I am STILL NOT the Original Poster. That is u/ta-bff-234324. He posted in AITAH and amiwrong but posted the same text in both subreddits. I chose to use the ones from AITAH
Thanks again to u/Literally_Taken for the rec and to Choice Evidence and u/chickenoodledeprived for letting me know about the update!
Previous BORU here. New update marked with ****\*
Trigger Warning: racism
Mood Spoiler: tentatively happy ending
Original Post: April 1, 2024
My (29M) best friend Jess (29F) keeps on mentioning my ex (29F) in front of my fiancee, and I am thinking of cutting her off. I want to know if I am overreacting, or if Jess is in the wrong.
For context, Jess and I went to the same high school and the same college. We were friends in high school. However, since we both went to the same out-of-state college, we became best friends since then. We have always been there for each other during the best and worst times. However, things have always been platonic, and she is more like a big sister to me, who made sure I stay on the right track.
I have only been in two long-term relationships so far. One was with my ex Lisa for 7 years. We met in college and dated all through our college years. Lisa and Jess also became good friends, too. After college, Lisa and I just grew apart and had different goals in life. I became "boring" after college as I was working on my PhD while doing a full time job. Lisa broke up with me as she wanted to party on weekends, while I was home studying. I was heartbroken, but I don't think I ever blamed her or had resentment towards her, as I understood my decisions were selfish and should not hold her back from having the best life.
Jess always stood by me and comforted me during that time. Jess and Lisa were good friends and Jess always kept on telling me that Lisa loves me and will be back one day when I am ready. I foolishly held on to that hope and stayed friends with Lisa. That was until I met my fiancee Yang. After I finished my PhD, I got a nice job in a big tech company. Yang joined our team a year after me. We started going out for drinks, and dinner and we started dating seriously pretty soon. We are happy together, and financially in a great place. Needless to say, I stopped talking to Lisa after I started dating Yang.
I proposed to Yang a year after we started dating and got engaged last year. Jess has been acting weirdly since we got engaged. One of the first things she said to Yang after we got engaged was how I had planned the same thing for Lisa (proposing on a local hiking trail). It was a bit off-putting that she was bringing up Lisa whom I broke up with almost 5 years ago on such a happy occasion. However, Yang asked me to not spoil my mood, as she felt Jess was just commenting on how I had that plan in mind for years. Since then, every time we meet, Jess without fail brings up Lisa and how the things I am doing are all the things I had planned with Lisa. This happened when we bought a house, planned for vacations, etc. Jess always starts with some nostalgic story and then brings up how Lisa and I were so happy together. She is still good friends with Lisa and keeps giving me updates about Lisa and how great Lisa is doing at work when no one is asking for it. It felt like she was painting a rosy picture of Lisa to Yang and telling Yang that she would always be second to Lisa.
Yang told me Jess's comments bothered her, and I also felt the same. I have brought this up with Jess many times and asked her not to do it. However, she says she will try but since I dated Lisa for 7 years, she would be part of many stories from the past. Also, she asked me why talking about Lisa bothers me and if I still have feelings for her. I have reduced hanging out with Jess. However, she is close with my mom and is always invited to all our family parties and holidays.
I talked to my mom and sister about this and they feel I am overreacting. They feel Jess is just telling stories and since the stories are mostly from college days and later, Lisa will be a character in the story. They also feel I should not be bothered by Jess mentioning Lisa since we broke up a long time ago. I feel that it's disrespectful to Yang as she doesn't need to hear about all the fun Lisa and I had when we were together and how we were planning to get married. Do you think I am the asshole to stop here or Jess is truly acting out of line?
Relevant Comments:
Commenter: Probably need to separate your time with your fiancé away from your friend. ... On a side note, your friend comes across poorly on one other aspect. When you were too busy to date so you could study. She is encouraging you to stay available while your ex goes about dating around? Think she ever encouraged your ex to not? Or do you think she was telling your ex she could have all the fun she wanted cause you'd still be around? Food for thought.

OOP: She thought we were 24 when we broke up and she always justified that Lisa was young and it's natural to date around before you settle down. She also encouraged me to do the same. However, after my breakup, I decided that I would not be in a relationship (based on what happened to the previous one) and never dated anyone until after I graduated.

Commenter: Not wrong, in fact it's thoughtful of your finace's feelings. " Jess always kept on telling me that Lisa loves me and will be back one day when I am ready." - yikes.
An easy: "Jess, you keep bringing up my ex, and keep making comments which are dismissive of my relationship with Yang. I am telling you point blank that this is harming our friendship and it saddens me that you dismiss my feelings as being unimportant on this topic. If you can't respect me, and my relationship with Yang, please understand why it will likely end our friendship."

OOP: We have had this exact conversation. Jess then proceeded to ask Yang is she offended by her telling stories about me. Yang was polite and said she is ok. Then she told me I am being too sensitive.

Commenter: Op do you know if Lisa is married? Maybe Jess is trying to sabotage your engagement so you can be with Lisa.

OOP: I know Lisa is single. She has not been in any serious long term relationship after me. Infant, Jess always makes it a point to bring that up regularly and update me, even after I tell her I have no interest. My mom loves gossip and they also discuss a out Lisa regularly.

Jess is just being a mean girl/have you talked to Lisa at all?
At this point, I suspect Jess is just being mean to Yang. I would have cut her off long ago if she was not so close to me or my family for so many years.
Lisa is out of the picture, to be honest. I have completely gone no contact with her for the last 2 years.
Jess has feelings for you:
That's not true. I did not write it since I thought it was irrelevant, but Jess is happily married and has a 3 year old kid.
There is no consensus bot on AITAH, but top comments were NTA
Update Post: April 23, 2024 (22 days later)
I wrote a post a month ago regarding my friend Jess mentioning my ex constantly in front of my fiancée. Thanks to everyone who commented, and how inappropriate it was. However, the last month has been nothing but crazy and I still trying to make sense of what happened so far.
After my post, I decided to talk to Jess and gave her an ultimatum not to speak about my ex Lisa again. I know Jess and Lisa are still friends, but I was uncomfortable of her comparing my fiancée Yang with Lisa all the time. I broke up with Lisa 5 years ago, and she is nothing but a faint memory in my past. Jess kept on defending herself and telling me that I was with Lisa for most of my adult life and it's hard to tell any stories from the past without including her. She also blamed me for being emotionally childish and just forgetting about Lisa when she was with me for 7 years. Finally, Jess agreed that she will not bring up Lisa in front of Yang, and I should also not treat Lisa as she does not exist since she is still Jess's friend. I informed Yang about our conversation. Although she was appreciative about it, she said I did not need to do it and she knows how much I love her and every time Jess brings up my Lisa, she feels sorry for Lisa that she let a guy like me go.
Yang went to visit China two weeks ago for a month as we plan to get married in her hometown. She is taking care of her shopping as well as preparations for the wedding. Jess invited me to her house that Friday for dinner as I was home alone. I am also good friends with her husband, and we were all just chatting and drinking in the living room. Around 7.30pm, the doorbell rang, and Jess excitedly went to open the door. To my surprise, it was fucking Lisa at the door. She was all dressed up as if she were ready for a date and came in. I had not seen her in person for almost 3 years and I was shocked to see her. She sat down and started making small talk with me. I was extremely uncomfortable and went into the kitchen to talk to Jess. I was angry at her and asked her what was going on. She kept on telling me that it's been 5 years since the breakup and to get over it and be nice to Lisa. She said Lisa was excited to meet me and she thought we were all adults and could have one fun evening together. We had a fight and I told her that she should not have invited Lisa after our conversation the other day and I do not want to be friends with her anymore. I went into the living room and politely excused myself and told everyone that I had a work emergency and had to leave early. Lisa looked sad, but I genuinely felt uncomfortable to be made to hang out with my ex without my consent.
I came home and called Yang. I have never seen her more furious, and she told me she is not comfortable with Jess anymore as she has some agenda that we do not know about. It's different to talk about Lisa, but to invite her without consulting is not ok. I also felt the same and I called Jess the next day and told her that she crossed a line, and I was terribly upset with her. I stopped taking her calls and ghosted her. I also told my mom and sister about the whole incident.
Last Sunday, my mom called me for lunch. When I got there, I saw Jess was already there. I told my mom that I do not want to talk to Jess and can't stay. However, she asked me to sit as they all wanted to talk to me. I have a glutton for punishment and decided to hear them out. My mom started with how Jess has been there for me all these years and only has my best interest at heart. She kept on telling me that they are the three people (mom, sister, and Jess) that love me the most. Jess started saying how she felt that I was making a big mistake in not having to hear what Lisa had to say. She told me that Lisa was my first love and Lisa is now ready to settle down and we can pick where we left off. She reminded me how broken I was when Lisa left me and how life is giving me a second chance. My sister also chimed in and said how they all liked Lisa more than Yang and how we both looked so great together. Finally, my mom started saying how our culture was so different than Yang and it is hard for them to relate to her. I asked them in what way, and my mom said that they did not understand what Yang says sometimes and have nothing in common with her. Then my mom asked me to think about how Lisa and I would have such wonderful looking kids, while if I marry Yang, our kids will look so different. I started getting their drift and I probed more. My mom told me how our kids would look Asian with "small eyes" and not like any others in the family.
I asked my mom if she cared about my kids looks more and not about how smart they will be since Yang has a PhD. She blew it off, and I realized she just did not want me to marry Yang because she was Chinese and not white. My mom told me to forgive Jess and my mom asked Jess to talk to Lisa on my behalf and asked her if she would be interested in getting back together with me. My mom was adamant that since I loved Lisa so much, I should be happy and pick up things where we left off as that is the best for everyone. I have never been so angry and may have said a lot of unkind things to all of them before I left
I am so depressed right now. I not only lost my best friend, but also am not sure how I can move on from what my mom said. My mom and sister raised me and that is the reason where I am today. However, I cannot get over how racist they are being and how they were just pretending to like Yang all these years while actively working on breaking us up. I have been so shocked that I have not told any of this to Yang so far. I might wait for her to come back next week and talk to her in person.
Again, thanks everyone for all your messages on the last post as they helped me a lot to think through the situation. My life is more fucked up than I could imagine, and I cannot imagine how dejected Yang will feel after hearing all this.
*****New Update Post: May 7, 2024 (5 weeks after OG post)****\*
I wrote a post two months ago regarding my best friend Jess constantly bringing up my ex when talking to my fiancée Yang. I wrote an update two weeks ago about my mom, sister and Jess scheming about trying to get me back with my ex Lisa because they were uncomfortable with Yang being Chinese. They tried to do it when my fiancée was visiting her parents and I felt so betrayed by their actions.
As I said in the previous post, I blew up on my mom and sister about what they said and immediately left. I did not take calls from them or answer texts for the next several days. Their messages initially were anger towards me on why I left before they could finish what they wanted to say. However, I think they realized on day 3 that they might have crossed the line this time and became extremely apologetic. I finally messaged them to leave me alone and not to contact Yang or I until we contact them. Jess did not message me the whole time.
I did not tell Yang about the situation until she came back home 9 days ago. I initially did not know how to bring up the subject, but she sensed something was wrong and asked me about it. I was so worried about hurting her, but I told her about what happened. I was upfront about the stunt Jess pulled and she was angry at Jess. I also told her about my visit to my mother's place, but she did not react with any anger. She just asked me if I was ok.
The next few days were confusing where I was more upset than Yang. She was just excited showing me all pictures and telling me stories. Finally, on last Thursday evening, she opened up and asked me if I was ok about my mom's behavior and what I plan to do. I told her my thoughts and how I cannot forgive them for what they said about her being Asian and them wanting me to marry a Lisa because she was white. I asked her why she was not more upset as it was bothering me.
She told me that when she told her parents about me, they had the exact same reaction for her dating someone who was not Chinese. Her family is very traditional, and her parents were very upset about her decision. It took them a few months to warm up to me and accept me. She never told me about this because she wanted me to have good relationship with her parents. She told me that now they are the most excited doing arrangements for our wedding.
She told me that she has always felt something was off when she talked to my mom, my sister or Jess and they did not like her. My mom and sister would be very friendly with her in front of me, but never invited her for anything when I am not around. She suspected that it may be due to fact that she is not white and does not understand the American traditions. She said she is not upset with them and now that this is in the open, she should talk to them and assure them that she would be as good of a wife as Lisa or any other girl. She said that she does not want to break a family in order to start a new one.
Despite my protests, Yang invited my mom and sister for lunch on Sunday. She said that it would be good for us to talk about everything and hear why they are concerned about her marrying me. I was really not happy with this, but Yang spent most of Sunday morning cooking for them.
When my mom and sister arrived, there were a lot of waterworks and apologies. My mom apologized to Yang and me for her behavior and told us that she would never bring it up again. My sister also was quiet and had tears in her eyes. There were a lot of blame games. My mom and my sister were blaming Jess for constantly telling them how Yang might not be great for me and how she won't fit into our family. My mom and sister fought with Jess after I left and Jess blamed Lisa. Based on Jess's story, Lisa has been depressed for the last few years and when I suddenly got engaged to Yang, it became worse. Jess thought I was also depressed after Lisa left me, because I did not date anyone for 3 years. In reality, I just wanted to focus on my work and studies and never had time. So, Lisa convinced Jess that she has to get back together with me as that is what I wanted too. Jess said how sorry she felt for Lisa as she was her longtime friend and listened to her plan as she thought it was good for everyone.
My mom and sister told us that I should stay away from Jess because she orchestrated the whole situation. They kept on hugging Yang and apologizing to her. Yang in turn also started crying and telling them that she will do better to fit in with them. It was all a big mess. I am still skeptical of my mom's change in heart, but I also want to see Yang happy. However, I think it will take a lot of time and healing before I could truly trust my mom and sister.
Currently, my mom invited us to lunch at her place next week and told me that Jess will not be there. Jess has still not message me or Yang. I really don't know what I can do in this situation. I am still upset and furious at my mom, but I also want to respect Yang's effort to keep the family together. Thanks to everyone for all the messages and supportive comments. It really helped reading them when I was feeling very sad.

