked about those things in front of me and these are things that leave a mark on you.
She was the favorite of the whole family although mi parents never out pressure on her, they always let us do our life (my brother who was 19 at that time knows that, my sister was the golden child), my grandfather always made it clear that she is his favorite granddaughter, even now. She was the calm but funny kind of person, she was the closest to my parents and uncles so when she disappeared from one day to the next no one understood what was going on.
Even my sister had never traveled alone except to go to work and she always notified my mother that she was okay for safety reasons. She left a long note clarifying that she doesn't want to be searched but she loves us. It was a big blow for the family, I remember my mother wanting to report to the police but they said that my sister was not a minor and the note said that she left by her own so they can't do anything.
In a way, my other brother knew that this would happen at some point, since our sister mentioned a lot that she wanted to leave everything and go live in the countryside or become a nun and live in a calm place without any worries but nobody took her seriously about that. She was always the kind of person who did things without telling anyone, she liked her solitude sometimes even if she was always friendly.
The first months and weeks were strange, it wasn't that she had passed away but that she disappeared because she wanted to, I remember my mother missing her because they always shared the afternoons together.
I also missed her a lot, Even years later my family missed her and at Christmas or her birthday someone would always say "maybe she'll show up now" or we would wonder how she's doing or if she was alive.
Back to the present. I'm on vacation in the south of my country (This part of my country is very expensive for a tourist and I am the only one in my family who was able to come now that I am an adult), it's a place full of villages and while I was exploring I came to a place where they sold typical handicrafts of the place.
While shopping I can swear that the first thing I saw was my sister looking at some crafts on a shelf, she looked more adult but obviously I recognized her instantly, we are really similar after all.
I didn't really knew how to react after so many years and I didn't know how she would react, but I went over and said her name. What I didn't expected was that she would smile instantly when she saw me and called me by my nickname. I thought she had escaped because she didn't wanted anything to do with the family even if in the note she said she loves us, but she was greeting me as if nothing had happened.
She told me that she didn't expected to see me there and asked me if I was on vacation, she said that the village used to be not so touristy but now more people started to go and many villagers opened stores for the tourists. I was upset, I was angry with her for leaving us and pretending that nothing happened but I couldn't react so I just asked her if she lives in that town and she said yes, It's a place filled with old people.
We talked for a few seconds, she asked me what I'm studying and if everyone at home is okay, she told me I'm taller and thinner. Then she gave me a kiss on the cheek and told me that if I have a few days off I can go visit her but she doesn't have a cell phone so she told me that she's almost everyday there. My sister also told me to send hugs to our parents.
I'm confused and full of questions about her, she doesn't even wants to hide, she didn't looked or talked to me like someone who wanted to run away from something and hide. She was just happy to see me and happy to know that we were all good.
But I also feel resentment for her when I think about all that our parents and grandparents suffered when she disappeared, making my mother feel that she was a bad mother because she couldn't protect her.
But I'm ambivalent as I'm also happy to know that she's okay and that she doesn't hate me or the family but I'm also confused, Her behavior wasn't that of someone who is hiding or who doesn't want to know anything about her past, she was just happy to hear about us.
Edit: I'm sorry but there are people who clearly don't read the post, there are literally people saying that I didn't even knew my sister and commenting as if they knew her and taking things for granted about her life, there are even people saying that they don't understand why I'm 'angry' (it's just a feeling, a normal feeling, it's not that I hate her and I will treat her badly, god. Nor will I talk to my family without talking to her first, at what point in the post did I say that I'm going to expose her? I'm never going to treat her badly either because I have no reason to do so, It's crazy how half the comments draw silly conclusions) with my sister when i literally say it up there, even if my English is bad because it's not my first language, just read the post before you want to get a few likes for some unnecessary advice.
Additional Information from OOP on his sister’s note

OOP: My sister in the note said that she loves our parents, my brother was 19 when our sister left and he himself knows how much our parents loved and supported her when she was having a hard time with herself but the outside always affected her badly.
I was ten years old but I wasn't a baby and I remember what the family dynamic was like, I remember the feeling of my family, my parents are not narcissists and my sister loved them and they love who's my sister, she just had her own problems.
How could a parent miss the idea of their children? There's not a day when my parents don't miss everything about my sister, they miss sharing the day with her, my father even missed when she was cranky. My parents always let us go our own way and I can assure you that they never pressured us to be what they wanted us to be, I don't even know what they want us to be.

