I'm gonna keep posting these until/unless someone stops me. Here's the names I would use for the 1980's Rivals + a bonus at the bottom. Across the board the 80's rivals have pretty good names, but most of them don't reflect on the characters of the girls. If I had been in charge of naming them, this is what I would come up with

Sumire Saitozaki

I like her name! In Japanese flower symbolism, violets (the Japanese word for which is sumire) represent sincerity and love, which works for a girl who's main defining characteristic is that she was in love with a boy. Saitozaki isn't a real name, but I constructed it from other names. Anyways, I would write it 寿 (su) meaning long life or longevity, 海 (umi) meaning ocean, 怜 (rei) meaning clever or affection, 佐 (sa) meaning to help or aide, 糸 (ito) meaning string, 崎 (zaki) meaning cape (the geographic feature, not the clothing item). 寿 meaning long life is meant to be ironic, 佐 is to reflect how she is the tutorial for the player and thereby helps them learn the game, and 糸 made me think of the red string of fate.

Kaguya Wakaizumi

Another good name! Sumire and Kaguya's are my favorite names of the 80's rivals. Both are real names, but Kaguya I combined kanji from different spellings. I'd write it 加 (ka) meaning to add or include, 紅 (gu) meaning red, 夜 (ya) meaning night, 若 (waka) meaning youth, 泉 (izumi) meaning spring or fountain. 加 was chosen because you help add her to the rainbow girls. It's a very dumb joke but I don't care.

Moeko Rakuyona

And here's where I started changing names again. Along with reflecting their personalities, I tried to reference their canon eliminations. Moeko became Renka Moekui, written 恋 (ren) meaning love, 火 (ka) meaning fire, 燃 (mo) meaning burn or ignite, 杭 (kui) meaning stake or pile. A pretty fiery name for our fiery tomboy. I also like that I flipped her english initials

Honami Hodoshima

Best girl of 80's mode, you can't change my mind. I renamed her Yumiko Tsubutaki: 読 (yo) meaning read or understand, 子 (ko) meaning girl or child, 潰 (tsubu) meaning crush or flatten, 滝 (taki) meaning rapids or waterfall. 読 is because she's a bookworm and 潰 is because she's canonically crushed by a bookcase

Sumiko Tachibana

Not my fave rival tbh, sporty girls aren't really my thing. But I came up with Sukone Dokujima, 健 (suko) meaning healthy or strong, 音 (ne) meaning sound, 毒 (doku) meaning poison, 島 (shima) meaning island

Ritsuko Chikanari

I do like Ritsuko though, she's so obnoxious, it's great. I decided to keep her first name because there were some great kanji that I could use to construct it, so she's Ritsuko Kozai. 璃 (ri) means jewel or crystal, 月 (tsuki) means moon, 子 (ko) means girl or child, 古 (ko) means old or ancient, 財 (zai) means money. 古財 is obviously meant to reflect her old money status, and 璃 just sounds fancy to mean- like she's a precious gemstone or something

Ai Doruyashi

I wanted to keep the pun, I really did, but no Japanese surnames I could find start with doru. If you haven't noticed before, aidoru is the english word idol, which is of course Ai's goal. I ended up constructing a brand new name from a few different names to make Ai Torurai: 愛 (ai) meaning love or affection, 伊 (i) being a third person pronoun (ie, him), 都 (to) meaning capital city, 丸 (maru) meaning round or circle, 電 (rai) meaning electricity. T's and d's sound similar so we get the near pun of aitoru

Teiko Nabatasai

Second best girl, you still can't change my mind. I named her Toshino Nadaka: 聡 (sato) meaning wise or quick learner, 乃 (no) being a second person pronoun (ie, you), 名 (na) meaning family name or reputation, 高 (taka) meaning high or excellent. Since her canon elimination is lowering her reputation, I wanted her name to reference being of high reputation or standing

Komako Funakoshi

For the resident yamato nadeshiko, I wanted a name that reflected her traditional attitude. I came up with Koyori Fukuwa: 心 (kokoro) meaning heart or spirit, 和 (wa) meaning peace or harmony, 福 (fuku) meaning good fortune and 和 (wa) again. The reason 和 is in both her names is that it's a character used to represent a very fundamental part of Japanese culture. I don't think I'm the right person to explain it as I only kinda understand it, but here's a website that talks about it. But it's very common to see 和 in words related to Japan, especially old or archaic words. With Komako/Koyori being an old fashioned girl, I thought it fit to have it in both names.

Chigusa Busujima

Busu is a word for ugly, and Chigusa was bullied for having an "ugly" name, according to dev. I wanted to keep that, and I also just like her first name, so I named her Chigusa Shikocha: 千 (chi) meaning one thousand, 草 (kusa) meaning grass or weed, 醜 (shiko) meaning ugly or unattractive, 茶 (cha) meaning tea or tea ceremony

Sonoko Sakanoe

I do like her name phonetically, but the spellings don't have much to do with her character. So, Satomi Sakagari: 悟 (sato) meaning to perceive or enlightenment, 実 (mi) meaning truth, 坂 (saka) meaning hill or incline, 狩 (kari) meaning hunt or chase. Obviously as a junior detective, she needs to be perceptive, so 悟, and she's trying to discover the truth, so 実. 狩 is because she's hunting Ryoba and 坂 is because... I dunno. It's a real name that contained 狩 and that's all I was looking for, with bonus points for keeping the alliteration. I guess you could argue it references the hill with the cherry tree?

Bonus Round: Ui Tunesu

Her name is derived from the Japanese pronunciation of the english word witness- wiitonesu- because she's based on the very old Witness-chan character. Ui is a real name but Tunesu isn't. In fact, tu isn't a naturally occurring sound in Japanese. I would name her Umi Tsunemi: 宇 (u) meaning space or universe, 見 (mi) meaning to see or look at, 常 (tsune) meaning always or usual, 察 (mi) meaning intuition or perception. 見察, as a bonus, is the word for witness

I seem to remember the MythBusters putting a microphone on Kari Byron to record her farts to answer “Do Pretty Girls Fart?”