(please don’t share i’m also sorry for such a long post)
i love my boyfriend. so much, but his family drive me fucking insane and make me cry so much and i don’t know if it’s pregnancy hormones or what but
me and my boyfriend have been together for a year i’m currently pregnant (unplanned) were young parents who need a lot of support mainly just finically since homes are expensive, i have to worry about college savings, and i won’t be able to work for a while (even while pregnant my dad refuses to help he wouldn’t let me get my license now i have to wait i’m getting closer to getting it though before the baby is here), boyfriend works but doesn’t make enough to provide for us (which is okay he’s had the job for a few years and is trying hard to find something at least a little better i’m proud of him) so not living with them or my father isn’t really an option my mother isn’t really in the picture and doesn’t take care of her home (smokes inside, and a bunch of other issues i won’t get into just not suitable for a little one) the issues living with my dad is a lot so i won’t get into that either
basically the issues with my in laws are

• since i am young and struggle with a ton of physical health issues i was considering abortion when i first found out, obviously no woman wants to have an abortion its devastating i always wanted kids but i wanted to be able to fully support and spoil my baby. she was super against this literally yelling at me at times for even bringing up the idea and guilt tripped me horribly told me she was physically sick at the thought of me having one, sent my boyfriend a photo of a baby in the womb stating it has a heartbeat and “we did an adult thing by having sex so we need to be adults”, etc just very very out of taste and hurtful. i was using protection, i was being cautious it just happened to me. which sucks. but i’m trying to embrace it. she also kept telling me false medical facts to coerce me into having the baby obviously i made the choice to keep my little one and i know it’s bad to say but sometimes i wish i didn’t especially if it was going to end up like this. (my dad also smears in my face how i should’ve gotten an abortion lol) i know i probably sound like a horrible mother i’m ready to take care of her and hold her and admire her i just wish so bad i could’ve predicted how awful the situation would be. i know it could always be worse, some girls don’t even have family support but mine is very forced i guess. i’m happy i get to have her, i don’t know. i’m just conflicted. i refuse to adopt our baby out so please no one comment saying i should i’ve already been through this multiple times. i respect everyone’s political views and social views but please don’t cram the down my throat. i feel guilty for even considering the latter to begin with even though i’m not finished with high school + once again i have a lot of health issues. i just got unlucky.
  
• his grandma gave us a talk about how she’s disappointed we had pre material sex (i was saving myself for marriage before i met him? i lost my virginity to HIM) but she’s happy we didn’t abort because that’s just “wrong”
  
• they’ve told everyone i’m pregnant without confiding in me first even the babies gender. we got the gender we were hoping for and i was sooo excited but everyone already knew.. i wouldn’t be upset about this really if they had just asked me first :/ and when i got upset about someone finding out who me and bf were going to tell they literally just said “i think everyone should know anyways but that’s my opinion”
  
• his mom made a comment about me not wearing a bra (i had a baggy shirt on that went off the shoulder a little) i understand that this is a social norm but she added in that i would get preyed on for not wearing one as a victim of SA that part was super hurtful.
  
• this one is kinda a minor rant i guess. his family is super large which is a good and bad thing, im glad they’re family is so close but it kinda sucks when i’m trying to spend time with my boyfriend before we have our kid and i’m forced to watch everyone else’s kids (his grandma literally asks this of me basically demands it, i’m pretty pregnant right now i’ve gained 20 pounds it’s not easily for me to carry a bunch of babies) the other day she told me to get down on the ground take the babies shoes off, then pick them up take them to the sink and wash their hands for them i use to be super fit but i have had such a hard time even GETTING UP when sitting down my boyfriend was helping out in the house while she TELLS ME to go outside and play with the kids. i’m so fucking tired i can barely sleep because my baby keeps me up all night kicking and no position is comfortable. anyways then the kids parents complain when i give any type of pda to my boyfriend (hugging, a quick kiss, or even just laying on his arm) if you don’t want me doing these things don’t force me to watch your children?? also notice how these little kids have NEVER hurt themselves when i’m around why because i chase after them whenever they do something remotely dangerous??? (they left the kids with the younger cousin and the baby hit its fucking head) i didn’t ask to babysit? ( keep in mind my boyfriend is not super close to where i currently live i drive a pretty good distance SUPER EARLY IN THE MORNING MIGHT I ADD. ) i’d like some alone time with HIM. i’m cherishing every moment with him before our baby is here.
  
• his brother literally told me to shut up today when i asked him to stop yelling at my boyfriend over a dumbass video game controller. & then yelled at me for laying on my boyfriends shoulder 💀 that’s how i even found out the kids parents complain about me BECAUSE THEY NEVER SAY ANYTHING UPFRONT TO ME it’s always behind my back in the most judgmental way, um guys hello? i’m right here if you have an issue with something i’m doing please address it with me and we can talk about it compromise, or i’ll just stop overall i’m not one to fight i really really hate fucking fighting. and that’s why i haven’t spoken up for myself at all this entire time.
  
• this one makes me sound like i’m spoiled probably so don’t take it like that, it’s just kinda a punch in the face i guess i’m very grateful for all that they do for my baby: they haven’t gotten my baby anything yet besides the stuff i politely asked them if i could get (her clothes) since i’m super picky and want her to dress really girly while she’s young i’m super into fashion and clothes so it’s just something i’d like to do. anyways they buy my baby second hand clothes that are gender neutral (when i was sorting them out btw mil stopped me put them in a bag and told me to do it later. i had two piles already made that’s just annoying but whatever whenever we mention about sorting them she acts like we need to keep them all) a swing that’s fucking blue and they got a free car seat that’s blue and goddamn orange •_• (if ur a parent you know ur not supposed to receive second hand car seats) but then here’s the fucking KICKER right? they complain about how much money they’ve given other members of the family but then TAKE THAT EXACT family member on a shopping spree. keep in mind said family member asks my boyfriend for money every two weeks promising to pay him back which he never does. and his sister owes my boyfriend over 50 bucks at the moment because she wanted to buy WEED. yes WEED. i convinced him to stop doing this because we need to save every penny right now, mean-while the baby they begged me to keep is getting second hand clothes mommy didnt even get to pick out or see LMFAO listen buying second hand shit is fine babies are going to outgrow it fast and i’m glad they are excited once again i’m grateful they got her anything. but this is my first and only child i plan to have id like it to be a tiny bit special for me and her. they also bought bath toys for the other little kids then told me to use them for my daughter (if y’all don’t know bath toys need to be replaced often, they can grow a shit ton of mold if you don’t she’s also going to be you know a FUCKING NEWBORN so she’s super fragile to sickness just not a good idea to share things like that)
  
• i could go on and on and on but the biggest issue i have is: it’s causing a rift between me and my boyfriend. fuck we’ve never argued but i’ve been so angry at him recently i know it’s not his fault and my own father warned me “if i don’t like the persons parents i’m not being with them” i always said not me because my boyfriend is an amazing human being i love him so dearly and i’ve truly never have met someone like him even my dad adores him and asks me when he’s coming over because he misses him. he can’t help who his family is i just hate that sometimes he’s too nice to see how fucked up this all is or doesn’t try hard enough to defend us or me but maybe i’m overreacting i don’t know. i could never leave him but sometimes i get intrusive thoughts about it i’m so desperate to have a normal life i just wish this never happened to us. he’s my first boyfriend and i’m his first girlfriend down to the first kiss and everything. i just don’t want to deal with them anymore i constantly cry and i’m so fucking stressed which isn’t good for our baby. but his comfort and the love we have for each other is just so much. i can’t. i don’t blame him for any of this and i’m so scared of ever losing him. i hate that i’m becoming so bitter because so this.
  

so reddit, feel free to give me advice or your opinions am i being overdramatic? i just need someone anyone to talk to about this. i don’t really have any friends to lean on or family.
tldr: i love my boyfriend but his family is super snarky and rude sometimes i can’t really sum all of this up

Ever feel like your brilliant content is just not getting the eyeballs it deserves? You might be missing a crucial piece: the hook. A compelling hook is your secret weapon for capturing attention instantly. Here's how you can craft hooks that not only grab attention but also hold it, based on timeless principles from experienced marketers.

1. Start with a Bang! Begin your piece with a statement that sparks curiosity or provokes thought. For instance, "What if I told you that the most successful marketing campaigns shared one hidden secret?" This kind of opening makes the reader pause and think, "I need to know more!"
   
2. Use Numbers or Surprising Facts Numbers help quantify your message and offer a tangible grasp of your topic. A hook like "95% of marketers agree—this strategy triples your engagement" is both informative and intriguing.
   
3. Ask a Compelling Question Questions provoke thought and invite interaction. A question like "Do you know the most underutilized tactic in digital marketing today?" can lead readers to engage with your content to find the answer.
   
4. Paint a Picture with Vivid Descriptions Visual hooks can be incredibly powerful. Describe a scene or outcome vividly to draw readers into your narrative. For example, "Imagine achieving your yearly sales target in just one quarter."
   