Relevant Comments
Mil1512: Is your sister neurodivergent?
With the hitting herself when struggling with anxiety and enjoying solitude.
I'm neurodivergent and my family live in another country. I honestly forget to talk to them most of the time and only really do because my mum messages me first. If she didn't we just wouldn't talk. Not due to any hate or anything, I'm just happy doing my own thing.

OOP: She's not. My sister had a lot of self-destructive behaviors and hurting herself was one of them when she felt 'fat', she also had eating disorders and panic attacks because of that. I don't remember too much but she did other things to not eat besides hitting herself, she was very open about her TCA and yes, she has a diagnosis from a professional.
My sister was always in touch with my mother and everyone in text, she always used to keep in touch when she was going out until the day she left, now she doesn't even have a phone. In her note she just said that she wanted to leave everything

mikuzgrl: It almost seems like the sister has been in contact with someone for a while and thinks news is being passed back and forth.

OOP: I never thought about that but I don't think so, seeing how my parents miss her I think the first thing the family would do would be to at least tell my father that she is okay :/

 
Can people just stop with the aggressive messages? Weirdos: May 1, 2024
I understand that many reflect their personal traumas in this site, but I literally received passive-aggressive messages calling me idiot or even telling me that I would hate my sister if she were neurodivergent or claiming that my parents abused her.
What's wrong with y'all? Go to a psychologist and stop reflecting your unresolved traumas in the story of a person you don't even know. Go out and touch grass and talk to a real person instead of literally sending private messages like that.
I didn't asked for any advice and just wanted to share my story because that's the point of that subreddit, but many took it the wrong way and decided to turn something positive into a way to fight.
I don't even understand why out of nowhere I started getting those kinds of messages or if someone share that post on a weird place.
 
Editor’s Note: TLP is trastorno límite de la personalidad which translates into Borderline Personality Disorder
Update: May 7, 2024
On sunday I finally found my sister again, she was selling things in the park with other stands, all of them are rastafari, not hippies or a sect. I walked over and she greeted me just as happily, we talked a couple of things and my sister told me that she doesn't have a cell phone so it was impossible for her to tell me that she wouldn't be there on Saturday.
I spent the afternoon with her at her stand and after that we went to her house, she lives alone (and sometimes with her friends). We talked for a while and at one point she broke down and hugged me, saying she was trying to stay calm all this time and didn't knew how to react because she didn't wanted to make me cry too bc she remembered that I was really sensitive but she couldn't hold it anymore. We cried and talked a lot.
My sister was tired of people, she said that our house was her safe place but hated the idea of having to work everyday and I didn't wanted to study anything, she was our parents' golden child, so they let her do whatever she wanted, but she knew that at some point she had to make something of her life. She was tired of how stupid and empty everyone was, of the politicians, of the TV showing empty things, of the noise everywhere outside when she wanted peace, even sleeping in our home was stressful for everyone because of the noises outside during the weekends when she wanted to be alone to smoke and listen music (tbh, In my memories as a child I didn't remember the obvious smell of joints that my sister had all the time)
That added to the pressure that society put on her to be physically perfect make her want to leave everything behind.
She didn't wanted to die but realized that my parents were miserable when they saw her being miserable, this is something I didn't know, but my sister said that our father had two jobs to be able to pay for her psychologist and medication, also my father used to spoil her a lot with the only food she eat without guilty. Running away was like dying symbolically.
My sister says that although our parents always supported her, she felt like a failture for not being able to improve and always relapsing, she felt bad to see our father working so hard and also wanted to live according to her spiritual mentality, free from all that is toxic in society.
All of those things make her ran away from everything, she felt like a burden and also didn't wanted to live a life working and miserable like everyone.
Sis told me that she never contacted us because she doesn't wants to have a cell phone and a trip to our province is too expensive to her because it's basically going from one end of the country to the other.
She hates capitalist society with all her soul and doesn't even have a TV. My sister said that she is much better now away from the city. My sister told me that she wants to talk to our parents but doesn't knows what to say and we don't want to give them parents a shock since our dad was sick a few days ago and is recovering from dengue.
I'm writing this with her beside me and doesn't understand what's the point of this site (The last social network she used was fotolog in 2007) but said that she doesn't mind if I post this. She wanted to write something but said she doesn't like writing in English haha
My sister was reading the comments and wants me to clarify that she never suffered any kind of a abuse, she has a lot of friends and never had any problem with anyone but likes to be alone from time to time to meditate.
And she's not neurodivergent (She said her behavior was normal because of her TLP), suffers from ED, borderline personality disorder and see a psychologist twice a month.
During her adolescence, the blogs Ana and mia were trendy, her friends had that 'aesthetic' and she was popular in fotolog (according to my sister, at that time it was taken as an aesthetic and even a book about that was really popular between teens, maybe someone from my country knows Abzurdah?). She hated going out when she felt fat, she couldn't have imperfections like cuts on her arms so she hurt herself with a rubber band when she overate, something she read in those blogs. Now she's in a good weight but it took her really long to not relapse again. It's been a long recovery for her and once you're anorexic you never stop being anorexic, she's always afraid of relapsing.
So that's it for now, we don't know how we're going to talk with our parents without making them freak out. And also my sister after seeing the comments on the post saw other reddit posts and said that her life is definitely better without a cell phone, she says that things like fotolog was the beginning of all evil haha
Relevant Comments
OOP on his sister being involved with Rastafari