Buyer pays shipping from 46112. I use Pirate Ship to keep it reasonable.
Paypal accepted

• [5] Cthulhu Death May Die season 2 - new and sealed $75
• [4] Descent Journeys in the Dark(1st ed) - great shape for its age $65
• [4] Adventure Tactics 2nd edition with painted heroes, into the slimer-verse and hero pack 1 all in good shape $85
• [4] Summit the board game with Teams and Yeti expansion and the flare gun promo card all in good shape $70
• [4] Knightfall - in great shape $20
• [4] Escape the Dark Castle - great shape $25
• [4] Folklore the Affliction 2nd edition - great shape $25
• [4] Perdition's Mouth: Abyssal Rift original KS version - great shape $40
• [4] Zpocalypse 2 Defend the Burbs with Wasteland expansion and extra tiles pack, chits in plano container - never played $30
• [3] Final War with both expansions - main box a little rough and has demo sticker but everything complete and in great shape $40
• [5] World of Warcraft escape game - new and sealed $15
• [4] Gloomhaven Jaws of the Lion with removable sticker set - great shape $30
• [4] Forgotten Depths - huge box, never played $25
• [4] Marvel United with Dr Strange - never played $20
• [4] Spurs A Tale in the Old West w/ Gambler and Legends expansion - never played but opened $30
• [3] Heroes Wanted - base game, good shape $20
• [4] Fire Tower - retail base game - played once, great shape $20
• [3] Galaxy Defenders w/ expansions Extinction Protocol and Operation Strikeback - all content in expansion boxes all in good shape $100
• [4] Huge Shadows of Brimstone collection (local only) Cities of Ancients, Swamps of Death, Frontier Town, Allies of the Old West, Belial (2x), Dark Stone Hydra, Drifter Hero, Flesh Stalker and Flesh Drones, Harvesters From Beyond, Hellfire Succubi, Orphan Hero, Caverns of Cynder expansion, Prospector hero, Sand Kraken XXL, Scourge Rats and Rats Nest, Swamp Slugs, Lost Army expansion, Scafford Gang deluxe, Tredderran Raiders, Undead Outlaws and Undead Gunslinger(2x), signed photo of KS team, treasure chest with darkstone gems, mini rifle, artbook - 2 huge mini organizers with labels, characters in plano containers, cards sleeved in storage container - everything in great shape, all minis assembled $350 - local only please.
• [4] Maximum Apocalypse 2nd edition w/ Gothic Horrors 2nd edition expansion box and 4 neoprene mats and the KS exclusive Redhead character, Wasted Wilds with expansions The Few and Cursed, Time Traveler and Allies of the Rapture all in great shape or still sealed $225
• [5] Sub Terra 2 with both expansions - base game opened and played once, expansions sealed $80
• [4] Super Fantasy Brawl base game w/ neoprene mats, tower upgrades and character expansions Art of War, Force of Nature, Mental Might and Radiant Authority - all in great shape $120
• [5] Zombicide Green Horde Friends or Foes - still sealed $30
• [4] Zombicide Green Horde - Obstacles and Barricades 3d packs - great shape $40