5. Leverage Storytelling Start with a brief but engaging story to illustrate your main point. Stories create a personal connection and make your content relatable. "Last year, a small startup turned their last $500 into a $5 million revenue stream. Here's how they did it."
   

Why is mastering the art of the hook critical?
In our fast-paced world, the first few seconds of your content decide whether someone will scroll past or stop and engage. By crafting an irresistible hook, you not only increase the chances of your content being read but also enhance its impact.
We’d love to hear your thoughts or see examples of your favorite hooks! Let’s discuss what you think works and what doesn’t.

This is going to be a long one so heads up.
A bit of back story; I started dating my husband when I was 15. I chased this boy thorugh hell and back just to get a chance. Problems between us were immediate but didn't seem significant at the time. A few months into our relationship he had an adult "friend" that was telling him he needed to get control of me or "put me in my place" (referencing he should hit me). He didn't but the ego it gave him was a hard battel. 8 months into our relationship my mother forced me to move states because I was starting the process of emancipation and she didn't like that. I was still going through with it, it was just a buffer. 2 weeks after I left he was flirting with my friends. We were on and off for 3 months long distance before I said I had enough. When my emancipation was complete (6 months after I moved and about 3 months after we officially split) I let him know because we were still in touch. It was a few days after that he decided he wanted to try things again and came to me. Just a few days of being with me he decided he wanted to go home, with or without me. I reluctantly agreed to go with him even though I was comfortable where I was. We stayed in a trailer for months in the snow with no power or heat but I toughed it out. Eventually we moved in with his family. During that time he broke up with me multiple times to mess aground with other girls. We ended up moving again and he would be gone all the time hanging out with his friends. There were nights I would beg him, crying, for him to just come home and he would refuse We ended up moving again and spent some time with my family (i was 17). 3 days in he called his mom to have someone pick him up. He regretted it and I went and picked him up and brought him back. A few months after that he decided to leave again. 3 days later I was feeling weird. I just had an odd feeling, I didn't miss my period or anything but I had a friend get me a pregnancy test anyway. It came out positive. I didn't want kids, I never did. But I decided to keep the baby because he wanted to. He promised a better life. So he comes and picks me up and we move back in with his family. Everything was going great. Then I miscarried. After the miscarriage he was upset, he was really excited about having a kid. We talk about it and he talked me into trying for one on purpose, his family agreed with this. He promised to drop the weed, drop the beer, get a job and work his ass off for us. That never really happened. So here I am 17, and 5 months pregnant, he has 3 tall cans of beer in his system and starts being an ass. We get into it and he lays his hands on me. I locked him out of the room that night. So he finally drops the alcohol for good. We end up moving again. We got married the day I turned 18 because of his religious family. We fought about the weed and he "quit". But in reality he was just doing it behind my back. He would get mad at me for calling people out on their fake service dogs (I have a service dog and the fakes put me at great risk). He held a job for a really long time, making good money, and spoiling the shit out of me. Eventually we argue about the weed again. I almost left but he said he wouldn't be doing it anymore. Then again we argue about the weed, this time I agree to let him have dab carts. 2 a week. He ended up with between 3-5 a week. Things were really good for a long time after that.
Keep in mind everything I listed was not the entire relationship. Between all these bad moments there are lots of great ones. I have thousands of happy pictures and videos of us.
Now to recently. We moved back to our hometown. He spent a lot of time hanging out with his buddies and leaving me with the baby. He started smoking flower again and had the sudden urge to drink again. I was alone 90% of the time. So where do I go? I have a boy best friend that has been through hell and back with me since the first day of middle school. So I spent a lot of time hanging out with him while my husband was off fucking around like a child. Then the weird questions came in. "Are you doing anything with him while I'm gone?" "Your not cheating on me right?" Ect. No I wasn't. About a week ago I told my bsf I was picking him up from work. While I was in the parking lot waiting my husband calls insiting I pick him up first. I told him no because I didn't have room in the car for both and I was already there waiting. Well that started this whole fit about how asking him to wait 10 minutes was prioritizing my bsf over my husband. Eventually we get to my friends house, and my husband was waiting for us. He was just talking shit and being an ass for 20 minutes before he decided to leave in MY CAR. We argue over text for a while and then he tells me he's done with me. Fine. I give up. I don't care anymore. Then 30 minutes later he's accusing me of cheating with my bsf. He has told all his friends and family that I'm a hoe (my body count is 2 including him and the other one is NOT my bsf). My bsf has been doing his best to take care of me and help me out. Feeding me, taking over the baby, putting gas in my car, letting me stay the night. He's been a life saver for me.
Now it's a week later and he's asking if there is a chance we can work things out in the future... I love him I really do. He has lots of issues tho but so do I. My BPD makes me hard to handle sometimes as do my other mental and health problems.
I'm sure I know what the answer is already but what do I do? I'm a mess.

It's NOT Live Free or Die Hard: it's much smaller in scale and more of a mystery/crime/noir thriller (maybe with some comedy too?), and the daughter character is younger, probably 12-15.
Some scenes I vaguely recall:
A villain (maybe the main guy's competitor) approaches a girl in a car, and I think she makes some excuse for why she's not at school. I think the girl goes missing, which is a major plot point and related to the job the main guy takes. I think the girl is a friend or classmate of the main guy's daughter, and/or there may be some kind of mistaken identity situation.
The main guy brings his daughter to a very adult party where he is investigating the plot. The daughter is precocious and makes friends with some unsavory characters, who are friendly and casual about a young girl being there.
While investigating in a desert-ish area outside the party house (a southern California house up on stilts?), the main guy comes across a dead body, or a wallet, or a dead guy's wallet, or something written on a slip of paper, which becomes a key piece of evidence.
The main guy has one or more violent fights inside his house or a house where he is interviewing someone. He's not a martial artist or John Wick type, but he's clearly good at his job and defeats toughebetter armed attackers. At one point he has an argument with someone else in his line of work about being unlicensed or about behaving in a way contrary to their code/rules?
At some point the daughter is abducted in a car, but I think she does something heroic that foils a plan: maybe by slamming the car door open into a villain or perhaps some action involving a remote control or detonator?
In my head I'm picturing the father and daughter as Nic Cage and Chloe Grace Moretz but I'm fairly certain neither is correct.

Little backstory: my friend and i have known each other ther for about 10 years. Our parents used to date but it didnt work out. We decided to remain friends and her mom would claim i was another one of her children. It never really felt like it but i figured my expectations were too high
Close to 3 years ago my partner and i moved in with said friend and her husband. Less than a month before the lease was up, she told me she had decided to move back in with her mom. My partner and i werent expecting this and were not in the financial position to pretty much go anywhere. Semi-luckily, her mother-in-law offered us a room to rent in her house. Id been told stories about how crazy she was but we were desperate
Things go okay for awhile. My friends dad ends up moving in too and we end up sharing a bathroom. We ended up having to set boundaries with him and basically said if you keep overstepping, youll have to start paying for your own toilet paper (which he never bought)
He ended up throwing a massive hissy fit and was yelling up and down the hallway. My partner and i locked ourselves in our room and kept quiet, but we could hear our “landlord” agreeing with him and practically egging him on
We ended up going on facebook to express that we felt unsafe and why. The first post was kept hidden but the second didnt default like i thought it would. Landlord saw and got upset. My friend also saw and had a panic attack because even though we didnt name anyone, and multiple people lived there, she knew it was about her dad.
Landlord went and told her dad that we had purposely given her a panic attack. He started storming around the house again in a rage and was threatening to “rip those bitches necks off” nothing came of it as he left the house but we were terrified.
The landlord ended up kicking us out but that was whatever because we no longer felt safe and planned to leave soon anyway
While packing, we needed to get more boxes and my dad decided to take us out to lunch. The landlord entered our room and took pictures of it and posted them on facebook, tagging us and complaining how we had left it in such horrible conditions (we were moving, of course it was messy!) she also tried saying we abandoned our cat with no food or water. He had both and we had only been gone for 4 hours!
This whole time i had been texting my friends mom, trying to get her to help with the situation, but she did nothing. Then she tried blaming us for not trying to to have a sit down conversation with everyone.
She had space but didnt offer us a place to stay. Whatever her house she can decide who lives there
We ended up moving into my dads backyard and lived in a tent for a good while until his live in landlord took pitty on us and cleaned out another room
Living there wasnt easy as there were a lot of drugs around. My dad doesnt use but had moved into his friends place to help him gain some mental stability. There was plenty of yelling and slurs being called out but things somehow worked out by the time we moved out
Part way, we thought we may have been getting kicked out as my dad had been. This was before we could find a place so we had asked if we could stay with friend and her mom for a bit. She said her landlord wouldnt like it but she hadnt even bothered to ask him.
A corworker of mine id only known for a few months told me she was trying to figure out us staying with her family of 5 in a 2 bedroom (different story) but someone id known for a decade and claimed to be family couldnt be bothered and told me to buy a house with my finacially unable dad
My friend doesnt know the whole story about how her dad threatened to kill us but she knows enough. Shes mentally unwell so she told me to not tell her until she was ready. Shes never asked for the rest of it.
Her family now keeps trying to act like everything is normal and nothing ever happened. I dont want them in my life anymore but i dont know how to confront them about it. I simply avoid hanging out with them anymore and give lame excuses. My friend keeps bringing up her mother in law and dad and it makes me panic everytime
I recently proposed and she said yes! Theres a group chat my now fiancée posted in in excitment with all the people i want to avoid, including the friend and her mother. She asked if she could post about it on facebook. I told her to wait and she later asked again and i ignored it. Turns out she posted about it anyway. I havent even posted about it! All my friends and possibly family i only talk to on Facebook got to find out from this woman i dont even want a relationship with anymore
Idk this post is long so some details were left out but im frustrated af. I need to talk to them but im worried about my friends mental health. I dont like her much anymore but that doesnt mean i should be a dick. But im also being a dick by not saying anything

If I see the ex, I begin to shake, my heart rate increases greatly, and I can't calm down for a while after she has left my vicinity. I constantly feel overwhelmed by my hatred toward her, as she was very detrimental for my partner's mental health. My partner has no interest in her anymore, but keeps pictures of her in their camera roll. My partner keeps all pictures of them ever taken, mostly selfies and series of photos with just the ex. I can understand keeping group photos, but I do not understand keeping a couple hundred candid photos of the ex. This leads me to spiral and feel overwhelmed with jealousy because I assume they keep the photos because they still like to see pictures of the ex, or that they still are attracted to the ex. I don't want to tell my partner that the photos make me jealous as I do not want to be a controlling girlfriend who makes them feel like they have to delete these photos just to keep me happy. I also do not want them to know that seeing the ex causes panic attacks for me, as I do not want to seem obsessive or weak. Due to social circles, my partner and I see the ex often.
I have expressed to my partner that seeing the ex causes anxiety and anger in me, as it stresses me to see someone (the ex) who has hurt the person I care most about (my partner). My partner was attentive to my feelings and comforted me through hugs but did not say anything about what I had said. We were going to head to a social function where the ex was, but after I expressed these feelings, my partner decided that we shouldn't go. I don't want to stop my partner from going to places just because I am sensitive though! And I feel guilty that I changed their mind about going.
I have also expressed to them that I do not understand how keeping the pictures of the ex does not bother them. They said it was because they are comfortable with the relationship not existing, and it doesn't bother them. However, they were hung up on the ex for two years and even though I trust and believe them, illogically I still feel as though they are attracted to the ex and like seeing pictures of them.
I'm not sure how to re-approach this with my partner or if I should at all. I feel like I need to hear them to directly say that they are not attracted to the ex, and to put the majority of their photos of her in a hidden folder or deleted. But I don't know if that would be unreasonable? I feel crazy and controlling and I don't like these feelings one bit. Should I bring these feelings up? And if so, how can I without putting my partner in an uncomfortable position?

