Caution: Long Post
The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is without doubt and still is to this day one of the most influential, powerful, and iconic figures in American history due to his steadfast and nonviolent commitment in the fight for Civil Rights, Equality, and Justice during Jim Crow Segregation in the United States. The highlight of his career as an activist came in 1963 in which he delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech in front of Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. in which he envisioned a nation in which his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. This resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be passed. Even after his assassination in 1968, his legacy inspired many similar Civil Rights Movements around the world.
Today, Martin Luther King, Jr. is hailed by both sides of the American political sphere as a beacon of hope on how to fight for justice and equality for all during turbulent times. But it's the Conservatives who constantly claim that they truly support him and follow his dream, especially in modern times and they've expressed it in a rather whitewashed and partisan fashion. The most obvious being their use of his "I Have a Dream" speech by quoting the one line that has often been cherry-picked and misinterpreted quite a lot in which they judge people not by skin but by their character. The main reason they do this is to give them the appearance that they are colorblind as their way of opposing racism. And in doing so, they consistently criticize Liberals of trying to divide the country into special interest groups and promote favoritism. As a result, they always claim that Dr. King is a Republican, let alone would've been one in this era given his views, along with the fact that he was a Christian. His niece, Alveda King even emphasized it herself.
Some of the ways that Conservatives try to supposedly live up to Dr. King's "colorblind" dream is by opposing supposed "Wokeness", Critical Race Theory, and the practice of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion everywhere. They also express it by opposing Affirmative Action and the use of racial quotas when it comes to applying for schools, universities, and jobs because they believe it causes Reverse Discrimination. In terms of nonviolence, Conservatives express their disapproval of the Black Lives Matter movement. On the basis of Christianity, Conservatives believe that Dr. King supported a fixed moral code as indicated in his Letters from Birmingham Jail since he led with love and not racial hatred by changing the lives of people and not the laws itself, along with the notion of self-sufficiency. Seeing all this, it seems like Conservatives are really desperate to prove how much America has progressed in this post-racial world in order to debunk accusations that it isn't a racist country and that's why they always prop up Dr. King by claiming that they follow his dream and will continue to do so. Well.....up until now.
During this year's Martin Luther King Day, a string of prominent Conservative activists and organizations suddenly turned on him. Starting off with Charlie Kirk of the youth Conservative movement Turning Point USA, who launched a blistering anti-MLK campaign in which he supposedly dispelled the alleged myths surrounding his popularity. He accused Dr. King of being a "bad person" and that his "sainthood will cause Black voters to realize it's being used against them to suppress the individual." He even went further by stating that "we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s" accusing it as "a way to get rid of the First Amendment". A while ago, the organization marketed the Conservative image of Dr. King when they sold $55 T-Shirts with his name as well as stickers of him with the words "Let Freedom Ring". Kirk was later joined by the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh who accused him of being a "communist". In fact, he railed against Dr. King a few years ago by accusing him of being a Womanizer, Adulterer, Plagiarizer, etc. Coming after Walsh was Human Events editor, conspiracy theorist, and fellow Turning Point USA alumna Jack Posobiec, who labeled Dr. King "a God of the Left" and stating that "the real legacy of the 1960s was enshrining Racial Discrimination and Race Consciousness into the Federal Bureaucracy." And finally, a popular Conservative Twitter account called "EndWokeness" called Dr. King "a Racial Marxist" because he "did not support a Colorblind Meritocracy" after it cited his quote on Wealth Distribution. What's even worse is that even non-White Conservatives hate him. Two examples include a commentator named Vince Everett Ellison and former football player and sports columnist, Jason Whitlock. The latest editions to the lineup of Black Guilt Conservatives, they railed against Dr. King and the passing of the Civil Rights by stating that they worsened the Black community by drifting them away from God into "Democratic Dependency". They even accused him of the same crimes as Walsh did.
With the sudden change in tone and emphasis from the Right against Dr. King, you have to ask yourself why they're doing this and what caused them to believe this way. And this is not an extremist fringe of the Right that some would expect to hear from. All of these are Mainstream Right-Wing Figures who have direct lineage to the GOP, including the current presidential nominee, Donald Trump. That's as Establishment you can get. Their remarks have been criticized by a lot of people from both sides and surprisingly by some Black Conservatives. One of them was Pastor Darrell Scott, a former faith advisor of Trump, who these days, is one of a few Black Conservatives who has been calling out other Black Conservatives for tearing down their own race in order to elevate their status among others, a very notorious habit of them. He criticized Kirk for inspiring a Hitler Youth. Another was Kimberly Klacik, who in 2020, gained viral for her campaign video stating that Black Lives don't matter to Democrats when she was running for Maryland's 7th Congressional District following the death of civil rights leader, Elijah Cummings, who was the incumbent. She criticized Kirk for his remarks stating that his rhetoric will prevent Blacks from voting Republican. Even with that said, there have been instances in which Conservatives themselves have questioned the Civil Rights Act and many of them have been pretty negative. If you check out other Conservative websites and especially here on Reddit, many of their criticisms echo the same sentiments as those Pundits stating that it was unconstitutional and that in infringed on the First Amendment, particularly the Notion of Freedom of Association.
That being said, there is some silver lining to this. Now, that they exposed themselves for what they really of think Dr. King, I think it's time for them to admit that they never really liked him in the first place, let alone understood who he really was and what he really stood for. In fact, they never really liked him at all. All they did was whitewash him and cherry-pick his ideas and speech for own Partisan Agenda. Dr. King constantly talked about the notion of Black Pride and campaigned about the need for Reparations. He also supported Affirmative Action stating in 1965 that "a Society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro. Dr. King realized that our society was created in a way that managed to disadvantage the many for the benefit the few, and that America's Racial Hierarchy was connected to its Class Hierarchy. He also had political beliefs that manifested through both Racial Reconciliation and Concrete Policy Changes that could help restructure and benefit a divided and unequal nation. This is the reason why he referred to himself as a Democratic Socialist as he wanted a "Radical Redistribution of Economic and Political Power". In fact, he argued that true Equality can only be achieved, not just through legal rights, but through an equal distribution of resources. This is evident when he said “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” This is the exact vision that Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders believed in. After all, he did participate in the March on Washington in 1963. In regards to Police Brutality, while Dr. King opposed violent protest, he did acknowledge that a riot is the language of the Unheard and that it came from a place of Desperation. In fact, in his "I Have a Dream" Speech, he stated that Blacks could "never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the Victim of the Unspeakable Horrors of Police Brutality." After all, he was hounded by the FBI, was called a Communist, broke the law in protest of race-based Segregation and Violence, was thrown in jail, advocated Protests and Sit-Ins, opposed White Rule of Society, and was assassinated for his Race and his views on Race. Regarding the quote about the Content of Character from said speech, Dr. King's daughter, Bernice King stated that using solely that quote diminishes the purpose of the entire speech because her father's dream and work included "eradicating Racism, not ignoring it."
If anything, this goes to show that is Dr. King were around today, he would be heavily criticized for being Woke, politically correct, a Communist, a Race Hustler, and a member of the Radical Left. And we all know that the Right hates those ideologies passionately. But here's the thing, he never considered himself a Democrat, let alone a Republican. He was an Independent as he felt that both parties are the same. And reducing his legacy to a single quote diminishes the gains that he fought for and believed in. This especially goes to a lot of Conservatives out there who claim to follow his lead using that quote because they interpret them in a way that benefits them today than how he meant them back then. For you to claim that he didn't care about Skin Color is like saying Susan B. Anthony didn't care about Gender. And to those Conservatives who now hate him, including Black, I hope you're OK with people getting treated unfairly, including your own. Who knew being seen as an Equal is a Negative in your eyes.

Heres my idea for an open world crime based action adventure game:
I want a modern open world game with modern graphics, modern physics, driving and combat mechanics, the whole 9 yards, but it takes place in New Orleans LA in the Early 2000’s, the game would have hundreds and hundreds of licensed cars, licensed songs ALL period correct and as many licensed brands as i can get in the game to make the setting more resemble real life, we’ve seen so many fantasy brands and fake cities and companies based off real life companies and i want to change that, i want all electronics of the era to be 100% accessible and usable in the game, everything from Motorola Razr’s, PDA’s, Laptops and The Internet in FULL early 2000’s style, Alpine and Sony X-Plod Car Headunits etc
Im going to say this now: there would be ZERO references or mentions of Hurricane Katrina in this game, the timeline would be 2002 to Summer 2005 before Katrina, Katrina wouldn’t be mentioned as it wouldn’t exist
The story is about a young transgender woman in her 20’s who lives in the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans, she drives a beat up 80’s-Early 90’s Pontiac at the start of the game and lives with her sister, at the beginning of the game nobody respects her, misgenders her and deadnames her, the idea is to hit the nail on the head with how trans people are treated on a daily basis, she progresses through the underground hustling ranks of New Orleans after being offered a job and proves to be someone who will go to great lengths to get the job done, everything from street racing in a scene that fully captures Early 2000’s tuner culture, winning cars in pinkslip races, shootouts from deals gone bad in nightclubs, encounters with corrupt police officers etc, at the end of the game shes a wealthy kingpin in the city and has earned the respect of mostly everyone and everyone speaks highly of her, i also want to slip in alot of little references to games and franchises i love like Earthbound, Clock Tower, Tony Hawk’s Underground 2, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Bad Boys, Need For Speed etc and make the user interface and menus feel like its from the Early 2000’s but also pay homage and respect to New Orleans Mardi Gras and jazz culture and for the world to be crammed full of life with NPC’s, animals, weather, random events, random encounters and interactions and basically how it would be in real life
The map i want to be the most accurate virtual recreation of New Orleans ever done just circa 2002-2005, i want as many enterable interiors in the game as possible, i want to include everything from Jazzland Theme Park, the Bayou areas, Lake Pontchatrain, East New Orleans, The SuperDome, the then New Orleans Arena next door, Shopping Malls, Car Dealerships for each brand in the game, Upper class Neighborhoods, Trailer Parks, Nightclubs, bars and of course the French quarter and Canal Street
I also want to take customization to a whole new level, give a Sims like ability to customize, furnish and build your home and character however you like, and of course the Early 2000’s fashion will be in full swing here, i want the most in-depth car customization of any game ever, its the early 2000’s after all, i want body kits, bumpers, hoods, wings, headlights and tail lights, the ability to customize the headunit in your car, put subwoofers in the trunk, rims, spinners, donks, lambo doors, underglow and of course in depth performance upgrades ALL parts be name brand, like Bomex body kits, TYC tail lights, JL Audio Amps, Subwoofers, Lowenhart, Lexani, Asanti, DUB and TIS rims, APR aluminum wings etc, i basically want to make the customization in Need For Speed Underground 2 look like a mobile game
And the car list, i want to have over 600 fully licensed cars in the game minimum and be fully customizable down to every single part, since the plot of the game starts in 2002 and ends in 2005, i want NOTHING newer than 2006 in the game
Cadillac Escalade, Hummer H2 and Chrysler 300C are a must, but i also want to have the 99-04 Mustang, both V6 and GT, Ferrari 360 Modena, Spider and Challenge Stradale, Ferrari 550, Lamborghini Murcièlago and Gallardo, but also include more common lesser loved cars like the Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Sunfire, Pontiac Grand Am, Geo Metro, Dodge Neon, Chrysler Concorde, Chevy Celebrity, Ford Taurus etc, and of course i’ll have bikes, boats, planes, helicopters and all other types of vehicles
Yeah its a GTA/Saints Row type game, but i want to raise the bar, push boundaries and do something different thats never been done before

Platform: Pretty sure it was only on PC, Windows
Genre: 2D, Puzzles/Riddles
Estimated year of release: All school pcs had them iirc, mid 90's/early 00s.
Graphics/art style: The game was somewhat realistic, a lot of egyptian related items/themes, I don't remember any real life humans in the game, all cartoon scary humans/gods.
Notable characters: Egyptians (I think some of the gods but can't remember exact ones), You are a explorer (again memory is hazy)
Notable gameplay mechanics: I remember getting items which were used to progress, there were text boxes when characters were talking (IIRC), the choices you made mattered.
Other details:
Perhaps this game was a puzzle game with multiple eras, and I just never got past the first era which was Egyptian, I can't exactly remember. I do remember it being really confusing. I'm remembering perhaps you start off in a time machine or plane and crash land in Egypt and have to collect stuff to get out (could be waffle tho). The game was kind of creepy/spooky at times. There was a scene/setting with a blowdart, someone gets poisoned and u have to heal them or shoot them I can't remember.