The master of ceremonies glanced at the paper in his hand, and a glimpse of confusion showed on his face.
Something was wrong.
“And the third and last team representing Farcrest. Lowell’s Orphanage!”
Elincia clung to my arm, fear and impotence reflected in her expression. We were supposed to be called Rosebud Fencing Academy during the tournament. I clenched my jaw and glanced across the pavilion, giving [Awareness] free rein. Lord Osgiria gave me a mocking look.
I cursed. Among the nobility, everything was appearances. The fact that Farcrest had to resort to a poor orphanage for representation spoke badly about the state of affairs in the territory. The nobles around us exchanged funny looks.
“Keep your heads up. That’s our call,” I said, loud enough for the whole pavilion to hear us. If nobles thought this would weigh upon our shoulders, they were wrong.
Ilya took position by my right as the team captain, and we entered the crescent-shaped arena. The cheering died. Our magnificent uniforms didn’t fool the crowd anymore. I reached the Marquis's side and saluted the VIP box. Only after Prince Adrien started applauding did the rest of the nobles acknowledge our presence.
The commoners in the stands hesitated to cheer for us. This wasn’t a gentle world. They didn’t care about the kid’s feelings. I glanced over my shoulder. Wolf was unfazed, and Zaon moved his lips, repeating, ‘Nervous is good’ repeatedly. Firana, on the other hand, was furious.
“Tough crowd, uh?” I muttered.
“It’s only expected. Orphans don’t get good classes. There is no reason to cheer for us,” Ilya replied with a grin. “Yet.”
Did she look so mature back at the carriage?
The crowd’s attention lingered on us for an instant before the next team entered the arena. To my surprise, a single team represented the royal family: a group of cadets from the Imperial Academy. Five young cadets dressed in plain black, guided by Holst, entered the arena. The crowd came back to life. Considering the opulence of the other teams, the uniforms of the Imperial Academy cadets were disappointing. Even my group was better suited to the occasion.
Holst stood by my left, saluting the stands with a dull gesture.
“Robert Clarke, good to see you still among the living,” he greeted me with a bored tone.
His words, however, sent a shiver down my spine. Did he know assassins had tried to kill me a few days before? Captain Kiln had sworn to keep it a secret. The coincidences piled up. Holst knew about the attack and asked Lyra Jorn’s help with the library when Luzian Abei had a small army of Scholars and Scribes at his disposal. I couldn’t help but think Holst was still in contact with the culprit.
“Preceptor Holst,” I coldly greeted, my brain too busy to formulate a more wordy sentence.
“I didn’t expect to meet my former students,” he added, looking past me at Ilya and the kids. “Certainly not in these circumstances.”
I swallowed my anger. This was a golden opportunity for the orphanage. Watching the skill of the imperial cadets could help me understand why Sir Janus had been the only commoner in Farcrest to assist the Imperial Academy. Even if we lost the tournament, we could improve our chances of getting them accepted into the Imperial Academy, putting them in the same echelon as nobles.
“Do you trust the ability of your current students to win the tournament?” I asked, examining the cadet’s faces. Three humans, a half-elf, and a harpy. They didn’t seem thrilled to be part of the tournament.
Holst laughed.
“These idiots aren’t my students. These five failed their first year. If they don’t win the tournament, they will be kicked out of the Academy,” he replied, shrugging. “For failures like them, I’d say they are the favorites to win the tournament.”
A glance at the Imperial Academy team revealed their strong shoulders and steady feet. Despite the lack of fashion, they looked like trained warriors instead of pampered noble kids. Their faces had lost the roundness of childhood, and their calm demeanor and sharp eyes revealed an intense training regime. I hoped not to bump into them until the later rounds of the tournament.
Our conversation was cut short because the Osgirian teams entered the arena. First, Lord Osgiria, then Lord Nara, and finally, a man dressed as a knight, followed by a group of kids in mismatched uniforms—each one with the colors of their respective houses. Lord Osgiria stood by Holst's side and greeted the VIP box.
If Captain Kiln were right, our team would fight Lord Nara in the first round. I expected the man to be a merchant with a comically large belly. Instead, he looked like a cunning gray fox. I had to remind myself that buying a way into nobility required a skillful negotiator.
“Three teams, Lord Osgiria? You don’t seem too confident in your chances,” Holst casually said.
The Imperial Academy had to be a powerhouse within the kingdom because Lord Osgiria swallowed any snarky remark.
Lord Herran, a tall and muscular redhead dressed in full warrior attire, entered next. I remembered him from the feast—boisterous, talkative, determined. The black mana-repelling axe hung from his belt, causing my stomach to feel sick if I looked for too long. House Herran only had two teams, one led by Lord Herran himself and the other by a man who could be his twin. Only half of the team members were human; the other half were different flavors of beast folk.
More than half of the kids had bright red hair like their lord. I wondered if red hair was a dominant gene in the Herran Dukedom because the kids looked healthy. There was not a trace of the infamous Habsburg chin. They were tall and robust like their lord.
I tried to glance at the axe’s runes, but Lord Herran was too far away.
“That’s lord Herran and his army of copperhead bastards,” Holst pointed out, laughing at his joke.
I doubted that having a dozen children the same age was normal, even more so for a noble, considering how difficult succession could be. Lord Herran must’ve loved to spread his genes.
“It’s okay for him to present his… illegitimate kids in an official event like this?” I asked.
“Do you like gossip, Robert Clarke?” Holst raised an eyebrow.
“I like to be informed,” I replied.
Holst seemed satisfied with my answer.
“Lord Herran is one of the few Combat Prestige Classes in the kingdom. He has the [Conqueror] Class,” Holst replied. “It’s only natural that he can do whatever he wants. Not even the king has enough power over Lord Herran to stop his… reproductive impulses.”
I nodded. The relationship between the royal house and the great three dukedoms was more complex than I initially thought. According to the stories, Combat Prestige Classes were, in essence, one-man armies that could create whole countries around their power. I wondered what kind of monsters the royal army found in the Deep Farlands to be obliged to retreat.
After Lord Herra, Lord Gairon entered the arena. The Gairon House was arguably the second most powerful family after the royal house, and their uniforms reflected their status. The blue was rich and deep, and the gold shone under the winter sun, seemingly casting the few clouds away. The crowd yelled and cheered. It wasn’t surprising. Lord Gairon was a tall, tanned man with hair the color of ripe wheat—the perfect poster boy and leader of the anti-war faction.
“He has to go down if we want the royal faction to have a chance,” Holst said.
It suddenly hit me. Holst and I technically supported the same faction.
“Lord Gairon is also a Prestige Class?” I asked.
“A [Sacred Knight], yes. Rumor says he reached the mythic level sixty,” Holst replied. “Let’s hope their teams are more… farming inclined.”
The crowd became more tame after the three big houses made their entrance. Lord Vedras received less than half of House Gairon’s support, probably because of the tax disputes between Farcrest and the Vedras dukedom. He had brought three teams.
Duke Jorn’s presence almost caused the arena to become completely silent—Holst told me he was also a high-level Prestige Class, a Shadow Stalker.
“That sounds dangerous,” I pointed out.
“Sellen Jorn is one of the most dangerous men in the kingdom. His mere existence was enough for the king to create a whole new duchy,” Holst said. “Take an Assassin and a Shadow Fencer, mix them, double their powers, and then double them again. That’s a Shadow Stalker in a nutshell.”