This is a really long story with lots of context so I'll do my best to organize it into current situation, then his backstory and hers. I'm also not using real names or specific locations for any of this to try and keep this private. This also has some contradicting stories and because of how their relationship is structured relies mostly on information I have gotten from my sister, so I'm telling you the story I got from her first and then adding in what I've found out. I'll try to tell this as unbiased as I can but it's been a huge issue in my family for a long time now and that's a little difficult for me to do.
My (20F) sister (Olivia, 24F) has been dating this guy (Trevor, 25M) since 2021. When they started dating, she talked about him fairly often, sent a few pictures of them, ect., but then after a month she stopped mentioning him/ was cagey when we (me and my mom mostly) asked how he was so we assumed it just hadn't worked out. Then two months later she insisted that my parents (54F and 56M) and I all come to visit her college to meet Trevor before he went into the Army (she lived several hours away from my parents and several hours from my college, so I had to get a bus ticket and my parents had to get a hotel room to do this. We only met him once for dinner). Now they've been dating long distance for three years after a three month in-person relationship. She is in nursing school and is planning on moving across the country (literally opposite corners of the map) to live with him and is not applying to any residency programs outside of the Army base area (limiting her choices a LOT from her original goals and narrowing employment opportunities).
Olivia met Trevor on several dating apps, matched with him, but didn't really want to go out with him. He was really persistent, so her friend convinced her to go out with him. She lied about the way they met to our parents and told them they met at the gym through a mutual friend (she lied to me about this at first too and told me the truth about 3 months after they started dating). At the time, Trevor was working as a used car salesman and living at home (~45 min. away from Olivia's school in a rural area) because his sports scholarship had been dropped before his Senior year due to covid at the college he had been attending out of state. The university was unaccredited (I later did some internet stalking and found out it was accredited), so his credits would not transfer and he would have to start over. He was saving up money to attend school in state at the large college Olivia attended so he could go back to school. **Our state has crazy low tuition costs in-state and a full-tuition scholarship program for good high school GPA and SAT scores. There was also a "feeder" community college that had half the cost per credit hour that a lot of people would go to before the larger university if they didn't get in straight out of high school.**
Olivia told me that Trevor had applied to her college and not gotten in (she later told me he HAD gotten in but been unable to afford tuition). Either way, he decided to join the Army because his father had been in the Army. The Army would take his credit hours and he would be able to finish his degree during his 5 year contract or use the GI bill once he got out. **She is comparing the situation to our father, who joined the Army directly out of high school and used the GI bill to go to college after his 2 year contract because his parents wouldn't pay for school. He was a medic in the military, worked as an EMT through college, and then went to nursing school.** The original plan was that Trevor would be a Green Beret (special forces), he completed basic training and and got several months through training and moved to the secondary base in NC before failing the running portion of a physical by about 10 seconds and being dropped from the selection process. He then decided that he wanted to be a Ranger (another elite position). He got sent back to GA, then to the Ranger school base in WA (it took a couple of months before he was sent to WA). Again, he got partway through the training before failing the running portion of a physical by a few seconds. He is now not sure if he will be continuing Ranger school (failing the physical means no, but commanders may pass him anyways if they think he should continue). For a while, Trevor told Olivia that he might not stay at the base in WA if he wasn't in Ranger school and there were a variety of different bases he could be sent to, including somewhere in Italy, so she wasn't sure where to look for jobs. In the past month, Trevor told Olivia that he would likely stay in WA regardless of the Ranger school results.
Through this all, Olivia has visited Trevor at the different military bases countless times, driving from as far as south FL to NC and putting over 30,000 miles on a brand new car over the course of the 1.5 years she's owned it. Before she had the car, she paid for plane tickets to see him and hotels whenever she visited. At the time, she told me that he was paying for all of these trips because he was unable to visit her, was making an income that wasn't being spent, and she was working to save for nursing school and later was living off of student loans and savings during nursing school. She later admitted to me that she had paid for almost all of the expenses except for food when they ate out together and part of a hotel room one weekend.
A few odd things (to me) between Olivia and Trevor over the course of their relationship:
About a month into their relationship, Trevor got Olivia an over $300 christmas gift. He has not gotten her anything nearly that expensive since, and hasn't sent flowers for things like her college graduation or a severe emergency surgery she had last year. I don't care about monetary value or sending flowers, but I do think it is odd that he spent so much before moving away when he ostensibly didn't have much money, but now that he has an income and military sign-on bonus, he has not spent that much again.
Trevor's father left Trevor, his siblings, and his mother, but Trevor has a hat that his father gave him that he wore often. The hat says "Red Man" across the top of a picture of a Native American man wearing a feathered headdress. He has worn this hat several times around Olivia's friends and they told him they didn't like it and that it was racist. They also asked him to not wear it when he was with them and he refused because it was special to him and his father gave it to him. Olivia then told him to stop wearing it and he eventually agreed (Olivia told me that he stopped wearing the hat after this). A few weeks after this, I facetimed Olivia and Trevor was with her. She turned the camera so I could say hello to him, and he was wearing the hat. I talked to Olivia about this later and she told me that that was the first time he'd worn the hat in a while and it wasn't a big deal. Olivia has always been liberal and never racist, and I am uncomfortable that she was okay with him not only wearing the hat, but being with him while he had it on.
They dated for a little over 3 months in person before he joined the military (recently, Olivia told me that they actually met several months before she told everyone about him and that they actually dated for 6 months before he left). For the next two months in basic training, he was only able to use the phone for 15 minutes total once a week to talk to family and her. Throughout the different training programs he has completed he had sporadic and limited access to phones to communicate, and only in the past 6 months he has had access to his phone to facetime, text, and call (but sometimes he goes for a week or two without phone access). Olivia told me that they wrote letters during the time he didn't have consistent phone access. **I don't think that this is odd, I understand the military limits phone usage, etc., but I don't think they have been able to have an "average" long-distance relationship**
Last year, Olivia drove to GA to visit Trevor the weekend before Valentine's day. He had plans for them to take a pottery class, go on a hike, and have dinner at a nice restaurant. The day she got there, Trevor's barracks had their off-base privileges revoked because one of the guys had contraband. She would still be able to visit him on base though. Somehow, Trevor was able to get off base for long periods of time to her hotel, but unable to do the other activities he had planned for them.
In the past year, Olivia told me that she and Trevor were going to immediately marry when she got to WA so that they could move in together because they had to be married to live together anywhere. I and our dad- who was in the military- told her several times that this was not true, but she insisted it was. Then, his barracks were given an allowance to live off base in apartments because the barracks were being renovated/ rebuilt, so she backed off on the idea of getting married immediately after several long conversations with me. She is still insistent on moving in with Trevor, who lives with a roommate, when she moves to WA.
Some background on Olivia:
Olivia has ADHD and anxiety, and struggled particularly badly with the anxiety/ some depression after being broken up with by the boyfriend she dated before Trevor (he broke it off very abruptly, told her he just didn't love her anymore with no previous indications). Olivia is very pretty (objectively, not just because she's my sister), but had bad acne that she ended up going on accutane for at the time she started dating Trevor and was very insecure about it. She had also decided to not go to medical school, and pursue nursing instead around the same time she met Trevor. This was a very upsetting decision for her because she had been taking very hard courses and was burnt out but had told everyone she was going to be a doctor and thought that she would be letting us down by switching paths. Also around the time she started seeing Trevor, Olivia began being very cruel towards our mother (our mother had been borderline emotionally abusive in the past, but Olivia and I were both in college by then and fixing our relationships with her. She has been much better recently and Olivia and I believe that she had some mental health struggles that went unchecked that contributed). Now, several years later, Olivia told our family that she had acted like that because she was rpd by a friend of her ex-boyfriend's after her ex broke up with her. This person also gave her an STD.
I always believe people who say they have been S A'd, and we believed Olivia when she first told us, but some things have come to light that make me and my family question that. Right after Olivia and her ex broke up, Olivia told our cousin that she had gone out with one of his friends and had revenge/ breakup sex with him because he had also been dumped recently. Once my cousin told me this, I remembered that Olivia had told me about a guy she had a one night stand with after she was dumped. She showed me a picture of him, talked about how cute he was, etc. (no distress whatsoever). I know sometimes people behave in ways you wouldn't expect when a traumatic event occurs to them, but I really don't understand how or why Olivia would brag about this guy if he really did S A her.
Three months ago, Olivia was arrested for stealing a set of sheets from Walmart (incidentally, right before Trevor came to visit her on leave). She used the self check-out and only bought a small $5 item and the sheets. She held both in one hand and scanned each side because she had a cut on the other hand and was holding her wallet with it. She saw a 5 in front of the total number and thought it looked right because the total should have been about $50, paid, didn't get a receipt, and walked out. An employee at the door asked to see a receipt, which Olivia didn't have, so she pulled up her transaction history on her phone to show she had paid. At this point, the employee called the police and took Olivia into an office, where she was questioned and charged with shoplifting. (Olivia can get very emotional and probably got upset when the police questioned her, which may have led them to believe she was lying). Luckily, Olivia has managed to get the charges expunged, but the process is still ongoing. Because of her ADHD, if anyone genuinely made this mistake, I would believe it from her, but Olivia has been improving a lot on organization and being more attentive recently. It is extremely uncharacteristic of her to steal- she was honest to a fault as kids- she would break down from guilt and admit things to our parents that we would have gotten away with if she hadn't said anything.
Right now, my parents have met Trevor twice in person, and I've met him once in person and several times in passing over facetime. I personally don't think that Trevor seems to keep up with my sister or that they make each other shine, and that opinion is shared with family friends and family that have met Trevor. Olivia doesn't mention Trevor in front of our parents often because his name has become a topic of contention and argument between them. My parents don't think Trevor is right for Olivia. She has almost 2 college degrees and plans to become a nurse practitioner in the future, and he hasn't finished college and doesn't seem to have any drive to do so. Olivia is also well traveled and enjoys going to museums, concerts, etc., while Trevor has lived in rural FL his whole life (this is not Trevor's fault, and I don't think he is a lesser person because of it, but I don't see a lot of common ground between them). Trevor has not seemed very well spoken when I have talked to him and I just don't see a lot of qualities in him that Olivia values.
If you've gotten this far, I just don't know what to do. Olivia and my parents have a huge rift in their relationship right now and any mention of Trevor, with her around or not, explodes into a huge argument, discussion, or just icy silence. I want Olivia to be able to talk to me about him, and we are able to discuss things much better than she is with our parents. My parents have also started asking me about Olivia and Trevor because they know Olivia shares more with me, and it makes me uncomfortable because I don't want to betray Olivia's trust, but I'm also very worried about her. I know I can't control her actions and I'm having a really hard time trying to balance supporting Olivia but not supporting the relationship (I'm not going to lie to her about how I feel, but I don't want her to feel alienated or unloved by our family, because that is NOT the case). I also think that Olivia is romanticizing the fact that our parents don't like him because my father's parents had a rift with him over our mother when we were very young (this is a whole other story, but basically, his parents always favored his sister, his sister got (I think) jealous when he did well for himself and married my mother, who his parents initially likes, and she made up rumors/lies about my mother that turned his parents against her (this was way before our mother's suspected mental health struggles, which occured when Olivia and I were in middle/high school).
Please share any thoughts you have on the situation (am I reading too into things, is this not as bad as I think it is?), and any advice you have on navigating the relationships.
Tl;dr My sister's boyfriend lied about the circumstances of him dropping out of college and joining the military. Now I think he's lying about not making it through training for two different special/ elite forces. My sister has significantly changed her behavior and I think she may have lied about a significant traumatic event to our family. Now she is planning on moving across the country to him and moving in immediately. Our entire family doesn't like him and we're worried about her. How do I support her but not her relationship?