OOP: Idk how it is in other countries to be honest, my sister doesn't live in community and there are no camps, she's one of the few who has a house because most of them prefer to travel around the country.
I really think it's impossible for them to be 100% Rastafarian here tbh because we are from South America and the Rastafarian community here is obviously totally different from the REAL Rastafarians, they just follow most of the philosophy
Edit: for example, my sister doesn't consider herself Rastafarian but she share some points of the philosophy they have, I don't know how the rest of them thinks

 

DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP

I am NOT OOP, OOP is u/AdhesivenessMurky204
Originally posted to AITAH
AITAH for separating from my husband because he refused to get a vasectomy?
Thanks to u/queenlegolas and u/Direct-Caterpillar77 for suggesting this BoRU
Editor’s Note: added paragraph breaks for readability
Trigger Warnings: PTSD, mentions of abortion, domestic abuse, verbal abuse, sexual assault, rape
Original Post: April 28, 2024
My husband (28M, who I will call Jack) and I (27F) have been together for 4 years, we have 2 young children and I am pregnant again. I have been pregnant for what feels like most of our relationship. I got pregnant 4 months into our relationship. We got married a month before our daughter’s 1st birthday and ended up with a honeymoon baby. After our son was born, I talked to my OB and she put me on birth control and I have been taking it militantly.
My daughter is now 3 and my son is 2. A little over a month ago I discovered I am pregnant again, despite taking my birth control religiously. Abortion is banned in my state, and the pregnancy was discovered too far along to attempt to obtain one out of state. While Jack and I were nervous, we also love being parents and decided that 3 young kids would be a challenge, but 3 was a good number for us. Then we went in for the first ultrasound and got some unexpected news - it’s twins.
Things have been tough financially, and while we were stressed but excited for a third child, we were not expecting a third and fourth child. Beyond the finances, I am the primary caretaker and I know that twins is going to be a lot, three children under 5 is already a lot, but 4 children under 5 is going to be really really difficult for me. Physically, I am tired of being pregnant. I’ve been pregnant or breastfeeding the majority of our relationship. It’s exhausting, it feels awful, and I don’t recognize my body anymore.
Four children is enough. I don’t want more. I told Jack that I was done with pregnancy, I’ve been pregnant enough, I’ve been experimenting with different types of birth control for over a decade and I still can’t stop getting pregnant, abortion isn’t a valid option where we live, we need something more permanent. He agreed, and suggested an IUD, I told him no - if it did fail then it could cause an ectopic pregnancy which could kill me, especially where we live. I’ve had both control fail me multiple times already and I’m not taking the chance, so I suggested a vasectomy. He was not open to the idea, and was even upset that I suggested it and told me I should get my tubes tied. I told him a tubal ligation is a much bigger surgery and I could be recovering for weeks during which time I wouldn’t be able to work or take care of our 4 young children, but he could ice his balls for a day or two and be done with it. He told me that not getting pregnant was ultimately my responsibility, and topped it off by saying “that’s what your body your choice means, YOUR body, so YOU choose.” That’s when it went from a discussion to a full blown fight.
See, when I was 19 I had another birth control failure with my boyfriend at the time (who I will call Tom). I wanted an abortion, Tom did not because he was opposed. I told him I was getting the abortion since it was my body and my choice, and Tom said some horrible things to me, including threatening me. I broke up with him and got the abortion. In response, Tom ended up following me one night and attacking me. I don’t want to go into detail but it was horrible, and he ended up going to prison for a number of charges related to the attack. Not only do I have a number of scars and some long lasting physical effects, but I have PTSD as well.
Jack knows about my history and diagnosis, and has known from the beginning. I have a pretty prominent facial scar so I was upfront about it early on in our dating. Jack always presented himself as very pro-choice, so I was shocked that he would say that. I got really emotional and started crying and shouting, and it turned into a full-blown fight.