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.]

1. Kolm pitching and confidence.
In a series that had many interesting storylines such as Jorgensen’s and Behen’s first series with their new teams, Evan’s first official series in MLW after being drafted with the first overall pick in the past draft and Cheetam’s first series as manager it was Preston Kolm who caught my eye the most.
I thought that surely Jorgensen would get the ball for game 2. Instead, manager Tommy Coughlin decided to go with Preston, clearly, he impressed him in the offseason, and he certainly impressed me as well. He showed great command, his pitches looked sharp, movement was working, and you could see that as he got deeper into the game his confidence was rising, he even broke out a Kracht-esque sidestep pitch for a strikeout. He ended up with a no hitter and a near perfect game just ruined by a single walk.
Now, with no intention of ruining the Mallards hype party, it is important to note that the Gators are probably not the most competitive team in the league, and their offense might be the weakest of all teams. They only scored one run in 9 innings (granted, the Mallards scored 2) but still, it was an amazing first outing for Kolm.
What was interesting to watch is that the confidence was not only bounded to pitching, but it carried over to everything else. He made some nice defensive plays in the field including a really tough one. At the plate he reached in 4 out of his 6 plate appearances.
I will follow his progress closely as the season goes on, but the Mallards suddenly have really nice depth in their rotation, with 3 very capable arms on the roster.
2. Sawyer Behen can pitch!
Coming into this series many eyes where on Behen, and for good reason. After the very loud and controversial trade that saw Behen land with the Gators, there is a lot of pressure on him to perform this year, especially with the comments he made during the offseason, and if this series is any indication of what we will see from him, ohh boy did the Gators win this trade. After Jorgensen’s departure the Gators will need to fill the franchise player vacancy. And while I don’t think Behen can be enough of a hitter to fill that void, he showed he can be the face of the Gators pitching staff. Behen looked unhittable, and aside from a Robles rocket to left field, no one really made strong contact off him. His final line was 7IP, 1ER, 16K and 9BB. With Behen at this level on the mound, rookie Evans talent and Cheetam as a third arm the Gators quietly have a solid rotation, capable of winning games even against the most dangerous offenses as they nearly did in the 3 games against the Mallards.
3. Gators rookies are here!
Aiden Richard joined the Gators as an undrafted free agent, and while I’m sure it was not the debut he hoped for, as he went 0-2 and had a whoopsie play in right field that resulted in a Robles home run which ended up being the winning run for the Mallards. He looked good. He was responsible for one of the few Gators’ hard-hit balls, unfortunately it went just foul instead of what would have been a monster home run. But his swing looks good, he clearly has power and I think as the season goes on and as he racks up more plate appearances, he will be a good player for the Gators.
As for fist overall pick Jeremy Adams it was mixed bag, he started off great with a well hit ball to open the series for the Gators but wasn’t able to get any hits after that. Still, he managed to reach base 4 times in 10 PA’s. Which was the best mark on his team. The swing looks dangerous and there is definitively a power threat in there. I think it will take some time for him to adjust to MLW pitchers and rules, but I am confident he will figure it out. However, what really impressed me was his pitching. It is normal for first year players to struggle as pitchers, but Evans looked as comfortable as a veteran star pitcher. He only allowed one run in 3 innings of work and that run should have a major asterisk next to it, as Richard pushed the ball over the fence on a batted ball that would have never made it past the fence without some help. Overall, I loved what I saw from him on the mound, and Behen now must be absolutely remarkable if he doesn’t want to lose his spot as the guy in the pitching rotation. I would go as far as to say that Evans might already be the best second arm in the league, (if he will be the second arm for much longer is really in question) to say he has ace potential is an underestimation.
4. What happened to the Mallards offense?
If you would have told me that the Mallards would manage only 2 runs in the whole series against the Gators, I would have called you crazy. Nevertheless, that is exactly what happened, and I have no idea what to think about it. I had previously called the new Mallards offense the best assembled lineup in modern MLW history. The fact that they couldn’t really get anything going against a rookie pitcher and a 2.48 ERA pitcher in Behen is honestly, surprising. There is no point in trying to analyze why this happened. Its too small of a sample size. Let’s just call it an off day for them, but its something that is worth paying attention for their next series.
5. What happened to the cheat code?
I believed Cheetam could return to his usual form as a hitter, after an awful 2023 season, but it was a torrid start. If the Gators want to play playoff baseball this season, they need Cheetam’s bat to wake up. He is now the leader of this incredible young team, and I fear that if they keep getting no production out of him their season will be a short one.