Many people don't know much about the inhumans, so here's a resume:

1. They're from Earth/their home is Earth; not the moon or space.
2. They were created as Kree slaves and were conceived as spies/soldiers.
3. There are many inhuman tribes on Earth.
4. Attilan is one tribe, the original one, and it is now a republic. There is no monarchy anymore. They developed as a society mimicking other human societies.
5. The main villains are their own Genetics Council, humans, the old monarch, and the Kree. Maximus sometimes causes trouble.
6. A villain (the Kree and an ex-king) created the Alpha Primitives and in story are meant to teach the horrors of prejudice, slavery, etc., not promote it.
7. The schtick was hiding and humans, Kree, Thanos, etc. trying to disrupt that.
8. War of Kings broke their stats quo because they were always meant to be passive as a form of self protection, and never the aggressor. They just want to live in peace.
9. Global Terrigenisis opened the door to their other hidden tribes and expanded on their schtick. People think they were just replacing mutants, but that's because there were a lot of them that were hidden on Earth.
10. The difference between mutants is that they have to go through Terrigensis, which was a metaphor for becoming an adult, discovering your true self, and that true self being a needed part of society.
11. The Terrigen Mists are sacred because it's sentient and has a plan for each Terrigenisis.
12. Terrigenisis comes from the Latin word "Terra" meaning Earth because they are from Earth. The Universal Inhumans are experiments from different planets.

Add anything because there's a lot more.

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.]

This is a really long story with lots of context so I'll do my best to organize it into current situation, then his backstory and hers. I'm also not using real names or specific locations for any of this to try and keep this private. This also has some contradicting stories and because of how their relationship is structured relies mostly on information I have gotten from my sister, so I'm telling you the story I got from her first and then adding in what I've found out. I'll try to tell this as unbiased as I can but it's been a huge issue in my family for a long time now and that's a little difficult for me to do.
My(20F) sister (Olivia, 24F) has been dating this guy (Trevor, 25M) since 2021. When they started dating, she talked about him fairly often, sent a few pictures of them, ect., but then after a month she stopped mentioning him/ was cagey when we (me and my mom mostly) asked how he was so we assumed it just hadn't worked out. Then two months later she insisted that my parents (54F and 56M) and I all come to visit her college to meet Trevor before he went into the Army (she lived several hours away from my parents and several hours from my college, so I had to get a bus ticket and my parents had to get a hotel room to do this. We only met him once for dinner). Now they've been dating long distance for three years after a three month in-person relationship. She is in nursing school and is planning on moving across the country (literally opposite corners of the map) to live with him and is not applying to any residency programs outside of the Army base area (limiting her choices a LOT from her original goals and narrowing employment opportunities).
Olivia met Trevor on several dating apps, matched with him, but didn't really want to go out with him. He was really persistent, so her friend convinced her to go out with him. She lied about the way they met to our parents and told them they met at the gym through a mutual friend (she lied to me about this at first too and told me the truth about 3 months after they started dating). At the time, Trevor was working as a used car salesman and living at home (~45 min. away from Olivia's school in a rural area) because his sports scholarship had been dropped before his Senior year due to covid at the college he had been attending out of state. The university was unaccredited (I later did some internet stalking and found out it was accredited), so his credits would not transfer and he would have to start over. He was saving up money to attend school in state at the large college Olivia attended so he could go back to school. **Our state has crazy low tuition costs in-state and a full-tuition scholarship program for good high school GPA and SAT scores. There was also a "feeder" community college that had half the cost per credit hour that a lot of people would go to before the larger university if they didn't get in straight out of high school.**
Olivia told me that Trevor had applied to her college and not gotten in (she later told me he HAD gotten in but been unable to afford tuition). Either way, he decided to join the Army because his father had been in the Army. The Army would take his credit hours and he would be able to finish his degree during his 5 year contract or use the GI bill once he got out. **She is comparing the situation to our father, who joined the Army directly out of high school and used the GI bill to go to college after his 2 year contract because his parents wouldn't pay for school. He was a medic in the military, worked as an EMT through college, and then went to nursing school.** The original plan was that Trevor would be a Green Beret (special forces, linking the training pipeline here: https://www.reddit.com/greenberets/comments/xwdbta/current_sf_pipeline_correct_me_if_im_wrong/ ), he completed basic training and and got several months through the NC training before failing the running portion of a physical by about 10 seconds and being dropped from the selection process. He then decided that he wanted to be a Ranger (another elite position). He got sent back to GA, then to the Ranger school base in WA (it took a couple of months before he was sent to WA). Again, he got partway through the training before failing the running portion of a physical by a few seconds. He is now not sure if he will be continuing Ranger school (failing the physical means no, but commanders may pass him anyways if they think he should continue). For a while, Trevor told Olivia that he might not stay at the base in WA if he wasn't in Ranger school and there were a variety of different bases he could be sent to, including somewhere in Italy, so she wasn't sure where to look for jobs. In the past month, Trevor told Olivia that he would likely stay in WA regardless of the Ranger school results.
Through this all, Olivia has visited Trevor at the different military bases countless times, driving from as far as south FL to NC and putting over 30,000 miles on a brand new car over the course of the 1.5 years she's owned it. Before she had the car, she paid for plane tickets to see him and hotels whenever she visited. At the time, she told me that he was paying for all of these trips because he was unable to visit her, was making an income that wasn't being spent, and she was working to save for nursing school and later was living off of student loans and savings during nursing school. She later admitted to me that she had paid for almost all of the expenses except for food when they ate out together and part of a hotel room one weekend.
A few odd things (to me) between Olivia and Trevor over the course of their relationship:
About a month into their relationship, Trevor got Olivia an over $300 christmas gift. He has not gotten her anything nearly that expensive since, and hasn't sent flowers for things like her college graduation or a severe emergency surgery she had last year. I don't care about monetary value or sending flowers, but I do think it is odd that he spent so much before moving away when he ostensibly didn't have much money, but now that he has an income and military sign-on bonus, he has not spent that much again.
Trevor's father left Trevor, his siblings, and his mother, but Trevor has a hat that his father gave him that he wore often. The hat says "Red Man" across the top of a picture of a Native American man wearing a feathered headdress. He has worn this hat several times around Olivia's friends and they told him they didn't like it and that it was racist. They also asked him to not wear it when he was with them and he refused because it was special to him and his father gave it to him. Olivia then told him to stop wearing it and he eventually agreed (Olivia told me that he stopped wearing the hat after this). A few weeks after this, I facetimed Olivia and Trevor was with her. She turned the camera so I could say hello to him, and he was wearing the hat. I talked to Olivia about this later and she told me that that was the first time he'd worn the hat in a while and it wasn't a big deal. Olivia has always been liberal and never racist, and I am uncomfortable that she was okay with him not only wearing the hat, but being with him while he had it on.
They dated for a little over 3 months in person before he joined the military (recently, Olivia told me that they actually met several months before she told everyone about him and that they actually dated for 6 months before he left). For the next two months in basic training, he was only able to use the phone for 15 minutes total once a week to talk to family and her. Throughout the different training programs he has completed he had sporadic and limited access to phones to communicate, and only in the past 6 months he has had access to his phone to facetime, text, and call (but sometimes he goes for a week or two without phone access). Olivia told me that they wrote letters during the time he didn't have consistent phone access. **I don't think that this is odd, I understand the military limits phone usage, etc., but I don't think they have been able to have an "average" long-distance relationship**
Last year, Olivia drove to GA to visit Trevor the weekend before Valentine's day. He had plans for them to take a pottery class, go on a hike, and have dinner at a nice restaurant. The day she got there, Trevor's barracks had their off-base privileges revoked because one of the guys had contraband. She would still be able to visit him on base though. Somehow, Trevor was able to get off base for long periods of time to her hotel, but unable to do the other activities he had planned for them.
In the past year, Olivia told me that she and Trevor were going to immediately marry when she got to WA so that they could move in together because they had to be married to live together anywhere. I and our dad- who was in the military- told her several times that this was not true, but she insisted it was. Then, his barracks were given an allowance to live off base in apartments because the barracks were being renovated/ rebuilt, so she backed off on the idea of getting married immediately after several long conversations with me. She is still insistent on moving in with Trevor, who lives with a roommate, when she moves to WA.
Some background on Olivia:
Olivia has ADHD and anxiety, and struggled particularly badly with the anxiety/ some depression after being broken up with by the boyfriend she dated before Trevor (he broke it off very abruptly, told her he just didn't love her anymore with no previous indications). Olivia is very pretty (objectively, not just because she's my sister), but had bad acne that she ended up going on accutane for at the time she started dating Trevor and was very insecure about it. She had also decided to not go to medical school, and pursue nursing instead around the same time she met Trevor. This was a very upsetting decision for her because she had been taking very hard courses and was burnt out but had told everyone she was going to be a doctor and thought that she would be letting us down by switching paths. Also around the time she started seeing Trevor, Olivia began being very cruel towards our mother (our mother had been borderline emotionally abusive in the past, but Olivia and I were both in college by then and fixing our relationships with her. She has been much better recently and Olivia and I believe that she had some mental health struggles that went unchecked that contributed). Now, several years later, Olivia told our family that she had acted like that because she was rpd by a friend of her ex-boyfriend's after her ex broke up with her. This person also gave her an STD.
I always believe people who say they have been S A'd, and we believed Olivia when she first told us, but some things have come to light that make me and my family question that. Right after Olivia and her ex broke up, Olivia told our cousin that she had gone out with one of his friends and had revenge/ breakup sex with him because he had also been dumped recently. Once my cousin told me this, I remembered that Olivia had told me about a guy she had a one night stand with after she was dumped. She showed me a picture of him, talked about how cute he was, etc. (no distress whatsoever). I know sometimes people behave in ways you wouldn't expect when a traumatic event occurs to them, but I really don't understand how or why Olivia would brag about this guy if he really did S A her.
Three months ago, Olivia was arrested for stealing a set of sheets from Walmart (incidentally, right before Trevor came to visit her on leave). She used the self check-out and only bought a small $5 item and the sheets. She held both in one hand and scanned each side because she had a cut on the other hand and was holding her wallet with it. She saw a 5 in front of the total number and thought it looked right because the total should have been about $50, paid, didn't get a receipt, and walked out. An employee at the door asked to see a receipt, which Olivia didn't have, so she pulled up her transaction history on her phone to show she had paid. At this point, the employee called the police and took Olivia into an office, where she was questioned and charged with shoplifting. (Olivia can get very emotional and probably got upset when the police questioned her, which may have led them to believe she was lying). Luckily, Olivia has managed to get the charges expunged, but the process is still ongoing. Because of her ADHD, if anyone genuinely made this mistake, I would believe it from her, but Olivia has been improving a lot on organization and being more attentive recently. It is extremely uncharacteristic of her to steal- she was honest to a fault as kids- she would break down from guilt and admit things to our parents that we would have gotten away with if she hadn't said anything.
Right now, my parents have met Trevor twice in person, and I've met him once in person and several times in passing over facetime. I personally don't think that Trevor seems to keep up with my sister or that they make each other shine, and that opinion is shared with family friends and family that have met Trevor. Olivia doesn't mention Trevor in front of our parents often because his name has become a topic of contention and argument between them. My parents don't think Trevor is right for Olivia. She has almost 2 college degrees and plans to become a nurse practitioner in the future, and he hasn't finished college and doesn't seem to have any drive to do so. Olivia is also well traveled and enjoys going to museums, concerts, etc., while Trevor has lived in rural FL his whole life (this is not Trevor's fault, and I don't think he is a lesser person because of it, but I don't see a lot of common ground between them). Trevor has not seemed very well spoken when I have talked to him and I just don't see a lot of qualities in him that Olivia values.
If you've gotten this far, I just don't know what to do. Olivia and my parents have a huge rift in their relationship right now and any mention of Trevor, with her around or not, explodes into a huge argument, discussion, or just icy silence. I want Olivia to be able to talk to me about him, and we are able to discuss things much better than she is with our parents. My parents have also started asking me about Olivia and Trevor because they know Olivia shares more with me, and it makes me uncomfortable because I don't want to betray Olivia's trust, but I'm also very worried about her. I know I can't control her actions and I'm having a really hard time trying to balance supporting Olivia but not supporting the relationship (I'm not going to lie to her about how I feel, but I don't want her to feel alienated or unloved by our family, because that is NOT the case). I also think that Olivia is romanticizing the fact that our parents don't like him because my father's parents had a rift with him over our mother when we were very young (this is a whole other story, but basically, his parents always favored his sister, his sister got (I think) jealous when he did well for himself and married my mother, who his parents initially likes, and she made up rumors/lies about my mother that turned his parents against her (this was way before our mother's suspected mental health struggles, which occured when Olivia and I were in middle/high school).
Please share any thoughts you have on the situation (am I reading too into things, is this not as bad as I think it is?), and any advice you have on navigating the relationships.