Eventually I said that birth control is a two-way street and so far I’ve been the only one managing it and he said “and now we have 2 kids and 2 more coming, great job.” I told him he sounded like Tom and he got super pissed, basically said how dare you compare me to him, and maybe he might want kids one day with someone who doesn’t compare him to her felon ex-boyfriend. I was stunned and horrified. I said “well then let’s not waste any fucking time,”then packed up myself and the kids and drove to my parents place.
It’s been about a week since the fight. I’ve spoken with Jack a few times and he has since apologized and said he was out of line and was speaking from a place of anxiety after finding out about the twins, but also that I said things that were out of line and it was wrong of me to insist he undergo a medical procedure. He said that can move on from the things I said and that he wants to see his children and be a family again. I told him no, that I didn’t want to “move on” from the things he said to me. I can’t just get over that and I think we need space apart. Jack was upset by this and while we talked I brought up getting a separation agreement to manage custody and finances while we figure things out. He did not like this suggestion, said we didn’t need to pull the courts into this.
I haven’t told a lot of people about what’s happening but my family and a couple close friends. My sister and best friend both think I should throw the whole man away, but my brother (who is the only other one married with kids) thinks that I’m being extreme for what sums up to a fight between two scared people who both said nasty things. My mom is trying to be supportive but is occasionally reminding me that I “don’t want to be a single mother of 4” and telling me not to let my PTSD drive my decisions, while my dad is being completely unhelpful (he thinks jokes are helpful - like calling me Doorknob because I “can’t stop getting knocked up”, telling me to let the oven cool down, real knee-slappers). I don’t know what to do. My kids are happy to be at grandma and grandpas house but they miss their daddy, I’m 4 months pregnant and already uncomfortable as hell, I wish I could go back to being a happy little family but I’m so hung up on the things he said in that fight. Am I destroying my family over one bad night? Am I being unreasonable for asking my husband to get a vasectomy?
Edit: I've noticed a lot of people recommending condoms. I have gotten pregnant with condoms twice. Our second child and my first pregnancy were both conceived using condoms properly (correct fit, put on correctly, single use, not expired, no breaks, etc). I do not trust condoms enough to not fail a third time. I know the failure rate is supposedly small, but it's not personally small enough for me. Edit to the edit: I'm sorry, I didn't expect so many comments so fast and I can't keep up with them. By the first pregnancy I mean the pregnancy with Tom. With Jack I was on the patch when I got pregnant with our daughter, condoms with our son, and the pill with the twins. So far I haven't ever suspected that Jack has tampered with our birth control and always presumed that I'm a fertile Myrtle.
I recognize the comments and just want people to know I'm seeing the suggestion. I'm not dismissing it, but the thought of it is deeply upsetting and has provoked a lot of anxiety. I just wanted to make it clear that if the suggestion is only based on the condoms, that the condom pregnancies were with two different partners. While I know I always used condoms properly with Tom, I do believe that Tom could have been fully capable of sabotaging the condoms.
AITAH has no consensus bot, OOP received mixed reactions of NTAs and YTAs
Relevant Comments
deepsleepsheepmeep: NTA. Your husband is though. Your body has already been through A LOT. A tubal ligation is a serious surgery and you are right about being out of commission for a while when recovering. If he is more concerned with an imaginary future wife than he is for you, I don’t think there is much hope for this marriage.
We have 4 close friends who all got vasectomies. None of them bitched about it like your wimp of a husband. We actually had fun vasectomy themed parties for them.
On the off chance he does end up getting a vasectomy, make sure to do the follow up appointments. One of the vasectomy fab 4 did not follow through and ended up with a post-vasectomy baby.