I tried to imagine it. The Assassin who attacked the orphanage would have had a hard time with any class without a skill like my mana blades. I had been lucky to have a favorable matchup against him; otherwise, I might have been dead. His capacity to disable my movement was scarily effective. A man with the skills of an Assassin and a Shadow Fencer had dangerous implications.
“Prince Adrien wanted Sellen Jorn as his Master of Assassins, but he didn’t want to leave his people in the north,” Holst said. “Walls, doors, bars, locks, nothing can stop a Shadow Stalker. Only the woven barrier of several high-level Fortifiers can stop him. Or so it’s said.”
Gears turned inside my skull. I wondered if Duke Jorn was involved in the disappearance of the evidence of Raudhan’s poisoning. He certainly had the skill to move unnoticed through the Great Hall. Stealing a box with shards of glass would be a walk in the park for him.
The rest of the teams passed in a blur as my mind reviewed the party's events. Sellen Jorn was undoubtedly suspicious. His lack of presence was as unnerving as it was useful for an infiltration mission. Could he be involved in Raudhan’s poisoning? Lord Vedras had denied the existence of any co-conspirators, and we were almost entirely sure that Raudhan hadn’t been poisoned by Ashroot.
Duke Jorn's political positioning was hard to determine. The northern dukedoms were poor, and just like Farcrest, they served as a bulwark against the Monster Surges. Four families controlled most of the kingdom’s economy and politics. House Gairon, House Herran, House Osgiria, and the Royal Family. The northern dukedoms didn’t benefit from the current trade routes and wouldn’t directly benefit from a new trade route into the Kingdom of Tagabiria.
However, they would benefit from a closer relationship with the royal family.
Duke Jorn had no reason to poison Captain Kiln.
Ilya tugged the sleeve of my jacket, bringing me back to the present. The master of ceremonies was finishing a long speech about the legacy of Stephaniss of Farcrest, the previous lord of the city and the Marquis's grandfather. Even the Marquis seemed bored.
“Prince Adrien will draw the matches for the first round!” The master of ceremonies announced.
Prince Adrien came forward, and an assistant brought a glass bowl filled with small wooden rods. He put his hand in the bowl, picked one randomly, and passed it to his companion. The woman dressed in purple read it out loud, her voice magically amplified. Her pleasant contralto voice made me think she was a singer.
“House Nara versus…” she received the second wooden rod. “Lowell’s Orphanage!”
Just like Captain Kiln had warned me.
I didn’t expect us to be the opening fight. The other teams returned to the pavilion, and a group of Scribes carried the System Shrine Shard embedded in its copper nest to the center of the arena. I assumed it was there to ensure all participants met the requirements for the tournament.
“Let’s go, team,” I said.
We formed next to the Shrine Shard and in front of Lord Nara’s team. The master of ceremonies activated the blue orb, and the kids' names, classes, and levels appeared before us. Luckily, Lord Nara and I were exempt from the crystal ability. Being outed as a Runeweaver wasn’t part of my plans.
Belya Nara, Geomancer Lv.3
Arel Nara, Warrior Lv.5
Lino, Soldier Lv.9
Jan, Archer Lv.3
Aiwin, Courier Lv.7
Firana Aias, Wind Fencer Lv.1
Ilya, Hunter Lv.2
Zaon, Classless Lv.1
Wolf, Classless Lv.1
The System prompts might have been big enough for the crowd to read because a murmur rose from the stands. I didn’t need [Awareness] to understand the commotion. Half of my team was classless in a world where Classes were everything. Lord Nara also seemed to notice the discrepancy between our teams.
“I’m feeling generous today, Mister Caretaker. I will gladly accept your surrender and spare you the embarrassment if you apologize for wasting our time,” Lord Nara said with a mellow, totally fake voice. “You can save the kids the shame of losing in front of their countrymen.”
The master of ceremonies looked at me.
“What do you think, Ilya?” I asked.
“The team is ready, Mister Clarke. We fight,” she replied without any hint of doubt.
Despite Lord Nara’s clever expression, he was underestimating us. I couldn’t blame him. He had lived all his life in a world where value was determined by class and level. Developing an eye for people wasn’t as helpful as on Earth, where it could mean the difference between life and death.
“We fight,” I said.
“Don’t say I didn’t extend the courtesy of an honorable withdrawal,” Lord Nara grinned, his fox-like eyes turned into thin lines.
The master of ceremonies nodded.
“The Rules are simple. The team that loses the coin toss has to choose its first fighter, and then the winning team chooses its opponent. Then, the roles change. Every team has two picks and two counter picks, for a total of four fighters,” the master of ceremonies explained, pulling a gold coin from the pocket.
I nodded. There was a level of strategy involved in the pairing phase. I could pair Firana against their weakest member to ensure a vast point difference. Or I could choose Zaon to keep things equalized. If I were Lord Nara, I would leave the Lv.7 Courier outside the selection. As fast as they were, they weren’t a combatant Class, but on the other hand, even non-combatants could develop useful masteries.
Zaon had a good matchup against the Soldier and the Warrior, as their combat skills were on the ‘basic’ side of the spectrum. However, the Archer, the Geomancer, and the Courier could present a problem to him. Wolf also had a bad matchup against the Archer and the Geomancer because he relied on solid and static positioning to use his muscles. Ilya and Firana had good matchups against the enemy team, but the enemy Geomancer worried me the most. She wasn’t just an Advanced Class, but a relative of Lord Nara.
“Here goes the coin,” the master of ceremonies said. He threw it high and caught it mid-flight.
Lord Nara kindly offered me the call.
“Heads,” I replied with a grin.
“Heads,” the master of ceremonies said, revealing the coin.
[Awareness] didn’t disappoint, but I made a mental note to keep it hidden from Ilya. She wouldn’t be on board with blatant cheating, even if we had the disadvantage. As cunning as Ilya was, strategy and cheats were completely different.
Lord Nara huffed. “Lino, you go first.”
The Soldier kid stepped forward. He was tall, probably a year older than my kids, but [Awareness] told me he was nervous. Soldier Class was painfully close to no class at all.
“Zaon, you go first. Is that okay with you?” I said, hoping the combination of Light-Footed and Lv.2 Longsword Mastery would match a Lv.9 Soldier with a couple of skills under his sleeve.
Zaon nodded.
It was my turn to choose and Lord Nara’s turn to counter-pick. “Ilya, you go second,” I said.
Ilya came forward, prompting a laugh from the rival Fighter.
“Do you want to fight the gnome, Arel?” Lord Nara asked.
“Yes, my lord. I’m confident I can get a ten-point lead over a Gnome Hunter,” Arel Nara replied.
A vein popped on Ilya’s forehead.
“Good. I chose my cousin Arel Nara for the second fight,” Lord Nara said.
Then, Lord Nara selected the Archer boy for the third fight, which put me in a tough spot. The Archer and the Geomancer were hard matchups for Wolf, and I lacked a fifth or sixth member to play around it. Nonetheless, the Archers weren’t known for their vast arsenal of skills.
“Wolf, you go against him,” I said.
Wolf nodded.
“Which leaves us with the last pair,” Lord Nara said with a mocking smile.
“Firana, you go last,” I said.
“Belya, my daughter, will be my last pick,” Lord Nara replied.
The dueling pairs were ready.
“So be it. The tournament's first match will be between Lino the Soldier and Zaon the Elf,” the master of ceremonies said, his voice suddenly amplified again as the Scribes took the System Shrine orb away. “Contestants, please go get your equipment. May the System bless you all.”
____________
First Prev Next (Patreon)
____________
Discord Royal Road Patreon