This is a really long story with lots of context so I'll do my best to organize it into current situation, then his backstory and hers. I'm also not using real names or specific locations for any of this to try and keep this private. This also has some contradicting stories and because of how their relationship is structured relies mostly on information I have gotten from my sister, so I'm telling you the story I got from her first and then adding in what I've found out. I'll try to tell this as unbiased as I can but it's been a huge issue in my family for a long time now and that's a little difficult for me to do.
My sister (Olivia, 24F) has been dating this guy (Trevor, 25M) since 2021. When they started dating, she talked about him fairly often, sent a few pictures of them, ect., but then after a month she stopped mentioning him/ was cagey when we (me and my mom mostly) asked how he was so we assumed it just hadn't worked out. Then two months later she insisted that my parents and I all come to visit her college to meet Trevor before he went into the Army (she lived several hours away from my parents and several hours from my college, so I had to get a bus ticket and my parents had to get a hotel room to do this. We only met him once for dinner). Now they've been dating long distance for three years after a three month in-person relationship. She is in nursing school and is planning on moving across the country (literally opposite corners of the map) to live with him and is not applying to any residency programs outside of the Army base area (limiting her choices a LOT from her original goals and narrowing employment opportunities).
Olivia met Trevor on several dating apps, matched with him, but didn't really want to go out with him. He was really persistent, so her friend convinced her to go out with him. She lied about the way they met to our parents and told them they met at the gym through a mutual friend (she lied to me about this at first too and told me the truth about 3 months after they started dating). At the time, Trevor was working as a used car salesman and living at home (~45 min. away from Olivia's school in a rural area) because his sports scholarship had been dropped before his Senior year due to covid at the college he had been attending out of state. The university was unaccredited (I later did some internet stalking and found out it was accredited), so his credits would not transfer and he would have to start over. He was saving up money to attend school in state at the large college Olivia attended so he could go back to school. **Our state has crazy low tuition costs in-state and a full-tuition scholarship program for good high school GPA and SAT scores. There was also a "feeder" community college that had half the cost per credit hour that a lot of people would go to before the larger university if they didn't get in straight out of high school.**
Olivia told me that Trevor had applied to her college and not gotten in (she later told me he HAD gotten in but been unable to afford tuition). Either way, he decided to join the Army because his father had been in the Army. The Army would take his credit hours and he would be able to finish his degree during his 5 year contract or use the GI bill once he got out. **She is comparing the situation to our father, who joined the Army directly out of high school and used the GI bill to go to college after his 2 year contract because his parents wouldn't pay for school. He was a medic in the military, worked as an EMT through college, and then went to nursing school.** The original plan was that Trevor would be a Green Beret (special forces, linking the training pipeline here: https://www.reddit.com/greenberets/comments/xwdbta/current_sf_pipeline_correct_me_if_im_wrong/ ), he completed basic training and and got several months through the NC training before failing the running portion of a physical by about 10 seconds and being dropped from the selection process. He then decided that he wanted to be a Ranger (another elite position). He got sent back to GA, then to the Ranger school base in WA (it took a couple of months before he was sent to WA). Again, he got partway through the training before failing the running portion of a physical by a few seconds. He is now not sure if he will be continuing Ranger school (failing the physical means no, but commanders may pass him anyways if they think he should continue). For a while, Trevor told Olivia that he might not stay at the base in WA if he wasn't in Ranger school and there were a variety of different bases he could be sent to, including somewhere in Italy, so she wasn't sure where to look for jobs. In the past month, Trevor told Olivia that he would likely stay in WA regardless of the Ranger school results.
Through this all, Olivia has visited Trevor at the different military bases countless times, driving from as far as south FL to NC and putting over 30,000 miles on a brand new car over the course of the 1.5 years she's owned it. Before she had the car, she paid for plane tickets to see him and hotels whenever she visited. At the time, she told me that he was paying for all of these trips because he was unable to visit her, was making an income that wasn't being spent, and she was working to save for nursing school and later was living off of student loans and savings during nursing school. She later admitted to me that she had paid for almost all of the expenses except for food when they ate out together and part of a hotel room one weekend.
A few odd things (to me) between Olivia and Trevor over the course of their relationship:
About a month into their relationship, Trevor got Olivia an over $300 christmas gift. He has not gotten her anything nearly that expensive since, and hasn't sent flowers for things like her college graduation or a severe emergency surgery she had last year. I don't care about monetary value or sending flowers, but I do think it is odd that he spent so much before moving away when he ostensibly didn't have much money, but now that he has an income and military sign-on bonus, he has not spent that much again.
Trevor's father left Trevor, his siblings, and his mother, but Trevor has a hat that his father gave him that he wore often. The hat says "Red Man" across the top of a picture of a Native American man wearing a feathered headdress. He has worn this hat several times around Olivia's friends and they told him they didn't like it and that it was racist. They also asked him to not wear it when he was with them and he refused because it was special to him and his father gave it to him. Olivia then told him to stop wearing it and he eventually agreed (Olivia told me that he stopped wearing the hat after this). A few weeks after this, I facetimed Olivia and Trevor was with her. She turned the camera so I could say hello to him, and he was wearing the hat. I talked to Olivia about this later and she told me that that was the first time he'd worn the hat in a while and it wasn't a big deal. Olivia has always been liberal and never racist, and I am uncomfortable that she was okay with him not only wearing the hat, but being with him while he had it on.
They dated for a little over 3 months in person before he joined the military (recently, Olivia told me that they actually met several months before she told everyone about him and that they actually dated for 6 months before he left). For the next two months in basic training, he was only able to use the phone for 15 minutes total once a week to talk to family and her. Throughout the different training programs he has completed he had sporadic and limited access to phones to communicate, and only in the past 6 months he has had access to his phone to facetime, text, and call (but sometimes he goes for a week or two without phone access). Olivia told me that they wrote letters during the time he didn't have consistent phone access. **I don't think that this is odd, I understand the military limits phone usage, etc., but I don't think they have been able to have an "average" long-distance relationship**
Last year, Olivia drove to GA to visit Trevor the weekend before Valentine's day. He had plans for them to take a pottery class, go on a hike, and have dinner at a nice restaurant. The day she got there, Trevor's barracks had their off-base privileges revoked because one of the guys had contraband. She would still be able to visit him on base though. Somehow, Trevor was able to get off base for long periods of time to her hotel, but unable to do the other activities he had planned for them.
In the past year, Olivia told me that she and Trevor were going to immediately marry when she got to WA so that they could move in together because they had to be married to live together anywhere. I and our dad- who was in the military- told her several times that this was not true, but she insisted it was. Then, his barracks were given an allowance to live off base in apartments because the barracks were being renovated/ rebuilt, so she backed off on the idea of getting married immediately after several long conversations with me. She is still insistent on moving in with Trevor, who lives with a roommate, when she moves to WA.
Some background on Olivia:
Olivia has ADHD and anxiety, and struggled particularly badly with the anxiety/ some depression after being broken up with by the boyfriend she dated before Trevor (he broke it off very abruptly, told her he just didn't love her anymore with no previous indications). Olivia is very pretty (objectively, not just because she's my sister), but had bad acne that she ended up going on accutane for at the time she started dating Trevor and was very insecure about it. She had also decided to not go to medical school, and pursue nursing instead around the same time she met Trevor. This was a very upsetting decision for her because she had been taking very hard courses and was burnt out but had told everyone she was going to be a doctor and thought that she would be letting us down by switching paths. Also around the time she started seeing Trevor, Olivia began being very cruel towards our mother (our mother had been borderline emotionally abusive in the past, but Olivia and I were both in college by then and fixing our relationships with her. She has been much better recently and Olivia and I believe that she had some mental health struggles that went unchecked that contributed). Now, several years later, Olivia told our family that she had acted like that because she was raped by a friend of her ex-boyfriend's after her ex broke up with her. This person also gave her an STD.
I always believe people who say they have been sexually assaulted, abused, or harassed, and we believed Olivia when she first told us, but some things have come to light that make me and my family question that. Right after Olivia and her ex broke up, Olivia told our cousin that she had gone out with one of his friends and had revenge/ breakup sex with him because he had also been dumped recently. Once my cousin told me this, I remembered that Olivia had told me about a guy she had a one night stand with after she was dumped. She showed me a picture of him, talked about how cute he was, etc. (no distress whatsoever). I know sometimes people behave in ways you wouldn't expect when a traumatic event occurs to them, but I really don't understand how or why Olivia would brag about this guy if he really did sexually assault her.
Three months ago, Olivia was arrested for stealing a set of sheets from Walmart. She used the self check-out and only bought a small $5 item and the sheets. She held both in one hand and scanned each side because she had a cut on the other hand and was holding her wallet with it. She saw a 5 in front of the total number and thought it looked right because the total should have been about $50, paid, didn't get a receipt, and walked out. An employee at the door asked to see a receipt, which Olivia didn't have, so she pulled up her transaction history on her phone to show she had paid. At this point, the employee called the police and took Olivia into an office, where she was questioned and charged with shoplifting. (Olivia can get very emotional and probably got upset when the police questioned her, which may have led them to believe she was lying). Luckily, Olivia has managed to get the charges expunged, but the process is still ongoing. Because of her ADHD, if anyone genuinely made this mistake, I would believe it from her, but Olivia has been improving a lot on organization and being more attentive recently. It is extremely uncharacteristic of her to steal- she was honest to a fault as kids- she would break down from guilt and admit things to our parents that we would have gotten away with if she hadn't said anything.
Right now, my parents have met Trevor twice in person, and I've met him once in person and several times in passing over facetime. I personally don't think that Trevor seems to keep up with my sister or that they make each other shine, and that opinion is shared with family friends and family that have met Trevor. Olivia doesn't mention Trevor in front of our parents often because his name has become a topic of contention and argument between them. My parents don't think Trevor is right for Olivia. She has almost 2 college degrees and plans to become a nurse practitioner in the future, and he hasn't finished college and doesn't seem to have any drive to do so. Olivia is also well traveled and enjoys going to museums, concerts, etc., while Trevor has lived in rural FL his whole life (this is not Trevor's fault, and I don't think he is a lesser person because of it, but I don't see a lot of common ground between them). Trevor has not seemed very well spoken when I have talked to him and I just don't see a lot of qualities in him that Olivia values.
If you've gotten this far, I just don't know what to do. Olivia and my parents have a huge rift in their relationship right now and any mention of Trevor, with her around or not, explodes into a huge argument, discussion, or just icy silence. I want Olivia to be able to talk to me about him, and we are able to discuss things much better than she is with our parents. My parents have also started asking me about Olivia and Trevor because they know Olivia shares more with me, and it makes me uncomfortable because I don't want to betray Olivia's trust, but I'm also very worried about her. I know I can't control her actions and I'm having a really hard time trying to balance supporting Olivia but not supporting the relationship (I'm not going to lie to her about how I feel, but I don't want her to feel alienated or unloved by our family, because that is NOT the case). I also think that Olivia is romanticizing the fact that our parents don't like him because my father's parents had a rift with him over our mother when we were very young (this is a whole other story, but basically, his parents always favored his sister, his sister got (I think) jealous when he did well for himself and married my mother, who his parents initially likes, and she made up rumors/lies about my mother that turned his parents against her (this was way before our mother's suspected mental health struggles, which occured when Olivia and I were in middle/high school).
Please share any thoughts you have on the situation (am I reading too into things, is this not as bad as I think it is?), and any advice you have on navigating the relationships.