OOP: Thank you, I feel like this is a lot of what has been so upsetting has been that he's thinking about some imaginary future wife when I'm right here, his actual wife, the mother of his children. It's like he's already imagining a future without me.

 
Update: AITAH for separating from my husband because he refused to get a vasectomy?: May 3, 2024
I didn’t expect so many comments and literally couldn’t go through them all. It seemed like the majority of people said I was NTA but I did get a lot of YTAs telling me I was trying to force him to get a medical procedure and telling me to get one instead. Besides already addressing my reasonings why I made my request in the original post (which I want you to read with real "per my last email" energy), I in no way am *forcing* him to have a medical procedure, but I am saying that I do not want to be with a partner who is not willing to be snipped. This is an issue of compatibility. The number of children you want, the methods of birth control you’re willing to use, those are issues of compatibility and a reason relationships end all the time. If he doesn’t want to be sterilized that’s fine, but then that means that we’re not compatible anymore, since it means he wants more children and I don’t. Beyond that there were some YTA comments and some DMs that were just nasty, calling me a murderer and saying my body is a cemetery. Sadly enough, I expected those types of comments, because I know there are a lot of Toms out in the world.
First I wanted to address a couple things that kept coming up, because last post turned into thousands of comments that all said about 5 different things, so to avoid my inbox becoming another echo chamber:

You’re 100% going to have a C-section anyway so just get a tubal while giving birth.

No, I’m not 100% going to have a C-section anyway. Twins are not an automatic C-section. With my birth history there is no reason to presume that a C-section is in my future. My OB agrees, and has discussed the possibility as doctors have to do but also said that based on my past two birth experiences, I'm a "perfect candidate" for vaginal delivery.
I also am not going to mince words: tubal ligations are *less* effective than vasectomies with a *much higher* likelihood of an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy can *kill me*. In fact I got a PM from a woman who is a fellow fertile Myrtle who had an ectopic after a tubal. I am rejecting birth control options that, if they fail, would lead to my likely death. I don’t want to be pregnant again but I also don’t want to die and leave my children motherless, and in no way should anyone assume that traveling to another state to obtain an emergency abortion will continue to be an option in the future - we live in scary times, and Gilead is a real possibility. The comments seemed to have the vibe that people think that ligations are magically more effective than vasectomies and vasectomies are more of a whisper of sterility than an actual sterilization method so for those in the back VASECTOMIES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TUBAL LIGATIONS, FULL STOP. So I really need y’all to shut up about it.

Go to another state and obtain an abortion anyway.

I appreciate the personal offers to help I received in DMs deeply, but no. I’m in my 2nd trimester, which I know is still legal in some places, however I am at a point in my pregnancy where I personally as an individual do not feel comfortable obtaining an abortion, considering I would be *even farther* along by the time I could travel (which is not only finances, but logistics as well). I am 16 weeks pregnant now, these babies aren’t just clusters of cells to me anymore, and I’m not going to expand on that since it’s not up for debate.