Helena - Courtlady of Lannisport

Part 1

Reddit Account: SunstriderAlar
Discord Tag: u/SunstriderAlar
Name and House: Helena
Age: 22
Cultural Group: Westerman
Appearance: Helena is a young woman with soft doe-eyes, and unmistakable curling, golden hair. Raised by smallfolk, and Septa’s she wears her hair up and away from her face to ensure she does not let it get wet while cleaning or in her mouth while singing. She has delicate, porcelain, pale skin and cloudy soft blue eyes. No taller than 5’5” and is most often dressed in conservative simple fashions gathered by herself, or more elegant options gifted to her by a doting patron for formal events. Never shy to present her opinion, Helena has seen the world change, and her place in it numerous times. She is unafraid to do what she must, but knows the role of a woman.
Helena prefers to wear blue and yellow, the colours of Lord Swyft’s old sigil even though she has not lived in Cornfield for many years, and has no personal attachment to the house. Her real love though is unique broaches, and hairpins, different pins reveal different favours or stylings for different lords. She does enjoy crafting dresses as well, when the rare bolt of fabric comes her way she enjoys sewing and tailoring. She is often seen carrying a unique wooden six stringed lyre, or a three stringed lute; the former the cause for her name the Six Eyed Singer. She daps herself with lavender water most mornings, and cleans her teeth with mint, and rose now that she is employed by the Lannisters of Lannisport. Clean teeth are the hallmark of a charming, easy smile to make hearts of men and women alike flutter.
Trait: Elusive Shadow
Skill(s): Espionage, Devious, Schemer, Covert, Rumourmonger
Talent(s): Storyteller, lyre playing, deft fingers
Negative Trait(s): N/A
Starting Title(s): The Six-Eyed Singer, Septa Morgan, Jinny of Aegon’s Rest
Starting Location: Opening event

Part 2: Biography

Swyft Sept (3AC - 15AC)
Helena’s early life began in the Sept of Cornfield where her mother begged the Septa’s to take her. Dutifully, though reluctantly, they agreed, for what else were they to do, and where else was the girl to go. To the Governess of Cornfield, under the sanctity of the confessional, the woman, aching from the pain of birth and shame, confessed that the little girl was the bastard of Lord Swyft. The Governess, doubtful but knowing the man was not without vice, kept the secret to herself and allowed the girl to remain. The woman, who’s name was never revealed even to the Septa's, fled into the night shortly after never to be seen again. Helena was then, as promised, raised by the septas and the Governess of House Swyft. She learns basic literacy from the Seven Pointed Star with the Sisters and numbers from the Governess. Alongside her studies, she was put to work on chores like maid work, baking, cooking, cleaning, and serving Lord Swyft.
In 11AC, a travelling minstrel named The Lying Lyre arrived at Cornfield. A dashing young man with a shock of blonde curls that tumbled down his back like a mullet captivated Helena with his songs of far-off lands and noble families. In particular he sang of the Maiden’s Bay Tourney, the feats of House Targaryen, and after some time the Field of Fire and the failings of House Lannister. House Swyft was wealthy, and the Liar’s talents earned him much and more coin from the silver mines.
Helena of an age where curiosity ruled a child’s mind was enamoured with the man and his songs. She took up practising the lyre with him, and discovered that while no maestro, she had deft fingers and a mind for lyrics. Impressed by her interest and talent, the Liar gifted her a lyre before he left for future profits in far off lands. Some years of practice though, and a natural storyteller and rumourmonger Helena combined tales of the Seven Pointed Star and was invited to sing in the sept and even twice for Lord Swyft.
Six Eyed Singer (15AC - 20AC)
It was not to last though and following the slaughter in the Kingswood, the line of House Swyft was extinguished. Not wanting to test the new residents of Cornfield, the Warriors Sons and Poor Fellows, after all, all men have vice, she left Cornfield, and took to singing on the road. Going under the name Lyrebird, Helena played and sang for her coin and lodgings, a young girl protected only by being seen when she wanted and an elusive shadow when she did not.
Times on the road were not easy and The Lyrebird drew much attention. This necessitated the need for another alter ego and after a year on the road and towns and villages through the West were soon visited by the travelling Septa Morgan. The Septa heard confessions and sins, gave forgiveness and offered small advice to the poor and needy. She spared coins where she could and allowed Helena to remain covert. It did not matter to most that she was no real septa, she wore the robes, knew the words, and offered as a good moral compass to children. For most in the far flung reaches of the West she was enough.
Being raised in the faith though telling a perpetual lie about being a sister of the cloth was a little too much to bear for Helena. After a year with the reputation of Septa Morgan growing through the small folks of small villages, the Septa soon faded away. Instead Jinny of Aegon’s Rest started coming to smaller castles; Turnbury, Redbramble, Parren Hall, Oldstars and the like. She took on odd jobs cleaning, cooking, teaching a daughter to read or a son to do his numbers. She was after all no threat, knew her letters and numbers herself, and was capable of scheming many a septa or fatherly gatesman to let her in.
Jinny of Aegon’s Rest became a traveller through the keeps of the Westerlands. She heard the tales from children and small folk alike. She had never meant to undertake espionage, but her place inside various courts across the land, and her talent for being in the right place at the right time meant she was an unfortunate witness to many a courtly intrigue. As her small gifts earned her again a broad reputation she would be traded between greater lords. Soon she was playing for the elite, and earning the rewards that came with it. Helena of Cornfield once again took a new name, the Six Eyed Singer, which she quickly used to escape her courtly life and take again to the road as a travelling minstrel.
The Strawberry Tourney and Ball (20AC - Current)
The Six Eyed Singer formed a little bard troupe, nothing extravagant, she wasn’t playing for the Lannisters or the Targaryen’s yet, but enough to provide several shows across the Westerlands, Reach, and former Kingdom of the Trident. Her troupe, much like she had been accidentally, was devious, and while she or they sang, pockets were pinched, and many houses were looted. Her troupe when apart played for all the minor and middle nobles of the Trident and of the Reach too now. She and they were as much a part of the debauchery of the West as any of the wealthy merchants. There was no party too scandalous, no whorehouse unsung, no court too far flung for the right price and the West had gold burning through pockets.
The Six Eyed Singer was not the only bard with a troupe though and soon through the Kingdoms after Aegon’s conquest artisans, bards, and mummers alike filled the world with talent. In 20AC the Songbird made its mark, and with a little bit of fun, a lot of resentment for nobility, and an ingrained childlike sense of chaos, the first of the Songbirds’ letters sang. The voice of the little people flooded across the western coast of the Iron Throne. Lord Belaerys’ dragon had eaten several children whilst growing fat and hungry. Lancel Lannister had claimed the maidenhood of his chambermaid, and sired a bastard all at the age of just fifteen. Lord Frey schemed against his overlord for a free and independent Trident once again. Was all of it true? Impossible to say, but there were enough truths to turn heads, and the songs of the Songbird began to cause chaos in the Westerlands most of all. The Six Eyed Singer and her troupe played through it all, they were bards, but the Songbird was the most famous one of all; not their little merry band.
The Six Eyed Singer though continued her good work, and with her reputation came an invite to participate at the Strawberry Tourney and Ball alongside the other bardic troupes of the West and Reach. She was not so famous as to be alone, merely enough to earn an invite, and a paid job. The planning was years long, and with new songs and tunes came new rumours. While the Six-Eyed Singer played songs such as Fleece-eye, Dornish Sour Grapes, and Lion of the West, the Songbird worked their chaos.
A ripple pulsed through the tourney, first a cheater in the joust was revealed, Ser Byron who was disqualified as a result. Then a second cheater, this time in the melee, then a third cheater again in the joust Lord Payne had accepted a bribe from Lord Reyne to fall early. Cheating in the tourney was just the start, cheating in the bedroom of the ball was the main affair. Here the Songbird revealed three affairs; Lords Serret and Lyden were both fathers to children on women , not their wives. While Lady Serret and Lady Ruskin were bedfriends behind their husbands’ backs. There was one final scandal though, which was revealed to all at the tourney. Septon Karron was no true anointed Septon, and worse there was legitimacy to foulness surrounding young boys who served him.
The chaos broke over the tourney and all the artisans in attendance were forced to flee. Yet, all was not lost, for Lord Gerold Lannister of Lannisport had taken his eye to Helena and her playing. He offered her a job, for he wished to be a great sponsor of art in the new Seven Kingdoms. So it was she came to a courtly position, advising the Lord Lannister on matters of fine art, musicians, mummery, and all manner of artisanal dealings.
Timeline
3AC - Helena is born in the Sept of Cornfield, her mother a woman from Silverhill who begs the septa’s to take the girl in. She reveals her identity to the Governess of House Swyft, and claims the child is Lord Swyft’s bastard. She leaves shortly after giving birth and recovering.
4-10AC - She is raised in the cloister with the sisters, her Septa mothers raising her lessons on reading from the Seven Pointed Star, and numbers from the Governess to ensure that she can do basic arithmetic. She takes basic lessons in scullery maid work, baking, and general service work for old Lord Swyft.
11AC - A travelling minstrel, The Lying Lyre, comes through Cornfield to sing songs of the tourney of Maiden’s Bay, House Targaryen, and the Field of Fire. He takes a liking to the young Helena, and gifts her a lyre. He stays in Cornfield for some time, both because it is lucrative and because he enjoys teaching the young girl.
12-14AC - The Lying Lyre departs Cornfield but leaves a talented and hardworking Helena with the sisters once more. She takes to singing sections of the Seven Pointed Star, and even performs for Lord Swyft a few times.
15AC - The House of Swyft dies out and Helena, unaware of her claimed parentage but with a talent for song leaves the cloister and takes to the road, not trusting the new Warriors Sons or Poor Fellows. She uses the name Lyrebird and sings and plays her lyre for coin to survive.
16AC - After a year on the road Helena takes up the name Septa Morgan and takes to hearing confessions of the poor and needy across the Westerlands. Many of them need guidance and wearing her septa robes she is the perfect person to hear them. She is no real Septa but no amount of explaining the technicality of that stops people asking her to forgive them.
17AC - Her reputation as Septa Morgan grows a little too heavy on her shoulders, and Helena takes to wearing more common clothes, moving from keep to keep and working as a barmaid, scullery girl, and baker amongst other professions. She goes by the name Jinny of Aegon’s Rest.
18AC - Chance takes its favour on her, and Helena with her simple lyre is invited to play at a feast in Lannisport. Dressed now as a travelling minstrel she performs for the gathered nobles and earns herself invitations to other keeps. With her generous benefactors she hires a small troupe to perform her songs across the West.
19AC - Travelling the Westerlands, Helena under the moniker The Six Eyed Singer, takes her talents for being present at feasts and gatherings of all sorts.
20AC - Rumour of The Songbird takes hold, and the West is awash in the voice of the little people.
21AC - The Strawberry Tourney and Ball unfolds and Helena’s skills earn her favour with Lord Gerold Lannister.
22AC - Lord Gerold Lannister recognising her many talents picked her up to be one of the primary serving women in his House. His eye for artistic endeavours endeared him to her enough for a comfortable place as a favoured bard, painter, educator, and common court woman.