January 29, 2384 - the day of the last total eclipse is when the raid began. “The day of the sun's false shadow” as people call it now. We, humans, were an unsuspecting victims in a universe habited by multiple vastly stronger existences. When it happened the world had been thrown into utter chaos and shock. The sun had been completely covered by the moon and this event was supposed to last only a short while however after two hours sunlight had still not shown its face upon the earth's surface. This was the beginning of humanity's greatest tribulation. After days of the sun's light not being shown the planet's temperature began to drop and to compensate for this people began to create massive fires but this did not stop the problem. Photosynthesis in plants began to stop, making it harder for humans to breathe. This made humans build labs and create artificial oxygen, which took care of that problem but humans still began to die from hypothermia, frozen oceans, and forced stoppage of blood flow. After two weeks, the sun finally revealed itself and all hope had been restored in humanity collectively only for half the population to be massacred in an instant. “The watchers” had been slowly waiting with armies to colonize our planet and technology beyond our wild comprehension. Technology we can only dream of had been shown and used right before our very eyes and for the first time in all of human history, we had been united as one in our mutual fear and horror. 2 months later, 90% of humanity has been wiped out and the few who remained were used as slaves to cultivate energy. With the use of a Dyson shell, nearly 80% of the sun's energy and heat had been directed into maintaining their energy. Amongst all this time, humanity had collectively agreed to fight back. This began the creation of the liberation group, “the Plague”. These groups of people were the last hope of humanity and carried an extremely large ambition and dream on their shoulders. While “the watchers” were extremely advanced this doesn't change the fact that they were fallible and this group of people were their scourge. They didn't have the military might nor the advanced brain to even keep up against “the watchers” but through slavery and forced labor, the human body began to develop into something stronger. They began to surpass their limits and break the barriers that the human mind had once placed on themselves. Through the selective farming of “the watchers” a new plant had developed that was essentially a stimulant to the human body and a limit breaker for their physical capabilities. At first, they began by using strong levels of acid to corrode the buildings and structures and then stopping their heartbeat to give the impression of suicide so they could not be caught, however, they did not die due to a new system developed from the human's newfound evolution. Due to the strict regimen that we had to follow, we knew all of the places where they would and wouldn't be, all the blind spots of the planet, all the places where they were in close proximity to a chasm, and all the places where we were at a disadvantage. We used the blindspots as bases and hideouts where we could plan our vengeance. After a year of just observing their behavior, habits, bodily functions, and even their schedules we developed a hypothesis that 24 seconds after 7:39 PM we have approximately 19 minutes and 53 seconds in Greenland where we are not being watched nor located. We used this small window of time to gather the fundamental items we needed to fight back and build the foundation for our organization. We gathered food, plants, water, armor, and weapons. We realized that they were immune to cutting/slicing damage and could only be hurt through blunt attacks. With this knowledge, we developed a specific fighting style and used that small time frame to train others in it. We adapted to the harsh conditions and created clothes using spare pieces from “the watchers” specially made for insulating heat, weighing less, and being less penetrable by outside attacks. After a year every person on the planet was a master at this martial arts and had fully developed a counter to all technology that “the watchers” had. However, we could not initiate immediate war on them so we needed a plan. We came up with the idea to have one of our strongest members report to the watchers about our activity and give away one of our bases. This created the false notion that not only did they have someone working as a double agent on their side but also they knew where we would be so they could catch us off guard. We were all there like they expected and they attacked like planned. We had all moved our weapons, armor, and vital items into a different base but kept some things where they attacked to make them think we had not gotten far but this was a dud. Eventually, we had all “died” and had our bodies left at that place as a sign of victory on their side. However, because of this, their ego had grown and they began to underestimate us. The surveillance had gotten weaker as they assumed their “double agent” would tell them everything as a trade for luxury living. We knew that physical power would not be enough so our smartest man collaborated to develop a virus specifically made for their genetic makeup which took about 5 years to extract small strands of DNA without them realizing. Once the virus had been created the incidence began and eliminated more than 60 percent of “the watchers” because of how they were too distracted trying to develop a cure and the vast amount of them dying, we had gained more time to develop our forces and we began to ingest various harmful substances but in small doses in order to gain resistance to any harmful poisons and acids. After new children start to be born this began the origin of a new human species. One massively stronger, smarter, more durable, and with all the immunities and benefits without the downsides. With the birth of this new generation, all of the human race had experienced a collective euphoria. We had begun to secretly train these kids for years and strengthen them in a way the human race had never been before. Due to the circumstances of their birth, they had also developed a strong ability for adaptation and healing factor which ultimately led to humans finally being able to physically compete with “the watchers”. However, we were still lacking in numbers despite the virus taking a vast majority of “the watchers” away. Some of us grew confident and because we were now physically capable some believed we could win the war while others believed we couldn’t yet. This created division within our ranks but did not necessarily break our ranks but that was all depending on your interpretation. We gathered our smartest men and women to make a plan to initiate war, and for 14 days they were stuck in ruminative thought. 2 years passed and we had finally built up the numbers, technology, and physical capabilities to contend with the watchers. Now on the day of the war, all of our strongest soldiers imitated the attack. But this time they were an unsuspecting victim on a planet habited by a stronger species. During the war we had counters for nearly everything the watchers could dish out but one thing we were not aware of was the fact that the watchers could transform into a smaller but faster, stronger, and more durable form. This form took the shape of humankind. So closely related that it struck fear into the hearts of many. Not only was this extremely off-putting but the revelation that came along with it had altered the perception of humanity as we know it. The war had been put to a halt, and all forced fighting in the war had directed their attention to one watcher and one watcher alone. All forces had been completely immobilized and fighting back was no longer capable. With this, the words that had been spoken out of the watcher were a revelation that humanity had not even considered possible. “We are not your enemies. We are you but from the future. In our original timeline, we have been attacked by a species even higher than us. We had been pushed to the brink of extinction and our last hope was only to go back in time in hopes that if we returned to our past selves we could help evolve even more to contend with the world-ending threats from the future. This siege we had laid on this planet and the forced evolution, progression, and tragedy among humankind also brought extreme progression in human capabilities. All of you are vastly superior to your previous forms because of our arrival. While we acknowledge our methods were not the ideal we had no other option. This was the fastest and most effective method to progress the human species although we could not allow the human race to have this win. It would boost the ego of your race and our all of you in a state of comfort and stagnation. With this being said we resign from our participation in this war and would greatly appreciate it if you allowed us to help humanity rebuild and donate technology.” Speechless as to what humanity has just heard we just stood there in utter shock and disbelief. Not a single soul knew what to say and all of humanity had stood in confusion. One man spoke “how do we know this is true” the watcher proceeded to show pictures and videos of them being massacred while some stood in human form and others did not. They showed is this along with the words, “we initiated this war as a way to put the human race through natural selection and eliminate all the weak human being who would not be able to contribute to our growth and success in any upcoming battle. So with that being said what is your decision?” Our leader, and the smartest woman among us had stated, “We humbly decline this offer as we would prefer to evolve by our capabilities and we have already surpassed you so what can you possibly teach us.” After this being stated the war had been started again and the watchers had been for the first time since the “great cleansing” began utterly defeated and annihilated. With the war being won, humanity being victorious, and newfound abilities being discovered humanity had been thrown into an era of peace and prosperity. All tragedies had been blamed on the watchers and for the first time humanity had an ever lasting peace and a perfect utopia where everyone agreed and benefited from each other. With this, we have been vastly improving and slowly but steadily rebuilding our planet and all of humankind. Our members started family’s and genuinely enjoyed the life they were living once again. Everyone acting coyly and with one another was a beautiful side to behold. Everything was perfect until the same monsters who killed the watchers, showed up to eliminate us due to fear of what we could evolve into this time we had no way to fight back and our ranks were already diminished or severely weakened. How would humanity be able to survive this time???Most people had been massacre and captures to be experimented on. Very few of us had actually managed to get away from them and we had only been able to do this through shadow banishment. It was a skill that we had acquired through the technology of the watchers. Living in the void was not the ideal lifestyle as it was ruthless, dirty, and unsafe but the chances of surviving here were massively higher than surviving on earth. Only a hundred of us remained and the human species were basically extinct. With this small group left we had resorted to instead of trying to repopulate and exact revenge immediately we would take the short route. In the void monsters had no sort of civilization and the only rule amongst these creatures were the strongest prevail. There was no sort of rule, order, or even a sense of respect between these monsters. The weak were prey for the strongest, and the strong were killed by the stronger. We took this as an opportunity to not only increase our strength by training and battling but also amassing an empire. The remind of humanity collectively agree that we would bring order and peace to the void. The best way to go through this was by entering the tournament. The monsters held tournaments to watch the strongest fight and kill each other for pure fun. We joined this colosseum and while at first we easily overwhelmed our opponents we had slowly been facing harder and harder opponents as we rose through the ranks. By the time even a single one of us was defeated we had made a name and gained the attention of multiple monsters within the void. We were not necessarily respected or followed but we were feared and simultaneously an opponent that monsters wished to fight. After this we had developed our own fighting ring in which monster could fight and battle against us and only us. We implied a set of rules in this ring. Rule 1; no killing Rule 2; reservations must be made to fight Rule 3; both parties must consent Rule 4; do not make the fight personal Rule 5; it must be between a human and monster. These rules created a sense of security amongst the monsters and while driven by their desire of battle they also abided by the rules. Eventually after fighting throughout the tournament and gaining more traction with the monsters in it. Eventually even the most high ranked demons had begun to make reservations in for our fights. Our strongest soldiers had been the ones to fight them as nobody else can really compete. The first fight had been with a demon who had the ability of immunity. This ability did not only revolve around internal status effects but also could be applied to his physical body. The fight had been the biggest one the ring had ever experienced and it did not disappoint. Eventually we had won and this through the whole entire void and everyone in it into an uproar. Monsters who never even bothered to fight had shown up to battle. The strongest monster in the void and the only monster with a sense of order, self, and purpose had shown up to fight all humans by himself. He agreed that if we win he would pledge allegiance to us all and work under our rule however if we lose we will be killed. This monster bore an extreme resemblance humans. The structure of his body and the contents of it were all human like however he claimed not to be. This monsters name was angel and he possessed the ability to manipulate and control all matter with the sole exception of any other organic material that resided outside of his own body. Our commander and strongest member amongst us was the person to fight him. His name was Alexander and despite the fact that we didn't have any singular special powers like him however our physical bodies were honed greater than any other species in existence. They were evenly matched in speed and strength and even in our capabilities to rapidly heal from damage. They had been evenly matched in all physical ability and the fight had ultimately come to hand to hand combat and who could last longer. Angel was unmatched in combat and had barely even been hit due to how experienced in martial arts he had been; however throughout the fight Alexander had been naturally adapting to his fighting style and developing counters to everything. Our natural ability to adapt to all attacks and effects placed upon us had given a clear win condition; however time was needed to actually see and fully understand how to possibly adapt to everything. The longer the fight took the higher the chance of Angel losing. Alexander had slowly but steadily been adapting and developing new combat styles to counter everything angle could do and even had grown to use his own severed limbs as projectiles and use his blood as a coat over all other objects to cancel his ability to use his field. Angel's main ability had been to control the air around him to increase speed, power, and even get a sense of what his opponent would be doing before it happened. After finally adapting to this his body had begun to heat itself in an attempt to turn it into vapor and due to blood being organic matter of another life form he would no longer have control of the air and the surrounding area. After this the fight had come down to solely base physical capabilities and for 10 minutes they had been mindlessly brawling and instantaneously healing through the damage taken. After a long period of time their healing began to slow down due to bodily fatigue. Biting, punching, scratching, kicking, anything you can think of, they did it. That fight was a bloodbath unlike anything else and in the end they both passed out on the floor with nothing left besides their bodies soaked and bathed in each other's blood. After they had both been knocked unconscious their bodies had been left there in anticipation for them to awaken. The ring filled beyond capacity as people argued and fought about who would awaken first. In anticipation for this once in a lifetime event the whole void had stopped with all its attention. Angel was the first to awaken and he had been exhausted and utterly stunned as to how he actually had gotten knocked out. He had the opportunity to kill his opponent as he had technically won the battle but out of respect for his opponents strength and capabilities he possessed. After the fight had finished Angel had left and was never to be seen again. After 2 weeks Alexander had awoken in a small shack being guarded by one other human and confused after everything had been explained to him he had went around looking for angel but he was not to be found. After awakening Alexander had been massively stronger than before. Due to the physical state his body was put in and all the damage that he had taken from Angel his body had adapted and become more dense in order to take all the attacks while sustaining the least amount of damage possible. After his awakening this began our political revolution. We had now implemented the ring with rules and gotten multiple monsters to follow by these rules and with them being accurate to filling orders more now we had decided to initiate a leadedictator in a sense. The top 5 strongest creatures in the void had been the leaders and this had consisted of Alexander at 1, 2 other demons at 2 and 3, and humans to fill the final spots. We began to implement laws and rules in order to stop the mass murder and destruction happening and within a small time frame we had created structures similar to the ones of the earth. Houses and gyms in order to train in hopes of becoming stronger and even professional combat sports. After 2 months time had passed we had developed a military with our best members in it and humbly had began to repopulate. All this had been done in hopes of regaining the earth and defeated our oppressors. Fast forward 1 months the and the siege of the home planet had begun. They had not been suspecting us however took the preparations in case we had come. Based and soldiers set up in every corner of the world to fight back when the time came we did come back. With this an all out war for the fate of humanity had began and the extinction of either race lay in the balance between life and death.
After the war had began all forces had been deployed to different areas of the planet. Groups that had worked together best being deployed to one part while our strongest being deployed to another. At first we had been nearly even in everything besides technology. They had everything that we lacked and this gave them the combative edge. However despite lacking in technology we made up for it in numbers. Most fights had consisted of large groups of monsters fighting against one or two of our enemy and this has convoluted till their forces had been somewhat deployed. The one on one fights had been more dragged out and heavily impacted the war. Our strongest soldiers fighting against their strongest soldiers in a one on one fight. Everyone has put their all into this battle and left nothing to spare. Our second and third strongest soldiers had the most impact in this war not because of who they fought but because of what they could do. They didn’t actually have abilities specific to them but instead they were born with a type of energy within their bodies in which they called “synergy”. This synergy could be used to amp all their physical abilities but also be used to crate and use techniques or even use techniques that are specific to the traits of the individuals soul. The strength and physical stats of the individual depended on how much synergy they had at their disposal and while some of them were able to gather strength from other life forms it was not a very common occurrence. Alexander fought someone with the ability to control and manipulate momentum. They used synergy and funneled it through all objects of their choice to increase or decrease of momentum of that. This didn’t do much on a wide scale and was a very basic ability but in a solo battle this made it extremely hard to land attacks and even when they were landed they did little to no damage. The most important one to kill had the ability to manipulate all probability. Meaning the likelihood of us even winning this war was less then .0001 percent with them being alive. Whether it was because of a collection of small losses or one major loss did not make a difference. All odds were stacked against us as long as this person remained on the battlefield. In simple terms the whole war relied on the defeat of that person. Our second in command and smartest soldier, “Cassandra” decided to take this upon herself. She was the only one among us who possessed an innate ability and was viewed as the most special soldier but this came at a cost. She gained a talent no other human possessed but in return she no longer had the natural ability to adapt to all circumstances. Her ability was to take the form and attributes of any and all creature she knew to exist. Mythical or not she could take the shape and ability of these creatures and use it as long as she desired. However she could only use one at a time and had to wait 30 seconds in between shifting. Our third in command, “Vladimir” had took the roll of fighting their head technologist. While his opponent had not specialized in battle he still was one of the most dangerous and this was because of his ability to create machines as small as molecular level that shared his thoughts and emotions. These machines were used to repair his body in case on injury, transport information, invade any opponents body and restrict movement, anything that he deemed possible could be done with the use of those machines. But he chose to mainly use them as sort of technological tools to help him further advance his society. The rest of our battles were not nearly as important and were mostly group battles. Afro the beginning portion of Alexander’s fight he had been losing severely and could barely land any attacks at all. After a few minutes of getting beat down and not being able to fight back the adaptation process began. The first adaptation was only a temporary solution to the problem but his body had been explosively shooting out sharpened pieces of his bones and even using tiny droplets of blood as weapons. However this was only a temporary solution because eventually those bones and blood just started being slowed also. The final adaptation and most effective one happened when his body created a function in which he can store kinetic energy and then release it at any given time. This allowed him to rapidly boost his speed whenever his momentum had been slowed and basically cancel out his opponent power. However this still did not stop how his opponent made himself significantly faster. After this the fight had been more tipped into Alexander’s favor but still not enough to actually win. Throughout the progression of the fight Alexander had been gathering more and make friction between the clothes he had and his feet running against the floor. After gathering as much friction and kinetic energy as possible he let it all explode and release all over his body. This altered the form of his body. His body and skin began to form cracks and let off steam. He began to turn dark red and his eyes became shot with blood. His body was slowly crumbling and deteriorating. He had 5 minutes left to defeat his opponent and if he did not then his body would crumble and he would die. Due to his rapid healing factor he had a chance of living if he was able to end the fight within 5 minutes and give himself some time to rest but this all depended on how much he could get done. The battle had been tilted all the way in Alexander’s favor and had no longer been a battle. It had turned into if his opponent could outlast him in those 5 minutes. Brutally beating his opponent and taking full advantage of the situation Alexander did not relent on his rampage. Stopping his momentum no longer mattered and it seemed like the more he tried the faster Alexander got. Steam had been blowing off him. In the end he had managed to kill his opponent within those 5 minutes and had been at deaths door. Cassandra had began her battle and had been absolutely obliterating her opponent. The ability to shape shift from dragons, unicorns, hydras, centaurs, and any mythical creature you can think of. At first she had taken the abilities of a dragon but throughout the fight she had been developing into stronger and more complex creatures. After a while her opponent had been decreasing the probability of her even landing attacks. This made it extremely hard for her to fight and maintain the advantage. She took the appearance and abilities of the mythical deity sun wukong. Due to sun wukong being a monkey that ascended into a higher power he is one of the only gods that she can transform into. After this she gained the ability to not only make clones out of every hair on her body but also multiply the power of each clone. While she does not possess every power sun wukong has she possesses some of them and the most prominent ones. This fight had been a one sided beatdown and only lasted longer than 2 minutes because the probability of each clone attacking each other had been raised to its maximum percentage. Despite this every 1000 punches that had been thrown at least 1 hit her opponent and this was more than he could handle from millions of clones. Vladimir had no special capabilities; he only possessed an extremely honed body and battle experience. At first they had been near equal but the battle began to take a turn when the tiny bugs began to infest his body and eat him from the inside. Due to his advanced healing factor he had been able to stop any significant damage and fight with mild discomfort but this did not change that if he continued in for a longer period of time then he would inevitably be defeated by these bugs and killed. This made the battle a race against time. Expending everything his body had to offer and leaving not a single drop of energy left. Pushing his body to the absolute peak and physical limit. Even going beyond the known capabilities of his body he began to evolve into a higher form. He did not develop any new type of power or gain a newfound power but he did increase and rapidly evolve his physical capabilities. He began to punch with such speed and strength that he created shockwaves from breaking the sound barrier. With this his punches became far more explosive and with every punch thrown he was exploding giant parts of his opponents body and everything within the perimeter. With no regard to his surroundings the battle had destroyed everything in sight and left them fighting in a bare wasteland. Basically erasing everything within line of his punches he began to annihilate his opponent with speed and strength unmatched. Due to all the tiny machines within his body he regrow limbs and was able to counter attack with near no fatigue or even lag in his action. While pushing his body to its absolute limit his body had given up on him. Rapidly healing from constant damage, pushing muscles to their utmost limit, moving, attacking at his highest speed, and even understanding/ perception of all attacks massively faster then he could ever before. Due to all this his body began to give out and in the midst of battle he fell and was unable to recover. No longer able to fight back and maintain the performance he had, he was defeated. Being eaten from the inside, limbs being torn from his body, and being damaged so much that not even his regeneration could keep up. His head had been ripped off his body and with this humanity had suffered its first major loss. After this all other forces began to gain support from all his other bugs and humanities forces had been rapidly depleting. With loss in sight humanity had lost hope and accepted defeat. Right when humanity had accepted defeat and all hope had been lost the king had shown himself once again. Like an Angel coming to bless all of humanity he had run through and obliterated all enemies of humanity. Destroying everything in sight and bringing all enemies to his feet he had saved humanity and restored hope and just like that he had disappeared into the void once again. There was no explanation as to how or why but in that moment all of humanity knew who we would be forever grateful and indebted to. Not many opponents had been left standing but the few who were, were extremely weakened and overwhelmed by numbers. After this decisive battle humanity had been in a state of joy and excitement out of their new victory. Once all the excitement and happiness from winning had worn off all the sorrow and remorse from the losses had come rushing in. All the lost family members, dead soldiers, limbs lost, and mental trauma had taken a toll on humanity. After we had gotten our planet back we did not spend our time rebuilding and trying to repopulate. We spent months mourning the loss of our loved ones and all our soldiers. We laid in depression and sorrow for our mutual loss and mental trauma. This brought humanity closer as a whole and we bonded over our suffering. Humanity had been one but at what cost. After years of processing humanity had finally been able to rebuild all of our structures, population, and even expand to different planets. After all these trials and tribulations we had finally evolved completely and after ages of loss we had finally entered a golden age of humanity. After all this we had begun to explore the deep parts of our planet and while exploring we discovered something far beyond our comprehension. Humanity had only been a small part of a vastly bigger world and a whole new world had now been exposed to us. We had breached through the ice caps of the north pole and had been greeted with hostility from a race on our planet we did not even know existed. After entering this “new world” humanity had found out the truth of our existence and creation. After finding out the truth of our creation and the prophecy of our faith we had all collectively regretted winning that war. Beyond our world laid horrors and truths we were not yet prepared for. After all this we had once again been thrown into a dark age with no will to fight. In the end this was the beginning of the end for humanity…