Why not adoption?

With love and respect to everyone who has gone through adoption in all its aspects, adoption is absolutely not for me. This is a thought process I already went through 8 years ago, and now that I’m a mother and not a scared teenager I know it’s even less for me. I personally could not go through with it and come out the other side intact. Going through a full pregnancy, having my babies, and then being separated from them would break me.

Leave him and give him full custody of the twins

No. Because going through a full pregnancy, having my babies, and then being separated from them would break me. Jesus, some of y’all.

Just have a sexless marriage.

No. I love banging my husband, obviously lol. I don't want to be in a sexless marriage and anyone who has been to an abstinence-only high school knows that abstinence is not the way lol. There were a lot of comments assuming I would be perfectly fine withholding sex from my husband and having na dead bedroom, and I wouldn't. I have a sex drive. I'm going to want to bang my husband. Wanting to have sex with your spouse is *normal*.

What you would do about birth control if you divorced and dated in the future?

I’m not thinking of dating anyone else right now, because I’m thinking more about saving my actual marriage instead of an imaginary relationship. And if theoretically I did, I would probably seek out a partner who was snipped or was ready to be to be honestly, or a woman. I’m bisexual so there’s a very good chance that my future partner wouldn’t have the right parts to knock me up anyway lol.

Jack is sabotaging your birth control

I clarified my methods in the original post (as per my last email), but I did want to address this because it came up a LOT. I don’t have reason to believe that Jack sabotaged my birth control. A number of other fertile Myrtles showed up and brought up they or their family members repeated pregnancies in the face of birth control, including tubals. Accusing my husband of reproductive coercion for no reason other than I keep getting pregnant is a big leap and a weighty accusation. I am not the only fertile Myrtle out there, there's a reason there's a whole term for it.

Your husband is a narcissist, abuser, psychopath, and he does no childcare

My husband and I historically have a really healthy and loving relationship outside of this fight. In fact, this fight is the first time we’ve really had a fight, we’ve only ever had little arguments that we’ve been able to talk through. He’s an active father, the reason that I do the majority of childcare is due to circumstance between maternity leaves, our job schedules and the fact that I breastfed my babies. Someone also presumed I’m the breadwinner, which isn’t quite true. Jack makes more than me, but we do not have deeply significant differences in our incomes. When he is home he does his fair share of cleaning and cooking (arguably more than me at times), and parenting. That being said, the things he said in the heat of the moment were deeply concerning, and we’re addressing that together.
So to get down to the nitty gritty of the real update: since the last time I posted, Jack and I have sat down together and had a real come to Jesus talk. I’m not going to go through the whole breakdown, but it basically boiled down to this: it’s the vasectomy, but it’s more than the vasectomy. It was wrong of me to compare him to Tom but it was wronger of him to weaponize my trauma against me in a very malicious way. The way he intentionally used the same language my abuser used in an effort to hurt me was not acceptable and damaged the trust between us. He agreed it was not acceptable and said that in the aftermath he was horrified and ashamed his own words, and that he (as an explanation and not an excuse) kind of snapped under the stress. Oh and what he said about his “next wife” was not an indication of him not being committed to me but was because he felt hurt and wanted to hurt me back. He has apologized numerous times and seems to feel genuinely bad about it.
As for the separation, I am still going forward with it. I need space and time and I need to take that before the babies come. I am still staying with my parents who, for the record, are not sick of me or the kids. We’re a tight knit family, I only moved out when I moved in with Jack, and my sister moved out about a year ago so they have been empty nesting, and my mom doesn’t like that we live “too far” (an hour) away. What I have realized with space and time is how deeply triggering it was, in a way that I cannot explain to those without PTSD from DV, those who know will know. It’s deeply unsettled me and I’m having a hard time “getting over it” so to speak. There is now a lot of fear of my husband that was never there before and it’s going to take a lot to repair that trust and sense of safety. I cannot make a decision while I’m in this space, and I am addressing this with my personal therapist. Overall, I told him that if he wanted to stay married to me I needed two things from him: marriage counseling and a vasectomy, and even then I still cannot guarantee him anything. He understands, but I do not know what will happen with the vasectomy right now, we focused more on talking about the fight, but he is very aware that it's now a dealbreaker. And we have a marriage counseling appointment set up for next week. I'm hoping that counseling will bring some clarity to the situation, and in the mean time for the next couple months I'm focusing on giving my kids lots of cuddles and preparing myself for two new babies to come into my world, with or without Jack.
Additional information from OOP on her relationships