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.]

Live Music

• JC Hatfield Trio, Mill Top Tavern, Tuesday, May 14th, 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm,
• Joshua "Tennessee" Worthy, Pierre's Pub, Tuesday, May 14th, 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm,
• Damon Slaughter, O.C. White's Seafood, Tuesday, May 14th, 5:30 pm – 8:30 pm,
• Jim Johnston, Prohibition Kitchen, Tuesday, May 14th, 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm,
• Smokin' Joe Schauer, Ann O'Malley's Deli and Pub, Tuesday, May 14th, 6:00 pm – 10:00 pm,
• Jazzy Blue Band, Cortesse's Bistro, Tuesday, May 14th, 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm.

Romanza: North Florida Saxophone Quartet

Romanza Festivale presents the North Florida Saxophone Quartet as they perform a variety of familiar music in a live concert in the Courtyard of St. Cyprian's Episcopal Church, on Sunday, May 14, 2024, beginning at 6:30 p.m.
The four saxophonists have each played with various ensembles worldwide, and North Florida music lovers have been delighted that each has made playing in this quartet a priority. They choose music from several genres — from classical to Disney — to create a lively show that audiences always enjoy. While the members of the North Florida Saxophone Quartet certainly focus on the sax, all of them are proficient with other woodwind instruments, such as the flute, oboe, clarinet, and bassoon.

• Paula Prince performs on the soprano saxophone and graduated from the Cincinnati Conservatory of Music.
• Charles Almeida performs on the alto saxophone. He served in both the U.S. Army military band and the U.S. Air Force military band. In addition, he has played with several well-known big bands such as Harry James and Tommy Dorsey.
• Robbie Zukauskas plays tenor saxophone and played with the U.S. Army Band and the Florida National Guard Band. Robbie studied music at the University of Central Florida.
• Bill Prince plays the baritone saxophone. He's a professor emeritus at the University of North Florida and arranges most of the music for the ensemble. Bill has also performed around the world with famous bands and as a solo artist.