It won't let me post the link, if you want to search for the article copy paste part of the quotes into a search engine.

A rare yet deadly autoimmune disorder appears to be on the rise in the north of England, and new research indicates that the outbreak may be linked to COVID-19. Known as Anti-MDA5 positive dermatomyositis, the disease was mainly observed in Asian populations prior to the pandemic, yet is now surging among the caucasian residents of Yorkshire.
Triggered by antibodies that attack an enzyme called MDA5 (melanoma differentiation-associated protein 5), the illness is associated with progressive interstitial lung disease, which is characterized by scarring of the lung tissue. Between 2020 and 2022, doctors in Yorkshire reported an unprecedented 60 cases of MDA5 autoimmunity, resulting in eight deaths.

Strangely, they don't break it down by year. Was it 55 cases in 2021-22 and 5 cases in 2020? They clearly have this data, but bizarrely decided to deliberately not break it down by year.

Analyzing this surge in a new study, the researchers point out that the sudden increase in cases coincides with the major waves of COVID-19 infections during the peak years of the pandemic. This immediately grabbed their attention because MDA5 is an RNA receptor that plays a key role in recognizing the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Again, they already have the data, which waves in particular are they talking about?

“Here we report a surge in the rate of anti-MDA5 positivity testing in our region (Yorkshire) in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was notable because this entity is relatively rare in the UK,” write the study authors. This phenomenon, they say, is probably indicative of “a distinct form of MDA5+ disease in the COVID-19 era,” which they have labelled “MDA5-autoimmunity and Interstitial Pneumonitis Contemporaneous with COVID-19” (MIP-C).

Finally here they get a bit more specific. "Second years" of the pandemic means 2021. What else happened in 2021? Keep in mind that the peak 2021 wave (omicron) was well at the end of 2021. It was December 2021-January 2022.

Overall, only eight of the 60 patients had previously tested positive for COVID-19, suggesting that many may have had asymptomatic infections that they weren’t aware of. This implies that even mild infections that produce no initial symptoms may be sufficient to trigger MDA5 autoimmunity.

It could mean this. But it could also mean that of the 52/60 who did not test positive for covid, a significant % of them did not have asymptomatic infection, and in 2021, something else happened to them.

“Given the peak of MDA5 positivity testing followed the peak of COVID-19 cases in 2021, and coincided with the peak of vaccination, these findings suggest an immune reaction or autoimmunity against MDA5 upon SARS-CoV-2 and/or vaccine exposure,” conclude the researchers.

Despite the bizarre and deliberately vague article in which they don't specify data/timelines they clearly have, at least they have the audacity to hide this right at the end of the article.
Anyways, I have said from the beginning that I suspect that the synthetic spike protein is the root of most issues associated with long covid/post covid symptoms such as the one mentioned in this article. To me this finding is more indication of this being true. I had warned of this in the past, but I was told saying "we need to do rigorous scientific studies to ensure that the spike protein from the vaccine would not cause damage" constituted as "scientific misinformation" and was censored.