OOP: I've been through a trial to convict my ex-boyfriend of trying to kill me because of an abortion in a deep red, deeply religious area. I've definitely heard worse things, and I typically have pretty thick skin. That being said, I am pregnant and pretty emotional, so it's not the best experience. That being said, I do appreciate the level-headed comments when I see them through the sea of comments kind of saying the same stuff over and over. I'm not reading a lot of them if what I can see in the comment notification starts off nasty, so a lot of it is just inbox white noise. My favorites are the ones that start off with "I'm not going to read that BUT..." and I just think lol same. Like you don't want to read my post but expect me to read your comment that was made without even reading the situation? lol nope. And there are a lot of people conflating "providing someone with a hard choice" with "forcing someone into a medical procedure" and it just makes wading through for the actually helpful comments more tiring. Thank you though, I very much appreciate the kindness. Sorry, I've gotten so much of the same nonsense I guess I needed a little vent lol.

OOP on wanting her husband to make a decision and be on the same page

OOP: I want to be honest with him about where I am emotionally because I want him to make an informed decision. While the vasectomy is a deal breaker, it's really my secondary concern. My primary concern is the way he acted during the fight and his intention exploitation of my trauma because he was mad and scared. I think that telling him "get the snip to stay with me" and then deciding to leave anyway because there are deeper issues and/or I don't feel safe anymore would be cruel. He deserves to have the full picture before he makes a choice, doesn't he?
If he doesn't want the vasectomy, that's his choice. It's not what I want, but it is what it is. If he wants to call it quits at 4 kids, then it is what it is and if he secretly wants to be the next Nick Cannon then it is what it is he should be free to do that. That is part of why I don't know where he is on the vasectomy right now and we didn't really discuss it much when we talked, I'm focusing on discussing the bigger issue for me which is trust and safety within the relationship. The only way for him to make an informed decision about whether or not he get a vasectomy is for him to have all the information about the situation. If that makes him want a vasectomy less, then it is what it is. It's not about making him want to have a vasectomy. It's about being on the same page.

 

DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP

I was really smart in school. Graduated with a 3.96 without really trying. Up until age 16 I had tons of friends, super outgoing and always entertaining everyone. Then depression hit. I was raised really religious and I committed my life to it until one day I just changed my mind. I was raised in the type of church where they think it’s their mission to save everyone, they’re better than everyone and they use scare tactics. Judgmental and gossipy. So I broke away, moved 8 hours away at 19 and went wild. Started drinking heavily for the first time, doing drugs, going to raves, hanging out with older people. I went through hell but partying and living life was all I cared about because I felt like I missed out on so much and wanted to be cool instead of this nerd I’d always been. I realized I was hot, and got super vain. I racked up $10,000 worth of debt over the years because despite my free ride to college, I never went after my first semester. None of that mattered anymore. Just learning how to be cool and making memories. Having fun. I bartended, worked salon front desks. I went through a lot of trauma and ended up with terrible ocd and dependent on older women in my life to the point that I would have panic attacks if I felt I was losing them. I depended on them fully. I was suicidal, self harmed, I was all over the place. Fast forward through eight years of chaos and I’m now 27. Moved back home and living in my dad’s RV. Thankfully it’s a very nice expensive RV, but I still feel like a failure. No career. No money saved. Been here 8 or 9 months and still have $6,000 worth of debt to pay off. I got humbled and I work to try to change daily. I read, listen to podcasts, build new habits, I’m closer than ever with my family, I don’t go out, I am starting to dig through my past in therapy, I journal. I’m trying. But I’m broke. 27. No friends. No career. Living with my dad. And debt. And trauma. 😞