Guests are asked to bring lawn chairs.
Admission: Free.
When: Sunday, May 14, 2024, from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Where: St. Cyprian's Episcopal Church, 37 Lovett St. in downtown St. Augustine. The concert happens in the courtyard and attendees are encouraged to bring their portable chairs.
This event is part of the Romanza Festivale of Music and the Arts, an annual festival of two weeks of historical, cultural, and creative events celebrating all things St. Augustine. From May 3 -19, the nation's oldest city will be jam-packed with music and dance concerts, living history events and historical tours, live theater, and art exhibits.

2025 Pin Up Paws Calendar Contest

• May 14 @ 12:00 am - 11:59 pm
• 2025 Pin Up Paws Calendar Contest
• It’s that time of year! The St. Augustine Humane Society Annual Contest for the 2025 Pin Up Paws Calendar begins at 8:00am on May 1, 2024. The “Sweet Things” themed calendar will showcase the winning pets in all their adorableness.
• Submit a photo of your pet and start rooting for votes, each vote worth $1.00. Voting is May 1, 2024 at 8:00am through Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 8:00pm. And, you can vote as many times and for as many pets as you wish!
• The Pet with the most votes becomes the cover pet for the 2025 Sweet Things calendar. The next twelve pets with the next highest amount of votes will be a monthly pin up pet. All pets will enjoy a professional photo shoot with award-winning photographer Addison Fitzgerald.
• Prizes: *First-Place pet (along with being on the cover) also receives a $100.00 gift certificate to the Columbia Restaurant, two tickets to the Pin Up Paws Party, and two copies of the calendar. *Second-place winners receive a $50.00 Columbia Restaurant Gift Certificate and two calendars. *Twelve runners-up will be featured with their submission photos and a description. *The top 80 pet fundraisers will have a small photo on a collage page.
• The 2025 calendar will be revealed at the Pin Up Paws Party on Thursday, October 24, 2024 at The White Room.2025 Pin Up Paws Calendar Contest

Art in Public Spaces Exhibition

• May 14 @ 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
• FREE
• Stop by the Rotunda Gallery of the St. Johns County Administration Building to view the Art in Public Spaces Exhibition … Fair Winds to Elysium: William Bartram’s Travels in East Florida, 1774-1778. Presented by the St. Johns Cultural Council, the artwork celebrates the 250th Anniversary of William Bartram’s Travels in St. Johns County. The exhibition features the work of 24 local artists whose pieces were inspired by the flora and fauna of St. Johns County’s natural landscapes.
• Free and open to the public.
• Dates Time: Monday – Friday — April 16 through May 29, 2024. 8:00am-5:00pm
• Join us on Tuesday, April 16 at 8:30am for an exhibition preview prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting. Or …. Wednesday, April 17 at 5:30pm for the evening reception.
• Participating artists include: Amy Hemphill Dove, Bob Arbogast, Byron Capo, Carole Adams, Catherine Avery St. Jean, Cindy Wilson, Dan Voellinger, Debra Mixon Holliday, Gail Beveridge, Gail Brown, Herrick Smith, Lauren Ehlers, Louise Meredith, Margaret Galloway, Martha Ferguson, Nikki Rakov, Paula Pascucci, Rhonda K. Lovett, Siv Spurgeon, Stephen Mullen, Stephen Rosche, Susan Miller, Teri Tompkins, and Terry Bottom.Art in Public Spaces Exhibition

Senior Yoga

• May 14 @ 9:45 am - 10:45 am
• Senior Yoga
• May 14 @ 9:45 am - 10:45 am
• Recurring Event FREE
• Looking for a Senior Yoga class to strengthen your core and increase your flexibility? Join SJC Parks & Rec at the Solomon Calhoun Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday & Thursday mornings. Ages 50+.
• Offering eight-week yoga sessions, each consisting of 16 classes.
• Date Time: Tuesdays & Thursdays — *March 5 through May 28, 2024 9:45am-10:45am *Please Note: No class on March 19, April 16, 18, 23 and 25.
• Learn various yoga skills through a combination of physical exercises, mental meditation, and breathing techniques. Increase your flexibility and muscle strength, plus reduce stress.
• Participants — wear comfortable exercise attire. Please bring your own yoga mat, towel and water bottle to stay hydrated along with other items the instructor suggests.
• Space is limited to 50 participants!
• Cost: Zero for each 8-week session each session consists of 16 classes.

I am unable to post the sources because they are getting flagged as spam since they are all similar in name. So please visit this site for the list.
Written out urls here tinyurl.com/yjkw32kd

For future events please visit the Discord.

https://discord.gg/NG4eZSWAgR

Live Music

• JC Hatfield Trio, Mill Top Tavern, Tuesday, May 14th, 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm,
• Joshua "Tennessee" Worthy, Pierre's Pub, Tuesday, May 14th, 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm,
• Damon Slaughter, O.C. White's Seafood, Tuesday, May 14th, 5:30 pm – 8:30 pm,
• Jim Johnston, Prohibition Kitchen, Tuesday, May 14th, 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm,
• Smokin' Joe Schauer, Ann O'Malley's Deli and Pub, Tuesday, May 14th, 6:00 pm – 10:00 pm,
• Jazzy Blue Band, Cortesse's Bistro, Tuesday, May 14th, 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm.

Romanza: North Florida Saxophone Quartet

Romanza Festivale presents the North Florida Saxophone Quartet as they perform a variety of familiar music in a live concert in the Courtyard of St. Cyprian's Episcopal Church, on Sunday, May 14, 2024, beginning at 6:30 p.m.
The four saxophonists have each played with various ensembles worldwide, and North Florida music lovers have been delighted that each has made playing in this quartet a priority. They choose music from several genres — from classical to Disney — to create a lively show that audiences always enjoy. While the members of the North Florida Saxophone Quartet certainly focus on the sax, all of them are proficient with other woodwind instruments, such as the flute, oboe, clarinet, and bassoon.