In the annals of gaming history, few titles command the reverence and adoration as the legendary Doom franchise. Born from the minds of John Romero, John Carmack, Adrian Carmack, and Tom Hall, Doom would go on to lay the foundations for just about every modern video game that exists. It was a true tour de force, a success story few could scarce ever imagine.
Released in 1993, Doom was an immediate smash hit, thanks in no small part to its shareware format, which allowed users to experience the first few levels of Knee Deep In the Dead, and then order the full game via the phone number included. Players could then share the floppy disk with their friends, and so on, and so on. It was a truly revolutionary system, and within a single year, Doom had sold over 2 million copies.
The history of the Doom franchise is one of innovation, ultra violence, and controversy (1999's Columbine High School Massacre), and that reputation is one that continued with 2016's DOOM. DOOM was officially revealed at Quakecon 2014, ten years after Doom 3. Players had long resigned to Doom being considered a dead franchise. A reboot had been in the works for a number of years prior, but never got released, having been quietly cancelled by id in 2010. The future was bleak, but the 30 second long teaser ignited a spark that had been burning dimmer every passing year.
Then came E3 2015.
The hype was unreal. The trailer had everything that fans could possibly want. Gore, intense violence, insane run n gun gameplay, a rip-roaring soundtrack and the MFING CHAINSAW. But fans had been let down before. Would it really hold up its promises?
Yes. Yes, it would.
PART I: Presentation
When DOOM burst onto the scene in 2016, it did so with a visual and auditory spectacle that left players awestruck. From the moment the game boots up, players are made aware that this is not your average shooter. You are greeted with a deep, commanding voice. "Rip and tear, until it is DONE."
Immediately, players are greeted with a scene of carnage and the Doom Slayer chained to a table, which, of course, he instantly breaks free from. A zombie attempts to relieve the Slayer of his life but is beaten to the punch with a prompt skull smashing. After putting the other zombies to rest, he interacts with the panel in the corner, is greeted by one Dr. Samuel Hayden, who attempts to justify the outbreak, and decides he would rather kill shit than listen to excuses and destroys the monitor.
That is the introduction to this game. It never wastes the player's time. We aren't here to listen to long droning monologues or watch MGS style cutscenes. id Software knew their audience, and knew what that audience wanted, and they deliver in spades. This introduction sets the tone for the entire experience: relentless action, unapologetic violence, and a protagonist who is as unstoppable as he is uncompromising. The Doom Slayer's disdain for exposition and his single-minded focus on annihilating demons resonate with players who crave a pure, unadulterated gaming experience.
By eschewing lengthy cutscenes and exposition-heavy dialogue in favor of fast-paced gameplay and visceral action, id Software delivers a game that respects the player's time and delivers exactly what they came for: non-stop demon-slaying action. In an era where many games are criticized for padding their runtime with unnecessary filler, DOOM stands out as a shining example of how to create a focused and engaging experience that keeps players coming back for more.
Rather than bombarding players with lengthy exposition or intrusive cutscenes, DOOM opts for a more environmental storytelling approach. Throughout the game, players can discover audio logs, read text-based terminals, and observe environmental details that provide context and background to the events unfolding around them.
The story of DOOM revolves around the Doom Slayer's mission to stop a demonic invasion unleashed by the Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC) on their Martian facility. As players progress through the game, they uncover details about the UAC's experiments with Hell energy, the origins of the demonic invasion, and the Doom Slayer's own mysterious past.
While the story may not be front and center in DOOM, it nonetheless adds depth and richness to the game world, enhancing the overall experience for players who choose to engage with it. And for those who prefer to focus solely on the action, the story remains secondary, allowing them to enjoy the game on their own terms.
That's all well and good, but what about the actual gameplay? Simply put, it is exhilarating. From the moment you are given control of the Slayer, players are thrust into a frenzy of blood and violence, and it never lets up. At its core, DOOM is a first-person shooter that harkens back to the genre's roots while injecting it with a healthy dose of modern flair. The gameplay is fast-paced, frenetic, and utterly unapologetic in its brutality. You're not just a player – you're the Doom Slayer, a force of nature hell-bent on eradicating every last demon in your path.
Central to the gameplay experience is the game's combat loop, which revolves around a delicate balance of aggression and strategy. In DOOM, there's no hiding behind cover or waiting for your health to regenerate – you're constantly on the move, strafing, dodging, and leaping across the battlefield as you unleash a torrent of bullets, rockets, and plasma upon your enemies.
Weapons include the iconic shotgun, heavy assault rifle, plasma rifle, rocket launcher, and the devastating BFG 9000, among others. Each weapon offers different firing modes, such as single shot, burst fire, and continuous beam, providing players with tactical options in combat. A key aspect of combat is the Glory Kill system, which allows players to perform brutal finishing moves on staggered enemies. Glory Kills not only provide health and ammo but also contribute to the flow of combat by encouraging aggressive play. It is incredibly satisfying to watch the Slayer rip an imp in half or stomp their head into the pavement, and doing so rewards you with a large return of health.
The Chainsaw mechanic is another integral part of combat, allowing players to instantly kill most enemies and gain a large amount of ammo in return. However, Chainsaw fuel is limited and must be managed carefully. Like Glory Kills, watching the chainsaw tear demons apart is incredibly satisfying. Certain demons require more fuel but provide the player with more ammo in return. Balancing which demons you chainsaw and which ones you choose to Glory Kill is an important part of combat.
Exploration is key to progression and is rewarding to those players who choose to do. Hidden throughout the levels of the game are Argent Cells, Praetor Tokens, and Rune Trials. Each of these provide upgrades to your health/shield/ammo, suit, and passive abilities respectively. Also hidden throughout the game are levers that lead you to classic levels from Doom 1 and Doom 2, which then unlock the full level of its respective game, playable from the main menu. You can also find toy models of the Doom Slayer, which unlock various character models to view. On some of these models, the Doom Slayer will perform a unique action when picking it up, such as fist bumping the classic Doomguy. It's a nice and cute little touch added by the developers that does a little to add character to the Slayer, who is a silent protagonist.
id Software masterfully blends modern game design with a deep reverence for the classics, paying homage to the series' storied history while introducing new elements that propel the franchise forward. Central to this approach is the game's character design, which strikes a delicate balance between nostalgia and innovation. At its core is the iconic protagonist, the Doom Slayer, whose design pays homage to the original Doom Marine while incorporating modern updates that make him feel both familiar and fresh. With his battle-worn armor, imposing stature, and silent demeanor, the Doom Slayer is the embodiment of raw power and unrelenting rage.
The game's roster of enemies is a veritable who's who of classic Doom foes, reimagined for the modern era. From the lowly possessed soldiers to the hulking Cyberdemon, each enemy is lovingly crafted to capture the essence of its 1990s counterpart while introducing new mechanics and behaviors that keep players on their toes. Whether you're facing off against the agile Revenants, the relentless Hell Knights, or the grotesque Cacodemons, every encounter is a nostalgic trip down memory lane, punctuated by the satisfying sound of demon flesh being torn asunder.
But the main story is not where it ends. DOOM has an arcade mode, where players can run through the levels again, this time trying for high scores and medals while collecting 1 Ups. It's important to move fast and have accurate aim; the more kills you chain together, the bigger your score is. Getting hit reduces your score. At the end of the level, your score is tallied against others on a leaderboard. It's a great way to incentivize players to keep playing, in order to get a better and better score.
There is also multiplayer, where players compete in various game modes such as classic deathmatch, warpath and free for all. Players can become demons by collecting runes on the battlefield and this gives them a distinct advantage; demons are larger, stronger and more resilient. Players are bizarrely restricted to only two weapons and a loadout in multiplayer, which blew my mind. Loadouts. In a DOOM game. The demons are also massively unbalanced and if one team manages to get a particularly powerful demon such as a baron of hell, then it's a guaranteed win. All in all, the multiplayer just isn't great. You are better off replaying the story or arcade mode, or even SnapMap.
SnapMap is id Software's proprietary level editor, and it puts every other editor on the market to shame. SnapMap is an incredible, intuitive, easy to learn system allowing players to create their own multiplayer, co-op and single player maps. There is an extensive tutorial system that teaches users the basics, and goes up in depth, covering how to use AI triggers, switches, combinations, object layering, actions, recalls, audio cues, etc. Never have I ever seen such an in-depth interface on a console game before. While it is only surface level in the grand scheme of things, SnapMap is a great introduction to teaching users how game development works, and I urge everyone to try it out at least once.
Part II: The Music
In DOOM, the music isn't just a background accompaniment – it's a driving force that propels players forward, electrifying every moment of the gameplay experience. Composed by the incredibly talented Mick Gordon, the soundtrack of DOOM is a relentless onslaught of metal and electronica that perfectly complements the game's fast-paced action and visceral combat. From the moment you boot up the game, you're greeted by the iconic strains of the main theme, a haunting melody that sets the tone for the epic journey that lies ahead. As you traverse the game's environments, the music shifts seamlessly between atmospheric ambience and pulse-pounding metal.
But it's not just the composition of the music that makes it so memorable – it's also the way it's integrated into the gameplay itself. Mick Gordon's dynamic scoring system ensures that the music evolves in real-time based on the player's actions, ramping up in intensity during combat encounters and dialing back during quieter moments of exploration. This creates a sense of momentum and flow that enhances the overall pacing of the game
One of the standout features of the soundtrack is its use of unconventional instrumentation and sound design. Mick Gordon's signature sound combines distorted guitars, pounding drums, and industrial noise to create a sonic palette that is as brutal and unforgiving as the game itself. From the deep, guttural growls of the synth bass to the ear-shredding shrieks of the guitar solos, every element of the music is designed to evoke a sense of chaos and destruction, mirroring the relentless carnage unfolding onscreen.
Of course, no discussion of the music in DOOM would be complete without mentioning the iconic tracks that have become synonymous with the game. From the adrenaline-fueled "Rip & Tear" to the bone-crushing "BFG Division," each track is a masterpiece of composition and production, perfectly capturing the essence of the DOOM experience and elevating it to new heights. Mick Gordon's composition for the DOOM soundtrack is a tour de force in heavy metal and industrial electronica, meticulously crafted to evoke the essence of the game's frenetic gameplay.
The backbone of the soundtrack is the distorted guitar, which provides the driving force behind many of the tracks. Gordon's use of extended-range guitars and custom-tuned instruments gives the music its signature low-end punch, while his aggressive playing style adds a raw, visceral energy to the sound. In addition to guitars, Gordon incorporates a wide range of electronic and synthetic elements into his compositions, including synthesizers, drum machines, and sampled sounds. These elements are used to create atmospheric textures, rhythmic patterns, and dynamic effects.
One of the most innovative aspects of Gordon's sound design is his use of audio manipulation techniques, such as granular synthesis and spectral processing. These techniques allow him to deconstruct and manipulate audio in real-time, creating complex textures and effects.
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of Mick Gordon's composition for DOOM is his dynamic scoring system, which adjusts the music in real-time based on the player's actions. This system, known as "MIDI-controlled dynamic music," allows the music to seamlessly transition between different layers and variations depending on the intensity of the gameplay. Gordon achieves this dynamic effect by dividing each track into multiple stems or layers, each representing a different element of the music (e.g., drums, guitars, synths). These stems are then triggered and mixed in real-time using MIDI data generated by the game engine, allowing the music to adapt and evolve dynamically as the player progresses through the game.
Part III: Building a Legacy
All too often in this industry, legacy franchises are either left in the dust to be forgotten, or brought back to a limp fanfare, only to be thrust back into the shadows of the past. This happens for a myriad of reasons, and I believe the biggest one is that they don't respect their legacy, and they don't respect the players who engage with them.
At its core, DOOM is a game that understands what players want: fast-paced action, engaging gameplay, and a sense of empowerment. By focusing on these core principles, id Software created an experience that resonated with players old and new, capturing the spirit of the original games while pushing the series forward. Central to this approach is the game's unwavering commitment to respecting the player. From its minimalist storytelling and streamlined level design to its intuitive controls and dynamic difficulty system, DOOM prioritizes the player's experience above all else, ensuring that every moment of the game is engaging, immersive, and satisfying.
One of the most notable ways that DOOM respects the player is through its approach to difficulty. Rather than imposing artificial barriers or punishing players for their mistakes, the game encourages experimentation and mastery through its responsive gameplay mechanics and adaptive enemy AI. Players are given the freedom to approach encounters in their own way, whether it's through brute force, cunning strategy, or a combination of both.
Another key aspect of DOOM's player-centric design is its emphasis on accessibility. From its difficulty settings and intuitive user interface to its robust accessibility features, such as colorblind modes and customizable controls, the game ensures that players of all skill levels and abilities can enjoy the experience without feeling excluded or overwhelmed.
But perhaps the most important way that DOOM respects the player is through its commitment to fun. At its core, DOOM is a game that prioritizes the player's enjoyment above all else, delivering a seamless and exhilarating experience that keeps players coming back for more. Whether you're blasting demons with a shotgun, exploring hidden secrets, or rocking out to Mick Gordon's pulse-pounding soundtrack, DOOM is a game that never stops prioritizing YOU.
DOOM's legacy is one of respect – respect for the player, respect for the franchise, and respect for the medium of video games as a whole. By prioritizing fun, accessibility, and player agency, id Software created an experience that not only honors the legacy of the original games but also sets a new standard for what a modern first-person shooter can be. And for that, we owe them a debt of gratitude.

So this is something I have thought for a while, and began building a hypothesis for it roughly three years ago. To summarize for those not interested in the details I believe the reasoning the tree of knowledge, and its counter parts within other religions were off limits to humans other than it is knowledge unwanted/unneeded; is that it was a trinity. The three parts that would make this up are religion,philosophy, and science. To clarify and specify I will give differing examples as to why I came to this conclusion.
The first thing that made me think of this was the interchangeable aspects, as well as the balancing of these three. Religious beliefs are what filled the ancient times, and allowed for the first steps of science to flourish. A good example is Egyptian building techniques they had were given to them by the God thoth. Due to its sacred attachments it was able to survive as a form of study scientist use to this day. Now turning towards the interconnectedness of philosophy with religion an example can be; in one of the earliest religious sites is dedicated to that of skulls and the nature of death. The religion itself doesn't have much knowledge other than the age old testament of why we die, but its still a profound question we ask ourselves to this day. You can take this same method of interconnectedness in reversal with the other two forms of knowledge being compared to the others. Now the contrasting factors are just as interesting. Such as the inability for a comprehensive understanding of miracles through the scientific lense. There are examples of this "mockery," being there as a core part of our being in all three forms of study as well. With that we will start with the examples within science.
We must first discuss the beginning of our existence as science describes, in an instantaneous expansion/expulsion of energy we gained space, time, and matter as a result. Now in order for any researcher to make a proper conclusion and or factual statement they must be able apply these three elements to their work. They must use a means of recording the information aka time. They must provide a place in which this experiment occured aka space finally; they must use the effects of physical objects, actions, and or numerical data to provide evidence. There are also examples of its interconnectedness to the other two despite oppositional standings. One such example is that; rituals such as bloodletting, ripping of hearts out, mummification, and potion making allowed for the transcendence of medicine, anatomy, and many more medical practices. Another example, but for philosophy is; when we used philosophy as a means to question the commonly believed scientific practices of multiple eras including the present. This allows/ed for the progression of ethics within the medical field, as well as create fields such as psychology. In essence science is the raw form of "mind," within our trinity; the physical representation of what can not be deciphered by the other two methods.
The next of the three we will delve into is that of philosophy. Philosophy has its connections within the other two methods of knowledge in a multitude if not the most ways out of the three. The following examples are just a few that I have chosen. One great example not yet discussed is; science, and its impact upon the understanding of the cosmos has made the philosophical question of "are we alone," and "what's my significance within it all." Another example but that of religious connectivity is the rise and fall of religions themselves. The best example is the change of pantheism into monotheism, the idea that; if there is a being of higher status, power, wisdom, intelligence etc. than others of its kind are the others truly within the same class or even the same kind of being. Philosophy in itself has trinities within their study as the other two do. One example is the Greek philosopher Pythagoras believed that the number 3 was the most significant number as it was that of perfection and represented harmony wisdom and understanding. In its representations philosophy can be Interpreted as the embodiment of " heart, " within the trinity; as it is what bridges the two methods with greatest disparity, and makes one think insightful as well as outwardly speak beyond the confines of scientific, and spiritual traditions.
The third representation of this " mocked ," trinity we have carved into the very code of our being is religion. Despite the contradictions religious, and scientific consensus there is over arching connections that can not be denied. One such example of their intertwining relationship is that of cosmic and mathematical studies. As mentioned before the Egyptians believed they gained their ability to use math from the God thoth, bit the belief isn't sufficient evidence for their true connection through math, and astrology. The mapping of celestial bodies were due to their relations with yhe divine such as their place of origin, the heavens, or even the physical embodiment of the gods themselves such of the planetary system and its connection with the Roman pantheon. Religion is also responsible for humanities and consequently sciences grasp of time and the recording of it. A great example is that ancient people would base their rituals around the natural rhythm of differing seasons, spacial phenomeno, and that of recording important cultural events. The impact of religion onto science is deep just as the other way around but their bridging partner philosophy; has very intimate connections as well. Though tons of examples are present for the twos intertwined relations a few examples are; that along of philosophers would use their religious beliefs to help shape, and nurture their philosophical ideals. It was also religion that began our want and urge to began asking ourselves what our origins are, what is our purpose as a species etc. Religion and its position within this " mockery ," could be best described as the soul of our markings. Though it is the most criticized part of knowledge for its lack of " evidence ," just like that of souls themselves. It still holds reverence and importance as without it we as humanity would've never asked ourselves those first important questions of internal insight as well as; did those physical rituals allowing for the progression into the many sciences' we have today.Throughout this I have quoted, and maintained this finding as a " mockery ," and there are many contradictions within the studies of the three themselves; this I will explain the reasoning behind in the following paragraph.
The term mockery as I use it; is the expression not of negative means such as we intend to offend anything such as a creator or ourselves as a species. In this sense the term is applied due to the very contradictions and disparities between the three. The three following tend to have arguments and disagreements within the studies; typically this discrepancy is the action cause by the want for truth. There are also fundamental contradictions as well such as; the process in which one conducts their actions in life, and the way in which one may perceive or be influenced within their daily ongoings. However; at the core without each of these three being accessible to humanity there would've been no virtual, or actual progression within our species. The reasoning it is a mockery rather than a true trinity is through the very definition of opposition the three have. A true trinity would be that of perfect balance however; due to all the differing factors said prior and the elements not seamlessly falling into one another there is an imbalance one that can sway what a humans progression through life may be.
In conclusion it's this authors opinion that we have a trinity one that is a mere mockery of what the truth we all are ferociously debating amongst ourselves is. until we are able to come to that one universal consensus we will be plagued with this mark of knowledge and its endless sea of questions.