Hello everyone. I am in search of a long term RP partner for a prompt set within a modern fantasy Slice of life at a an Academy for the mystic arts. This will be taking place between the years 2009-2014. Please understand that I am more than willing to change the idea around or add in some elements you might suggest. Below is a small portion of the opening. If you are interested or have more questions feel free to ask me in a DM.
In your hands was a letter stamped with a wax seal. It was an unusual thing to see in this day and age and yet as you opened it, it became clear this letter was far more unusual than you had initially thought. As soon as the seal was broken small celebratory sparks and confetti emerged from within its confines. Upon removing the letter itself the seal burned into the paper seemed to stare back at you. It was only when it blinked that you did a double take as the letter began to speak audibly.
“Good evening! We hope this letter finds you well! Based upon your remotely measured aptitude for the mystical/ magical arts and or predilections for the extraordinary we are pleased to extend to you an invitation to attend our humble institution this fall! Please, if you are interested in attending our academy please report to the admissions office on the 20th of August. Below is the address for your local admissions Office.
4621 Willow Branch Lane, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Wishing you well! Amelia Cartwright, Admissions Department, Mystic Academy of Pennsylvania.”
Below is a list of things I am looking for in my role play partner since this may be a little longer term:
• This particular idea is 18+ so you must be as well if you contact me. This RP will include darker themes and I prefer that it remains dark.
• Someone who will contribute to the idea and is not afraid to share thoughts with me especially if its a twist or new character.
• I am looking for someone who has a good level of experience role playing. I’d prefer someone with at least a year or two of experience minimum.
• I encourage people to use pictures to set the scene or show people, vehicles, objects along with using face claims to give an understanding of their character. It is not a must but it is a preference.
• I mainly use discord to rp on. It is my preferred place to RP though I prefer we have a discussion here before moving there.
• To contact me feel free to send me a message here on reddit as I will usually respond within five to ten minutes if I am not asleep. I am on MST.
These are all my personal preferences for role playing. Sorry if that’s really long I just want to make sure that everything from my preferences to the idea comes across clearly. Please send me the word “Sprite” in the DM you send so I know you at least skimmed this.

Hybrid Warfare: The Art of Conquest under the Umbrella of Peace
Introduction
The contemporary world is witnessing an era of unconventional conflicts, where the boundaries between peace and war are blurred. Hybrid warfare, a insidious strategy that combines elements of traditional warfare, covert operations, cyber attacks, and propaganda, has become an increasingly prevalent weapon in the arsenal of major powers.
Inspired by the tactics of the NKVD, KGB, and SVR, this book reveals the subtle art of conquering a country without triggering open conflict. The reader will be guided through the labyrinth of strategies for identifying and compromising key individuals, exploiting their vulnerabilities and secrets to gain control over a nation.
Primary Target: Influence
The first crucial step is to identify the most influential person in the target country. Once the target is identified, a meticulous operation follows to uncover their weaknesses, secrets, and loved ones. Children, as symbols of the future and legacy, become priority targets. Neutralizing them, either through direct control or by sabotaging their chances of procreation, represents a crucial strategic blow.
Secret Weapon: Control
The life partner of the target becomes a central figure. Controlling or dividing them through unconventional methods serves to weaken the target's influence and facilitate their manipulation. There are no rules in this hybrid warfare, and any means are permitted to achieve the ultimate goal: conquest.
Infiltration: Eyes and Ears Everywhere
Well-infiltrated intelligence services, similar to Nicolae Ceaușescu's "Securitate", become essential for the constant surveillance of the target and their entourage. Controlling the doctor, the entourage, and anyone who could influence the target is crucial to maintaining absolute control.
"Coughing from the throat."
A Shocking Example: The Doctor and the Child
To illustrate the cruelty and lack of scruples of this type of warfare, let's analyze in detail a particular scenario: the control of the target's child's doctor. Imagine a situation where the child, the symbol of hope and the family's future, falls seriously ill. The doctor, under enemy control, is instructed to conceal the truth about the child's condition, providing a false diagnosis and ineffective treatment. This perfidious action not only endangers the child's life but also destroys the target's trust in those around them, making them vulnerable to manipulation.
Conclusion
Hybrid warfare, with its hidden tactics and ruthless manipulation, poses a real threat to the sovereignty of nations. This book offers a fascinating yet disturbing insight into this type of conflict, revealing the brutal strategies that can be used to conquer a country without triggering open war. An essential read for those who wish to understand the complexity of the modern world and the hidden dangers that can threaten global peace and stability.
The example of the doctor and the child serves as a reminder of the cruelty and lack of boundaries of those who wage hybrid warfare. It is a shocking yet necessary story that compels us to confront the dark reality of this type of conflict.
Another Shocking Example: The Orchestrated Accident
To demonstrate the insidious versatility of hybrid warfare, let's analyze another terrifying scenario: manipulating the doctor treating the target after a serious accident.
Imagine a tragic situation: the target, a symbol of power and influence, is the victim of a violent accident. Rushed to the hospital, severely injured and vulnerable, their fate rests in the hands of the attending physician.
But what if this doctor isn't a dedicated savior, but a pawn infiltrated in the enemy's operation? Under the adversary's control, the doctor receives sinister instructions: to administer medications that, under the guise of proper treatment, will actually trigger a rise in the target's blood pressure, further exacerbating their condition and jeopardizing their life.
This diabolical act not only endangers the target's life, but also serves as a strategic blow. Weakening the target physically and mentally makes them vulnerable to manipulation and isolates them from loved ones who might intervene to protect them.
In the event the target survives, the orchestrated accident could be presented as a mere medical error, a regrettable negligence, not a premeditated crime. The lack of concrete evidence and the controlled doctor's influence would facilitate the concealment of the truth and maintain control over the target.
This example chillingly demonstrates how hybrid warfare exploits human tragedy to achieve political objectives. The manipulation of the medical profession, a symbol of trust and compassion, represents a pinnacle of perfidy, showcasing the utter lack of scruples of those who wage such war.
The story of the orchestrated accident serves as a shocking reminder of the hidden cruelty of hybrid warfare and how it can infiltrate and corrupt even the most noble institutions. It's a dark reality we cannot ignore, forcing us to remain vigilant and fight to defend humanity's fundamental values.

Hi. I have a touch of arachnophobia, so I started doing research on how to kill all the spiders. Through my research,. I learned that they are actually helpful And I do not want to kill all of the spiders. Now , I'm focused on keeping the bugs out and killing the ones that get in. But I've been doing a lot of reading, maybe too much, because the biggest roach/wasp??/crawling thing with wings and legs just strolled into my apartment and now I'm standing in a corner after having smashed it and doused it in vinegar and soap and I'm watching it to see if it's really dead and now I'm heading to the store to buy the entire pest control aisle but I don't know what to do or what I need please send help im a fully grown adult and I'm considering getting a hotel for the night
I would take any and all advice. I have a couple questions at the end but I'll take anything you can share with me.
My problem and reason For making this post is because I found so much conflicting information that i'm just not sure anymore. Can anyone clear any of this up for me?
Candles. Attract or repel? Light attracts insects, but they don't like fire (right?) I have a beeswax candle, I heard they don't like that. What about citronella as a general stay-away -from -me- tool?
Some sites say you can make your own super killer spray with bleach and vinegar, and the next page I read would say that still just attracts them.
Ultrasonic plug in repellers- good to add to the arsenal or should I just throw my money away?
I know that there are different types of insects and bugs and all of that stuff. I might be able to grow a pair and post a picture if someone really needs it...hopefully not though.
What I have already done:
I. Sprayed the ortho home defense max inside and out, carefully following instructions II. Laid down diatomaceous earth outside III.Laid down diatomaceous earth inside in the baseboard cracks and openings and then sealed them up with caulk/putty caulk, pushing the d.e. inside to act as an insulator IV. I just moved here. So it was fairly clean to begin with. But I just re-cleaned everything on the inside just in case.
Thank you if you're still here. I might also need a therapist, (lol) but for now, it's bug murder time. If anyone can help I would appreciate it.
EDIT: i am looking at the diatomaceous Earth that I bought And I think I bought the wrong one. It's from Lowes. Is it safe for my health to use inside my home, and will it still kill bugs? 85%silicon dioxide 15% other INGREDIENTS. Thank you thank you thank you
what I bought

I've played a lot of the HOP's over the last few years, but they're not just that. I like games that have different sorts of puzzles aside from hidden objects. Some of my favorites have been the games that have a mini game where the puzzle has multiple parts to it and the parts aren't related beyond being part of the same mini-game. I hope I'm explaining it well enough. You start the minigame and you have to solve some thing - rings of a picture placed correctly, then nothing in more than one row and column, and then pipes or electrical circuits, etc. But all of them happen within the same minigame. I almost feel like it's one of those Playskool things that you buy for little baby's where it's all the same thing, but it also has discrete sections.
Again, I'm hoping this translates. I know about Big Fish, Artifex Mundi and some developer who has 5 in the name.
I want more of those games. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

At Fabwelt, we're all about making gaming an awesome experience. We've got tons of cool games, from action-packed shooters to games where you can be whoever you want to be. But it's not just about the games themselves – it's about the thrill of exploring new worlds, finding hidden treasures, and competing with friends. Imagine soaring through the skies as a fearless pilot or embarking on a quest to save a kingdom from dark forces. Fabwelt games are designed to transport you to exciting and immersive worlds where every click brings new adventures.

The Power of Integration: Making Gaming Even Cooler

What sets Fabwelt apart is how we use fancy stuff like blockchain to make gaming even cooler. You might have heard of things like NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) and DeFi (Decentralized Finance) – don't worry if you haven't, they're just fancy words for making gaming more exciting. With Fabwelt, you can earn cool stuff in the games you play, and it's not just virtual – it's real! Picture this: you complete a challenging quest and earn a unique weapon or rare item that you can actually own and trade with other players. It's like turning your gaming skills into real-world rewards!