Every year I’m confronted with the decision of whether to talk about the Met Gala. And it can be a tough decision if I’m being totally honest - on one hand, it’s always easy to point and laugh at rich Leftists wearing weird costumes and making fools out of themselves; on the other hand, it’s gotten way too easy to do that, and as far as celebrity freak shows go, the Met Gala is sort of like the Oscars at this point: its supposed “unpredictability” is now cliche, its zaniness is now boring. Unless mayhem breaks out—say, like an actor slaps the presenter live on-stage or something like that—then the truth is that no one really cares about any of these events anymore - in fact, I’m still not even sure what the Met Gala is. All I know is that the celebrities dress strangely and then go into I guess a big museum. What do they do inside the museum? Is there some kind of award ceremony? Is it a dance? Is it like celebrity prom or something? Do they sacrifice a live goat and drink its blood while chanting satanic curses? Is it some combination of these things? Nobody knows for sure. And most of all, nobody cares.
But fortunately, something interesting did happen at the Met Gala last week, or at least outside of it. Mobs of pro-Palestine demonstrators, apparently bored of their tent cities on college campuses, slowly marched through Manhattan towards the Met, and when they arrived, they tore down the police barricades and flooded the street.
Just for fun, here’s Lizzo dressed like something that you might find inside an unflushed toilet at Panda Express, and that’s what she wore to the Met Gala while riots raged outside in a clash of poor commies versus rich commies, as Peachy Keenan put it. These riots should also bring to mind I think some immediate logistical considerations that the Democratic Party now has to think about - for one thing, it’s safe to say that planning for the Democratic National Convention is going through some last-minute revisions right about now. Just imagine being in charge of security for the DNC; you’re gonna need bigger barricades than they had at the Met, and probably a lot more cops.
But more barricades and cops aren’t gonna fix the underlying problem that the Democratic Party has created here. There’s now a full-on uprising on the Left against the elitism that Democrats have long embraced - and the media is getting involved, too. Yahoo, for example, has already turned on the Met Gala; they just published a piece declaring, “The Met Gala’s Opulence Is Always Gross. This Year, It’s Obscene.”
Now, the whole article is a rant that hits a crescendo with this paragraph, which is probably the single-longest run-on sentence I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Here it is, this whole thing is one sentence, just so you know:

Even in an era filled with the horrors of late-stage capitalism run amok—bipartisan support for genocide; rolling back of reproductive, civil, and voting rights; a threadbare social safety net; decades of wage stagnation; tax cuts for the the rich; the crushing of unions and labor rights; expansion of the militarized police surveillance state; creeping techno-authoritarianism; untested, unregulated, and unchecked A.I.; entrenched racial inequality and injustice; right-wing and white supremacist extremist violence; and Boeing jet parts falling from the sky like so many dead whistleblowers—that kind of frivolous urgency promises that this year’s event nonetheless will stand out as a vainglorious display of self-congratulatory decadence and tone-deaf extravagance.

Now, first of all, just as a stylistic matter, if you’re going to make a sentence that long, it needs to be coherent. And “Boeing jet parts are falling from the sky like so many dead whistleblowers?” That doesn’t even make sense; the dead whistleblowers didn’t fall from the sky. I mean, they’re not being pushed out planes. One of them shot himself allegedly and the other died of an illness. Now, even if you subscribe to the theory that Boeing’s hitmen killed these whistleblowers—which, who knows, maybe they did—the fact remains that they didn’t fall from the sky. They died on the ground, so the metaphor just doesn’t work. And this is the problem you get into with 100-word sentences: eventually, you just lose track of what you’re saying.
In any event, that whole massive paragraph could be summed up as saying, “We’re living through late-stage capitalism right now.” That’s what the Left-wing media is saying. That’s the way that they are framing this, and of course, “late-stage capitalism” is one of their favorite phrases to use these days. And they used to celebrate the Met Gala, but not anymore. Now they’re saying the same thing the demonstrators are, which is that the frivolous elite are partying while Rome burns—which they are, of course—and they’re furious about it, or pretending to be.
Now, what the media and these demonstrators don’t want to admit is that the elitists at this gala—all the celebrities who are dressed like slutty Star Wars villains and so on—are on their team. The celebrities are part of the ruling class, the protesters and media critics are its products and in some cases quite literally its offspring. Now, to be sure, the celebrities and college administrators and the politicians are reluctant to acknowledge that their own Frankenstein monster is turning against them, but that’s exactly what’s happening.
Remember that it was two years ago that AOC showed up to the Met Gala with a “Tax the Rich” gown. There were a bunch of sympathetic news stories highlighting her bravery at the time, and here’s how AOC justified showing up to an event that costs $300,000 per table while equipped with a custom dress, handbag, shoes and jewelry costing more than $2,000.

REPORTER: “You know this dress has a message for this Met Gala, tell me about what that is.”
AOC: “You know, I made a message, it says ’Tax the Rich’ right there, uh, it’s really about having a real conversation about fairness and equity in our system, and I think that this conversation is particularly relevant as we debate over budget and reconciliation down. What we’re talking about, providing working families with child care, healthcare, and meeting the climate crisis [unintelligible]* it deserves. … I think that ultimately, you know, we’re at a very critical point. I think there are some folks who are starting to really understand that this is a very critical conversation for us to be having right now. Other folks have invested interest in not having that conversation, but our point is to keep organizing and keep it going.”*

It’s a really important conversation, AOC says, some people aren’t ready to hear it, but we need to punish rich people, we need to make them as uncomfortable as possible, we need to take their money, and that was the message from AOC, who not incidentally, grew up in a very well-off suburb.
Her whole schtick was always hypocritical and disingenuous, of course, but it turns out that Leftist activists were listening to this rhetoric, I guess, they were taking it seriously, we’ve seen this a lot lately. When Chuck Schumer threatened Supreme Court justices, Leftists showed up at the justices’ homes; when the White House claimed that “trans kids” were being abused, a Leftist shot and killed Christians; when Democrats accused Israel of “genocide,” college students occupied university buildings; now two years after AOC attacked the Met, leftist gathered outside of the building.
This is the escalation that Democrats have primed this country for; it’s now in progress, whether Democrats intended it to happen to THEM or not—which, of course, they didn’t—but that’s not to say that ruling elites are going to roll over and let this happen. I mean, as you saw in that footage, the cops showed up in force and started making arrests the very second that protestors trespassed through the barricades in front of the Met. They were on the scene immediately.
Now, that’s kind of a noticeable contrast when compare it to other things like when these people set up encampments on college campuses, they were given in most cases a few days, maybe a week, before the cops moved in; when they looted and burned poor neighborhoods, they were given about three months to inflict carnage before anyone did anything about it; but when they showed up at the Met Gala, they were given three SECONDS before the arrests started. So it really shows you kind of how the hierarchy works.
The Democrats can’t protect the rest of the country from these mobs, nor do they intend to. So last night, in addition to creating a scene at the Met Gala, Leftists also vandalized a World War I memorial in New York and torched an American flag in front of it.
So please note, again, the contrast, the hierarchy, and the fact that this was happening at the exact same time as the Met Gala thing - REALLY shows you where the priorities are when you notice what kinds of illegal demonstrations the police will stop and which demonstrations they’ll allow to continue. The mob can deface World War I memorials all they want because in doing so, they’re communicating their hatred for this country and everything it stands for. So the Democrats who run New York aren’t going to stop them. But the mob isn’t allowed to inconvenience celebrities at the Met under any circumstances.
The point is that this is the hierarchy that Democrats clearly want to enforce. The trouble is getting the mob to RESPECT the hierarchy, and the Democrats are having trouble with that at the moment.
Yet they still seem oblivious, the Democrats are—or acting oblivious, at least—to the fact that they created this monster themselves, and that’s why inside the Met, as chaos unfolded outside, the party continued uninterrupted, and so did all of this associated weirdness, which was as off-putting as it’s ever been - take for example this decoy costume worn by someone using the name “Karol G.” Now, apparently she wanted to keep her real costume a secret, so earlier in the evening, she sported this beige umbrella-looking lampshade thing instead.
Now, imagine being a hardcore, AOC-loving Leftist who sees this - Democrats have spent the last several years telling you to despise rich people and commit crimes in the name of political activism, and then down the street from your hippy commune at the local university, some celebrity is walking around in a lampshade costume which probably costs $50,000 or something, and the entire Democratic Party establishment is pretending that it’s all normal. What do you do? How would you view the Democratic Party establishment after seeing this?
Now, as for the costume itself, of course, it’s clearly a bid for attention, and I guess it worked—I’m talking about it—but it’s not even an original idea - as a lot of people have pointed out, the outfit bears a striking resemblance to a certain shower curtain costume from the film “Karate Kid,” only with different colors, so there’s really no redeeming qualities whatsoever here, it’s a total debacle all around.
But to be fair, there was at least some originality on display last night - for example, this celebrity apparently walked through a wind tunnel full of roses somewhere before arriving at the Met, and for her trouble, Vogue named her as one of the best-dressed women of the evening.
We can assume again that this… woman?… paid many thousands of dollars for that outfit, which is just a trench coat with flower peddles and glitter glued onto it. It really looks like something a four-year-old girl might make. As everybody knows, in the mind of a four-year-old girl, anything and everything can be made prettier with copious amounts of glitter and flowers, which is a fine mentality for a small child; doesn’t translate very well in this case. And as self-congratulatory as it is, again, there’s no self-awareness whatsoever - it’s almost as if the entire purpose of the event is to celebrate the elites’ total inability to detect how preposterous, self-absorbed, and laughable they are.
An this is nothing new, it’s been the case since the Met Gala was established, it’s always been a mini-theater of the absurd. What’s changed is that the voting base of the Democratic Party isn’t laughing along with these clowns as much anymore. They turned against the universities; now they’ve turned against Hollywood. What the protesters of course don’t understand is that they have inherited their own worldview and everything they believe from these very institutions and these very people.
Hollywood and Academia don’t realize that they’re being attacked by their own Frankenstein, but the Frankenstein monster also doesn’t realize that it IS the Frankenstein monster. And if Frankenstein ever wakes up to that fact, well then the ruling class will really be in trouble.

Remember, it always begins and ends with 'ERA.' Explore the fundamentals, refine your skills, and advance your expertise.
When you're starting your journey in UI/UX design, using the 'ERA' framework can be a great way to structure your learning and development. Here's a breakdown of each step: Explore, Refine, and Advance.

1. Explore (E)

The initial phase of your UI/UX design journey involves exploring the field. This means gaining a basic understanding of key concepts and skills. Here's what you typically focus on:

• Understanding the Basics: Learn what UI (User Interface) and UX (User Experience) are, how they differ, and how they work together.
• Tools and Technologies: Get familiar with the tools commonly used in the industry, such as Sketch, Adobe XD, Figma, and InVision.
• Design Principles: Study foundational design principles, including layout, color theory, typography, and user-centric design.
• User Research: Understand the importance of user research and the various methods used to gather insights about user needs and behaviors.

2. Refine (R)

After exploring the basics, the next step is to refine your skills. This involves deepening your understanding and beginning to practice more complex projects:

• Advanced Techniques: Learn about advanced design techniques and methodologies like wireframing, prototyping, and usability testing.
• Project Work: Start working on more complex projects, possibly as part of a team. This helps you understand the collaborative aspect of UI/UX design.
• Feedback and Iteration: Learn how to collect and integrate feedback to refine your designs. Understanding the iterative nature of design work is crucial.
• Portfolio Development: Start building a portfolio of your work. This is essential for showcasing your skills to potential employers or clients.

3. Advance (A)

The final phase is about advancing your expertise. At this stage, you're looking to become an expert in the field, possibly specializing in a particular area:

• Specialization: Choose a particular area to specialize in, such as mobile app design, web design, or even a specific industry like healthcare or finance.
• Leadership and Strategy: Learn about strategic aspects of design, such as how UI/UX fits into broader business goals and how to lead projects or teams.
• Continued Learning and Adaptation: Stay updated with the latest trends and technologies in UI/UX. The tech field is always evolving, so continuous learning is key.
• Networking and Community Engagement: Engage with other designers, attend workshops and conferences, and possibly mentor others. Networking can open up new opportunities and enhance your learning.

Using the 'ERA' framework, you can systematically progress from being a beginner to an advanced practitioner in UI/UX design. Each phase builds on the previous one, allowing for a structured and comprehensive learning experience.

Personally I prefer the Cold War setting, I want to run my weird dinky backwater and the modern look is just abit too polished for my taste.

Hello people im in search for some input on my homebrew warband to make it as lore friendly as possible. So i decided to drop what i have until now and see tou opinnions if ypu wold like, if not just ignorit xd.
the "engines of chaos" a warband of traitor iron hands, these iron hands are from the heresy era and are part of those ressurected by the forbidden tecnologies of the keys of hel. Trapped in constant pain with the constant idea of inminent death (due that in lore these revenants as they are called decay constantly before die again on their own) and the existencial crisis of not knowig if they still are the same person that of when they lived they choose to follow the ruinous powers after an encounter with the word bearers in wich they observe the strenght and power the gods share amongs its followers, learning that they can even ascend to demonhood and overcome their dreadfull destiny.
Now in for revenge against the imperium and their "brothers" that they hate for their weakness for having to bring them back due to not bieng able to handle the horus heresy on their own. Wearing the same black and silver, considenring themselfs as the true iron hands and under the warcry of "not even in death you are safe" as a mockery of the tipycal "only in death duty ends", they charge in battle using mostly daemon engines due to their mechanical expertise and lack of manpower. Each individual search the favor of its preffered god leading to the born of different cults inside the warbands that constantly fight each other.
While these conflicts cannot be stopped of avoided, all these heretic warrios respond or fear to their leader, Valhir. previusly a ressurected techmarine, he is the one that conveinced his brothers but revenants and living alike to betray the imperium and embrace the gods. Not only that but now he is the very embodyment of their belives, due to have been able to become a fully blessed by the patrons of chaos and becomming a daemon prince of undivided showing to the rest that effectibly, they goals are archivable.
In the current times they use the deamon world (name in progress) gifted to valhir on his ascenssion as base of operations and factory of horrors. This is because after a pact with a branch of the dark mechanicum this world was turned onto a hellforge, fabricating powerfull machines of destructions while not invading worlds in serch for glory in the name of the patrons and ressources.
But rumors run like wildfire, acussing valhir of not compromising with the cause of saving them of their steady road to death since he has already reached inmortality and diminishing the urgency of the ordeal. More so that he has been reclused st his personal workshop ignoring his responsabilities. While absent a new chaos lord is scaling the staircase of power on the warband under the name of Marcus "the hell grip", he capitalizes on the vacumm to take hold for his own objectives: taking hold of the keys of hel and the ressurection machinery, so they can keep comming back from death indefinitely and consolidate his power forever more.
But deep inside the hellforge you can hear screams and screaching, not human nor that from an animal, something more sinister and of unholy nature, Valhir last proyect one that implies risking one of the only few relics of the heresy that they were able to retrive in the inicial uprising back in the 31 Millenium. A fully funcional mastodon heavy tank, but in Valhir calculations he has all the necesary "raw materials" recolectes as war bounty over the centuries. But if he is correct about what he is about to do, he thinks that the ruinous powers will be most pleased by this unholy abomination and one incomparable tool for their vengance against all who wronged them before.

Hi, just wondering when the era changes you currently are in. I am asking this because im gonna wait till next treasure hunt starts and then progressing into next era. Is it when i unlock this first research from new era? So i could possibly already use research points towards it, but just not "paying" or unlocking it yet.

In today's digital age, graphic design surrounds you, from the billboards that dot the highways to the sleek interface of your favourite app. It's an art form that combines creativity with strategy, aiming to communicate ideas and messages through visual content. Whether it's a vibrant logo that captures the essence of a brand or an infographic that breaks down complex information, graphic design is at the heart of visual communication.
As a career, graphic design offers a canvas for innovation and expression, blending art and technology to create compelling designs that inform, engage, and persuade. In South Africa, where the creative industries continue to bloom, graphic design plays a pivotal role in the business landscape, driving the creation of digital and print media that resonate with consumers. If you're intrigued by the power of visual storytelling and considering a career in this dynamic field, understanding the fundamentals of graphic design is your first step towards unlocking your creative potential.

Key Takeaways

• Understanding Graphic Design: Graphic design is a vital form of communication that merges art with technology to effectively convey messages and ideas. In South Africa, it is not only a burgeoning career path but also key in visual storytelling, crucial for brands and information dissemination.
• Core Elements of Graphic Design: Successful graphic design relies on fundamental elements like typography, colour theory, and layout/composition. Mastery of these components is essential for creating visually engaging designs that communicate effectively.
• Specialisation Areas: Graphic design in South Africa encompasses various specialisation areas including branding, packaging design, and digital design. Each area offers unique opportunities for creativity and innovation.
• Graphic Design Tools and Software: A mix of traditional tools (e.g., pencils, markers) and modern software (such as Adobe Creative Suite and Sketch) is necessary for contemporary graphic design. Familiarity with these tools is crucial for both creativity and efficiency.
• Pursuing a Career in Graphic Design: With the right education and skills, numerous career opportunities open up in advertising, digital design, publishing, and freelancing. South Africa offers a range of courses and programs, like those at Oakfields College, tailored to equip aspiring designers for the industry.
• The Importance of Continuous Learning: Staying updated with the latest design trends and technologies is vital for a successful career in graphic design, highlighting the importance of ongoing education through short courses and professional development.

Understanding Graphic Design

Graphic design stands as a pivotal form of communication, blending art and technology to convey messages and ideas effectively. In South Africa, where the creative industries are burgeoning, graphic design emerges as a compelling career pathway, offering endless opportunities for innovation and expression. This section delves into the essence of graphic design, its fundamental components, and why mastering these concepts is crucial for aspiring designers.
Graphic design is more than just aesthetics; it's about solving problems and communicating ideas visually. It combines various elements such as typography, images, colours, and layouts to create engaging designs that capture attention, inform, and sometimes persuade the audience. Whether it's a branding campaign, a website design, or product packaging, every piece of design communicates a story to its viewers.

Core Elements of Graphic Design

Firstly, understanding the basic elements of graphic design is essential. These elements include:

• Typography: The art of arranging type, which is a crucial aspect of design. It's not just about choosing fonts; it's about creating readable and appealing text that enhances the message.
• Colour Theory: Colour plays a vital role in graphic design. It can influence mood, convey messages, and even affect purchasing decisions. Understanding colour theory helps in choosing the right palette for your projects.
• Layout and Composition: How elements are arranged on a page determines how effectively the design communicates. Good layout and composition bring balance, guide the viewer’s eye, and ensure the design is aesthetically pleasing.

Specialisation Areas in Graphic Design

The field of graphic design in South Africa is diverse, with several areas of specialisation, including:

• Branding and Visual Identity: Creating a visual identity for brands that communicates their values and distinguishes them from competitors.
• Packaging Design: This involves designing attractive and functional packaging that stands out on the shelf while protecting the product.
• Digital Design: This encompasses website design, mobile app design, and social media graphics, among others.

For those looking to pursue a career in graphic design, South Africa offers a variety of courses and training programs. From comprehensive graphic design courses to short courses in South Africa, aspiring designers have access to some of the best graphic design courses available. These programs cover the fundamentals of design as well as the latest trends and technologies, preparing students for successful careers in this dynamic field.

History of Graphic Design

Tracing the origins of graphic design takes you back to the dawn of human expression, but its professional identity and terminology began shaping during the 20th century. The term 'graphic design' itself was coined by William Addison Dwiggins in 1922, marking the official separation of design as a distinct profession which encompasses typography, visual arts, and page layout for the purposes of marketing, advertising, and informing.
In South Africa, graphic design has weaved its unique thread through the country's rich tapestry of cultural diversity. Emerging from a background of traditional art forms and evolving through the apartheid and post-apartheid eras, today's South African graphic design scene is a vibrant mix of traditional African elements and modern digital artistry. This blend offers a distinct flavour to South African design, making it recognisable on the global stage.
The evolution of graphic design in South Africa closely aligns with technological advancements and educational progress in the field. Institutions like Oakfields College play a pivotal role in shaping the new generation of graphic designers through comprehensive graphic design courses and short courses in South Africa. These programs not only equip students with the necessary skills in traditional and digital design but also incorporate critical thinking and strategy, preparing them for a successful career in the industry.
Moreover, South Africa has embraced the digital revolution in graphic design, with many designers and agencies placing a strong emphasis on digital mediums. This transition has not only expanded the scope of graphic design in the country but also opened up a plethora of opportunities for designers to innovate and create with global reach.
Whether you're considering a career in this dynamic field or simply have an appreciation for the art form, understanding the history of graphic design, especially within the South African context, enriches your perspective of its impact and potential. For those looking to dive deeper into this industry, seeking out the best graphic design courses in South Africa is a solid first step towards mastering the craft and contributing to its ongoing story.