Join the Fun: Be a Part of Something Big

So why should you join Fabwelt? Well, if you're a gamer who loves trying new things, or if you've never played a game before and want to see what all the fuss is about, Fabwelt is the place to be. Dive into our games, meet new friends, and discover a world where anything is possible. Whether you're a casual player looking for some fun or a competitive gamer seeking your next challenge, there's something for everyone at Fabwelt.

Experience the Future with Fabwelt!

This article was put together with love by the Fabwelt team to show you just how awesome gaming can be. Come join us as we revolutionize the way you play and have fun online. Ready to dive into the future? Click here to join the adventure with Fabwelt!
Visit: Fabwelt

Click here for pictures of Rory!
Click here for more information about adoption and other ways to help!
Click here for a link to Trinity County Animal Shelter’s main website.
Meet Rory! This loving girl is looking for her forever home. Rory is an adult female DSH, Tabby in color. She loves to snuggle and vies for our attention in the cat room. This girl may look a little plain but she is one of the biggest personalities!

Explore the depths of dark fantasy writing with our all-inclusive guide on enhancing your themes and drawing readers in with symbolism. Discover key strategies, delve into the background of dark fantasy literature, and let your imagination run wild with an enjoyable writing assignment. Regardless of your level of experience as a writer or your level of interest, this guide will assist you in creating dark fantasy stories that are memorable and impactful.
Writing in the dark fantasy genre is a journey into the depths of the human psyche, where symbolism and imagery rule supreme, and it goes beyond simple stories of magic and monsters. We'll look at how to use symbolism to enhance your themes, draw in readers, and craft worlds of dark fantasy that will stick with you in this extensive guide.

Understanding Symbolism in Dark Fantasy Writing

Let's examine the history and development of symbolism in dark fantasy literature before delving into its specific applications. Gothic literature is the source of dark fantasy literature; early works such as Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" established the themes of terror, mystery, and the paranormal. Dark fantasy has evolved over time as authors like H.P. Lovecraft, Anne Rice, and Clive Barker have explored themes of power, corruption, and the human psyche.

The Power of Symbolism in Dark Fantasy Writing

A powerful tool in the dark fantasy writer's toolbox, symbolism enables you to give your works a deeper resonance and meaning. You can add layers of intricacy and depth that captivate readers and hold their interest throughout by employing symbols and imagery to symbolise abstract ideas, feelings, and themes.

Essential Techniques for Using Symbolism in Dark Fantasy Writing

Let's now examine some crucial methods for enhancing themes in your dark fantasy writing with symbolism:
Pick Your Symbols Wisely: Whether it's a menacing raven perched atop a gravestone, a mysterious amulet with dark powers, or a sinister castle shrouded in mist, pick symbols that speak to your themes and characters.
Establish Symbolic Motifs: To reaffirm themes and provide a feeling of coherence and unity, incorporate reoccurring symbols and motifs into your narrative. Including symbolic elements in your story can enhance its depth and richness. Some examples of such elements are the moon, which denotes mystery and transformation, or a colour like red, which stands for blood and passion.
Employ Symbolic Imagery: To evoke mood and atmosphere, use rich descriptive language to paint vivid pictures with your words. Use imagery to draw readers into the dark fantasy world you've created, whether you're describing a haunted forest shrouded in shadows or a dilapidated mansion full of secrets.
Investigate Archetypes and Myths: Use mythological motifs and archetypal characters as inspiration to give your narrative enduring themes and universal lessons. Using these classic themes, such as the hero's journey, the underworld's descent, or the conflict between light and darkness, can give your dark fantasy story more depth and resonance.

Fun Writing Exercise: Unleash Your Imagination

Select a Theme: Choose a theme or idea that you wish to explore in your dark fantasy story to begin with. Select a theme that appeals to you and piques your interest, such as the nature of power, the duality of human nature, or the quest for salvation.
Determine Your Symbols: The next step is to make a list of images and symbols that are connected to the theme you have selected. These could be places with symbolic meaning, animals, colours, or even objects. For example, you could use symbols like a decaying city, a black rose, or a serpent if you're examining the theme of corruption.
Create Your Story: After deciding on a theme and symbols, begin creating your story by incorporating these components into it to give it depth and resonance. Employ evocative language to create a sense of atmosphere and mood, and allow your symbols to direct the course of your story and the character development.
After writing your story, consider how the symbolism you employed enriched your themes and make any necessary revisions. Seek chances to hone your imagery or add more nuance to your symbolism in order to produce a more compelling and meaningful reading experience. And don't be scared to edit and polish your narrative until the power of symbolism shines through!

Famous Writers and Works in Dark Fantasy Literature

Dark fantasy literature boasts a rich history and a wealth of influential writers and works. From classic tales of Gothic horror to modern masterpieces of dark fantasy, here are a few notable examples:
The Cthulhu Mythos of H.P. Lovecraft: Lovecraft is recognised as one of the pioneers of contemporary horror literature, and the dark fantasy subgenre has been greatly impacted by his Cthulhu Mythos. Lovecraft's stories, replete with cosmic horror.), ancient gods, and secret knowledge, tackle existential dread and humanity's smallness in the face of cosmic forces that are beyond our comprehension.
Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman": This graphic novel series is a masterwork of dark fantasy that masterfully combines dream sequences, mythology, and folklore. With its sophisticated storyline, nuanced characters, and rich, vivid imagery, "The Sandman" has won both praise from critics and a devoted readership, solidifying Gaiman's place as one of the leading authors of contemporary dark fantasy literature.
George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire": George R.R. Martin's epic fantasy series "A Song of Ice and Fire" is a sprawling saga of political intrigue, war, and magic set in the fictional continent of Westeros. With its morally ambiguous characters, intricate plot twists, and gritty, realistic world-building, "A Song of Ice and Fire" has redefined the boundaries of the dark fantasy genre and inspired a cultural phenomenon with its adaptation into the hit HBO series "Game of Thrones".

Embrace the Power of Symbolism

To sum up, symbolism is a powerful tool that can enhance your themes, draw readers in, and help you write darker fantasy fiction to new heights. You can write dark fantasy stories that stick in the reader's mind long after the last page is turned by carefully selecting your symbols, coming up with symbolic motifs, employing vivid imagery, and taking inspiration from myths and archetypes.
So embrace the power of symbolism, let your imagination run wild, and set out on an amazing adventure into the shadowy depths of fantasy literature. Your readers are just waiting to be enthralled with the wonders of your writing!

Elevating Your Writing Experience

With pen and paper in hand, set off on your dark adventure, reflect on the deep experience that the GC Luxury Quill Set provides. Each stroke of the quill seems like a fall into the depths of darkness, capturing the essence of your darkest fantasies with unmatched precision thanks to its superb craftsmanship and timeless elegance.
The GC Luxury Quill Set transforms writing into an art form, drawing you into the intricate web of your own invention whether you're creating suspenseful dialogue or narrative twists. It becomes an extension of your will, channelling the raw emotion and atmosphere necessary to creating a genuinely unforgettable dark fantasy tale thanks to its ergonomic form and fluid ink flow.

My Own Dark Fantasy Realm

Hi there, fellow fans of dark fantasy! Thanks to your unflinching support, our blog—which is packed with tales and inspirations of dark fantasy—is making waves on TikTok, Pinterest, and YouTube. Even more thrilling is the fact that we're creating a captivating Trading Card Game to further engross you in Twilight Citadel's eerie mysteries. Explore the depths of the shadows with our website, where you can get eerie yet lovely phone wallpapers and posters. Furthermore, we've got you covered with free resources like desktop wallpapers and profile pictures to make sure your gadgets are brimming with eerie fantasy atmosphere. Come along with us on this surreal adventure, where fears come true and shadows dance. Are you prepared to welcome the gloom?

Okay so I know people are going to see that title and immediately think “wannabe” but please hear me out. There’s a lot of backstory in this.
I 21m think I might have ADHD but I’m confused, lost, I don’t know where to start and I don’t want to embarrass myself and just turn out “I’m normal.”
I have a somewhat regular life now. I live alone, pay my bills, work, socialise, etc. However recently I’ve been overthinking a lot about my lifestyle and I just am unsure what to do. For example, my sleep schedule is royally fucked. I can’t sleep for the life of me. I feel uncomfortable if I move a smidge and just start thinking about stupid shit and fantasies until my body is quite literally exhausted enough to sleep. Which results in me then getting up at a random time 4 hours later. Can’t go back to sleep but will then sleep again 3 hours later for another 4 hours. I have to just lay there for hours on end to get a “good nights sleep.” Then at work I’m so underwhelmed and feel a force to work. I feel like I have to force myself to work or I won’t do it. I’m so bad at finishing things. I prepare things and make a plan in my head but it takes me double the time to actually finish it because I just get so bored and then have to force myself to do it again. I’ve also felt unmotivated recently and to be truthful it’s because this is the longest period I’ve had at work where I have not been promoted. Just plain feeling what’s the point at the moment. And the coffee. I’m mugging the company off completely. If I don’t have 3 I will just lollope.
Outside of work I also am backed up on so much stuff I have to do. I have my gym membership I haven’t cancelled yet. I haven’t cleaned my bathroom which I said I’d do 2 weeks ago. I haven’t sent my mum the bedsheets I saw that she wanted yet. I haven’t organised my washing properly in weeks. Just so many task that take so long to do for no reason at all and I can’t explain it. I could be lazy but I just can’t seem to do them on time. Don’t get me started on Christmas. Every year I am running around on the last week looking for anything. I left it so late last year I didnt even have any Christmassy wrapping paper. I also don’t know if this is a thing but if I enjoy a song I will play it over and over and over again until I will randomly no longer like it. I will replay the song so many times until I don’t get any enjoyment from it at all.
Now for some backstory. When I was around 12 I started getting panic attacks. I have anxiety and a panic disorder which I have been diagnosed with. My mum then started to notice difference with me and spoke with the family worker I had at the time. I had troubles in school and they suspected at the time I had autism. My family worker was a very nice lady and hope she is doing well but was very unsure if it was autism at the time, however suggested to my mum that I might be masking. At 12 this made no sense to me at all but I can see what she meant at the time. It took 2 years to get me referred and I went to get diagnosed. I just remember this woman giving me a book and asking me to explain the pictures and then pick an object out of a box and then talk about my school life. I didn’t lie, I was an utter shit show. I was expelled from 2 schools at that point. After that was done it took another month until my mum got the news that I did not have autism. I just remember her being devastated and confused on what was wrong with me. I then continued being a shit, until I turned into a bigger shit. I started smoking and drinking and then bam kicked out my 3rd school by age 15. I was then enrolled into a school for kids who had previously been bullied or suffer with other disabilities which make it no longer possible for them to attend mainstream schools. I remember her having to apply for this thing with the council so my education was paid for “truthfully I think I still have that document standing to this day.” This school offered lessons either one on one with a teacher or small groups. They also offered students with trained therapists and my one was an absolute gem. He enjoyed my company and I enjoyed his. A few months went by and me, my mum, my head teacher, another teacher and my therapist were in this meeting. I don’t remember much about it just shit I didn’t bother to listen to. However my therapist suggested to my mum that I might have ADHD and spoke with her about symptoms he had noticed which I didn’t even really pay much attention to. My mum flat out said no and said she wasn’t going to wait another 2 years for me to get seen to. So I continued to live my life yet again, get head boy, become a mentor, run an afterschool club, attend music, photography and art club. Then just randomly dropped out. Don’t know why I did this.
I just don’t know where to start, how do I even go about it. Do I just ring my doctors and say I think I have this? What if I look like a complete idiot? I just am so confused and lost and scared and where to start? I just can’t keep living like this I just want a bit of normality in my life and am just so tired of being like this.