Key Principles of Graphic Design

Understanding the key principles of graphic design is essential for creating visually compelling and effective designs. These principles serve as the foundational guidelines that ensure your work communicates the intended message to your audience, especially within the South African context where cultural diversity and historical background profoundly influence visual communication.

Layout and Structure

The layout and structure form the backbone of graphic design. Utilising layout software, designers position text, images and incorporate features such as columns and advertisements to achieve a balanced and visually attractive product. For instance, in crafting layouts for newspapers, magazines, or books, the arrangement dictates how readers process information, making it crucial to guide the audience through the design in a logical sequence. South African designers must be adept at using tools like InDesign to create layouts that not only look good but also respect the cultural nuances and readability preferences of the local audience.

Typeface Design

Creating or selecting the right typeface is key to conveying your design's intended tone and personality. Each font carries its own weight and style, impacting how text is perceived. Original fonts designed for specific digital applications, including websites and adverts, must be readable, scalable, and aesthetically pleasing. South Africa's rich cultural tapestry offers an opportunity for typeface designers to explore unique font styles that reflect local heritage and language diversity, enhancing the global richness of typeface design.

Colour Theory

A fundamental component of graphic design, colour theory explains how colours interact with each other and the effects they have on the viewer. The right colour palette can evoke emotions, communicate messages, and influence actions. In South Africa, with its vibrant landscapes and diverse cultures, colour holds significant importance. Utilising colour effectively requires understanding local cultural differences and preferences, ensuring designs resonate with the intended audience while achieving the desired impact.

Web Page Design

The digital realm offers vast opportunities for graphic designers to express creativity and innovation. Designing the structure and appearance of websites demands a combination of layout skills, colour theory application, and typeface selection. Graphic designers often create PSD or AI files that are then converted into functional websites. In a South African context, where digital access and consumption patterns vary widely across different demographics, designers have to be strategic in their design decisions, ensuring accessibility and responsiveness across devices.

The Role of Graphic Design in Various Industries

Graphic design, with its profound ability to communicate visually, plays a pivotal role across various industries. Its significance in the South African context, driven by cultural diversity and a unique historical backdrop, cannot be overstated. As you explore the vast landscape of graphic design, you'll discover its application in marketing and advertising, digital design, publishing, and entertainment and media. Let's delve into how graphic design shapes these industries and the opportunities it presents for aspiring designers, especially those considering enrolling in graphic design courses or short courses in South Africa.

Marketing and Advertising

In the competitive market of South Africa, graphic design serves as the backbone of successful marketing and advertising campaigns. Designers craft compelling visuals that not only grab the attention of the target audience but also convey the brand's message effectively. From creating eye-catching advertisements to designing sophisticated marketing materials, graphic designers ensure that a brand stands out in a crowded marketplace. Engaging visuals in billboards, flyers, brochures, and digital ads are all testaments to the creativity and strategic thinking of graphic designers. With the best graphic design courses in South Africa, you can unlock your potential and help brands tell their stories compellingly.

Digital Design

The digital landscape is ever-evolving, and graphic design is at the heart of this transformation. In South Africa, where the digital economy continues to grow, the demand for skilled graphic designers who can navigate web page design, UX/UI, and social media content creation is on the rise. Digital design focuses on crafting user-friendly and aesthetically pleasing online experiences. Whether it's through website design, mobile app interfaces, or engaging social media posts, graphic designers play a critical role in shaping how brands interact with their audiences online. By pursuing short courses in graphic design with a focus on digital applications, you're setting yourself up for a rewarding career in this dynamic field.

Publishing

The publishing industry in South Africa, which includes books, magazines, newspapers, and catalogs, relies heavily on graphic design to attract and retain readership. Publication designers work closely with authors and publishers to create layouts, choose typefaces, and select images that enhance the readability and appeal of printed materials. The goal is to create visually attractive publications that communicate content effectively, whether it's for educational, informational, or entertainment purposes. graphic design course that specialise in publication design can provide you with the skills needed to excel in this sector.

Entertainment and Media

Graphic design's influence extends into the entertainment and media industry, creating unforgettable visuals for films, television shows, video games, and music productions. Designers collaborate with directors and producers to craft branding, promotional materials, and visual effects that define the aesthetic of a production. In South Africa, where the entertainment industry is vibrant and diverse, graphic designers contribute to the cultural fabric by creating artwork that resonates with both local and international audiences. Short courses in South Africa focusing on graphic design for entertainment and media can launch your career in this exhilarating field.
The role of graphic design in various industries is immense, offering vast opportunities for creative expression and professional growth. Whether you're interested in marketing and advertising, digital design, publishing, or entertainment and media, graphic design courses in South Africa can equip you with the necessary skills to thrive in these exciting fields. Explore the best graphic design courses and embrace the journey toward becoming a prominent designer in the industry.

Graphic Design Tools and Software

Embarking on a journey in graphic design, you'll discover that it's not just about creativity but also about the tools and software that bring your ideas to life. Whether you're interested in pursuing one of the best graphic design courses or just starting to dip your toes into this vibrant field, knowing the right tools is essential. In South Africa, where the design landscape is as diverse as its culture, having a toolkit equipped with both traditional and modern instruments is key to making your mark.

Traditional Tools

Before the digital age took over, graphic designers relied heavily on traditional tools to conceptualise and create their artwork. These tools weren't just instruments; they were extensions of the designers' hands and minds, allowing them to manifest their visions into tangible forms.

• Pencils and sketchpads are indispensable, even today, for quickly jotting down ideas or sketching preliminary designs. These basics enable you to freely express your initial concepts without the constraints of software interfaces.
• Rulers and stencils aid in creating clean, precise lines and shapes, ensuring that your work maintains professional standards of accuracy.
• Markers and paint allow for the exploration of colour and texture, adding a unique touch to logos or illustrations that digital means might not fully replicate.

Mastering these traditional tools can give you a strong foundation in the principles of graphic design, a necessity highlighted in short courses across South Africa.

Modern Software

As technology advanced, the realm of graphic design expanded, introducing a suite of modern software that has become indispensable to today's designer. This software not only enhances efficiency but also opens up infinite possibilities for creativity and collaboration.

• Adobe Creative Suite, including Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign, is the cornerstone of professional graphic design. These applications offer powerful tools for image manipulation, vector artwork creation, and layout design, making them a staple in graphic design courses.
• CorelDraw Graphics Suite provides robust vector editing capabilities alongside layout and photo-editing tools, tailored for versatility in various design tasks.
• Sketch has become a go-to for web and mobile interface design, with its intuitive vector tools and simplified interface, making it a popular choice for those specialising in digital design.

Each piece of software brings its strengths to the table, and in a competitive field like graphic design, knowing your way around them can set you apart. Best graphic design courses, particularly those offered in South Africa at esteemed institutions like Oakfields College, cover an extensive range of these modern tools, preparing students to meet industry demands.
Engaging with both traditional tools and modern software equips you with a versatile skill set, crucial for navigating the diverse graphic design landscape in South Africa. Whether you're aiming to excel in branding, digital design, or any other specialization within the field, harnessing these tools will be key to your success.

Pursuing a Career in Graphic Design

Graphic design, a field that artfully combines text, images, and concepts to communicate ideas, offers a myriad of career possibilities. In South Africa, where the digital and creative industries are rapidly expanding, pursuing a career in graphic design can be both fulfilling and lucrative. Let’s delve into how you can embark on this exciting journey.

Educational Pathways

Your venture into the world of graphic design begins with the right education. South African institutions, including Oakfields College, offer comprehensive programmes that cater not just to the theoretical aspects of graphic design but also to the practical, hands-on experiences necessary for success in the industry.

1. Graphic Design Courses: You'll find a range of options, from diplomas to bachelor’s degrees. These courses cover fundamental principles such as typography, layout design, and colour theory, along with modern digital design tools. Oakfields College is renowned for its focused curriculum that prepares you for the real-world challenges of a graphic designer.
2. Short Courses in South Africa: If you're looking for a more flexible learning path or wish to specialise in a particular area like web design or digital marketing, short courses can be invaluable. These programmes are perfect for staying abreast of the latest trends and technologies in the graphic design realm.
3. Best Graphic Design Courses: When selecting a course, consider institutions that offer a balanced mix of theory and practical application. Courses that include internships or work placement opportunities, like those at Oakfields College, are particularly beneficial as they provide real industry experience and a chance to build a professional network.

Career Opportunities

After equipping yourself with the necessary knowledge and skills, a diverse range of career opportunities awaits. Here's a glimpse of what you can expect:

1. Advertising and Branding: Companies constantly seek talented graphic designers to create compelling advertising campaigns and develop strong brand identities.
2. Digital Design: With the digital age in full swing, careers in web design, user interface (UI) design, and user experience (UX) design are in high demand. Designers with skills in creating visually appealing and user-friendly digital spaces are highly sought after.
3. Publishing and Print Media: Despite the rise of digital media, there's still a significant need for designers in the publishing industry. From magazines to books and newspapers, graphic designers play a crucial role in layout and visual storytelling.
4. Freelancing: For those who prefer a more flexible work environment, freelancing offers the freedom to choose projects that align with your interests and expertise. Platforms such as Behance and LinkedIn can help you showcase your portfolio and connect with potential clients.

‍
Graphic design is more than just an artistic endeavour; it's a pivotal element of South Africa's creative landscape. With its rich history and evolving nature, the field offers a vibrant pathway for those looking to make their mark. Through institutions like Oakfields College, aspiring designers have access to comprehensive training that covers everything from fundamentals to advanced specialisations. Whether you're drawn to branding, digital design, or another niche, the opportunities in this dynamic industry are vast. Embarking on a graphic design career not only allows you to explore your creative passions but also to contribute significantly to the digital and creative sectors. Remember, your journey in graphic design is not just about mastering tools or techniques; it's about shaping visual narratives that resonate. So, if you're ready to dive into this exciting field, the time to start is now.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the significance of graphic design in South Africa?

Graphic design in South Africa plays a pivotal role in the communication industry, blending visual communication with digital technology to produce effective branding and marketing strategies. Its significance lies in its ability to convey complex information and ideas through creative and visual means.

What are the core elements of graphic design?

The core elements of graphic design include layout, typeface design, and colour theory. These elements are crucial in creating visually appealing and effective designs that communicate the desired message to the audience.

What specialisation areas exist within graphic design?

In South Africa, graphic design specialisation areas include branding, digital design, advertising, publishing, and freelancing. Each area focuses on different aspects of visual communication and offers unique career opportunities.

How has the history of graphic design evolved in South Africa?

The history of graphic design in South Africa has evolved from traditional print media to incorporating digital mediums. It reflects the country's rich culture and history, with institutions like Oakfields College playing a significant role in training the next generation of designers.

What role do institutions like Oakfields College play in graphic design education?

Institutions like Oakfields College in South Africa play a crucial role in graphic design education by offering comprehensive courses and short programmes that equip students with the necessary skills and knowledge in graphic design principles, tools, and software.

What are the essential tools and software for graphic designers?

The essential tools and software for graphic designers include Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign) for creating and editing visuals. Knowledge of these tools is critical for producing high-quality design work.

How can one pursue a career in graphic design in South Africa?

Pursuing a career in graphic design in South Africa involves obtaining the necessary education through courses and programmes offered by reputable institutions like Oakfields College. Building a strong portfolio and gaining experience through internships or freelance projects are also important steps.

What career opportunities exist in graphic design?

Career opportunities in graphic design in South Africa are abundant and include fields such as advertising, digital design, publishing, and freelancing within the expanding digital and creative industries, offering a dynamic and rewarding career path for aspiring designers.