• Paula Prince performs on the soprano saxophone and graduated from the Cincinnati Conservatory of Music.
• Charles Almeida performs on the alto saxophone. He served in both the U.S. Army military band and the U.S. Air Force military band. In addition, he has played with several well-known big bands such as Harry James and Tommy Dorsey.
• Robbie Zukauskas plays tenor saxophone and played with the U.S. Army Band and the Florida National Guard Band. Robbie studied music at the University of Central Florida.
• Bill Prince plays the baritone saxophone. He's a professor emeritus at the University of North Florida and arranges most of the music for the ensemble. Bill has also performed around the world with famous bands and as a solo artist.

Guests are asked to bring lawn chairs.
Admission: Free.
When: Sunday, May 14, 2024, from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Where: St. Cyprian's Episcopal Church, 37 Lovett St. in downtown St. Augustine. The concert happens in the courtyard and attendees are encouraged to bring their portable chairs.
This event is part of the Romanza Festivale of Music and the Arts, an annual festival of two weeks of historical, cultural, and creative events celebrating all things St. Augustine. From May 3 -19, the nation's oldest city will be jam-packed with music and dance concerts, living history events and historical tours, live theater, and art exhibits.

2025 Pin Up Paws Calendar Contest

• May 14 @ 12:00 am - 11:59 pm
• 2025 Pin Up Paws Calendar Contest
• It’s that time of year! The St. Augustine Humane Society Annual Contest for the 2025 Pin Up Paws Calendar begins at 8:00am on May 1, 2024. The “Sweet Things” themed calendar will showcase the winning pets in all their adorableness.
• Submit a photo of your pet and start rooting for votes, each vote worth $1.00. Voting is May 1, 2024 at 8:00am through Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 8:00pm. And, you can vote as many times and for as many pets as you wish!
• The Pet with the most votes becomes the cover pet for the 2025 Sweet Things calendar. The next twelve pets with the next highest amount of votes will be a monthly pin up pet. All pets will enjoy a professional photo shoot with award-winning photographer Addison Fitzgerald.
• Prizes: *First-Place pet (along with being on the cover) also receives a $100.00 gift certificate to the Columbia Restaurant, two tickets to the Pin Up Paws Party, and two copies of the calendar. *Second-place winners receive a $50.00 Columbia Restaurant Gift Certificate and two calendars. *Twelve runners-up will be featured with their submission photos and a description. *The top 80 pet fundraisers will have a small photo on a collage page.
• The 2025 calendar will be revealed at the Pin Up Paws Party on Thursday, October 24, 2024 at The White Room.2025 Pin Up Paws Calendar Contest

Art in Public Spaces Exhibition

• May 14 @ 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
• FREE
• Stop by the Rotunda Gallery of the St. Johns County Administration Building to view the Art in Public Spaces Exhibition … Fair Winds to Elysium: William Bartram’s Travels in East Florida, 1774-1778. Presented by the St. Johns Cultural Council, the artwork celebrates the 250th Anniversary of William Bartram’s Travels in St. Johns County. The exhibition features the work of 24 local artists whose pieces were inspired by the flora and fauna of St. Johns County’s natural landscapes.
• Free and open to the public.
• Dates Time: Monday – Friday — April 16 through May 29, 2024. 8:00am-5:00pm
• Join us on Tuesday, April 16 at 8:30am for an exhibition preview prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting. Or …. Wednesday, April 17 at 5:30pm for the evening reception.
• Participating artists include: Amy Hemphill Dove, Bob Arbogast, Byron Capo, Carole Adams, Catherine Avery St. Jean, Cindy Wilson, Dan Voellinger, Debra Mixon Holliday, Gail Beveridge, Gail Brown, Herrick Smith, Lauren Ehlers, Louise Meredith, Margaret Galloway, Martha Ferguson, Nikki Rakov, Paula Pascucci, Rhonda K. Lovett, Siv Spurgeon, Stephen Mullen, Stephen Rosche, Susan Miller, Teri Tompkins, and Terry Bottom.Art in Public Spaces Exhibition

Senior Yoga

• May 14 @ 9:45 am - 10:45 am
• Senior Yoga
• May 14 @ 9:45 am - 10:45 am
• Recurring EventFREE
• Looking for a Senior Yoga class to strengthen your core and increase your flexibility? Join SJC Parks & Rec at the Solomon Calhoun Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday & Thursday mornings. Ages 50+.
• Offering eight-week yoga sessions, each consisting of 16 classes.
• Date Time: Tuesdays & Thursdays — *March 5 through May 28, 2024 9:45am-10:45am *Please Note: No class on March 19, April 16, 18, 23 and 25.
• Learn various yoga skills through a combination of physical exercises, mental meditation, and breathing techniques. Increase your flexibility and muscle strength, plus reduce stress.
• Participants — wear comfortable exercise attire. Please bring your own yoga mat, towel and water bottle to stay hydrated along with other items the instructor suggests.
• Space is limited to 50 participants!
• Cost: Zero for each 8-week session each session consists of 16 classes.

I am unable to post the sources because they are getting flagged as spam since they are all similar in name. So please visit this site for the list.
Written out urls here tinyurl.com/yjkw32kd

For future events please visit the Discord.

https://discord.gg/NG4eZSWAgR

I felt myself getting a little heated in today's CASA group discussions about "trauma." For every 10 times you'll hear that word, "resilience" will come up maybe once. I think most of us are aware of how arm-chairy and buzzworthy trauma and therapy have become. It's one of the latest cultural trends that facilitate a fluidity to presumed-more-informed conversation, without the practice of developing finer lines of understanding and distinction.
On the basis of your invocation of "trauma" you can rush to provide "help" and "services" and begin blaming an incredible amount of "mental health issues" or "unresolved childhoods." It's literally the cliche of a freshman's behavior after enrolling in their first college psychology course on blast. They've already invoked unsubstantiated pseudo-science and pop-culture explicitly not psychology as tools to provide frameworks for understanding your families. When someone infers substance abuse from a story just because the accusation was levied or any kind of drug was referenced at any level, their conclusions or assumptions go unchecked. It's predictably baking a recipe for an unnecessary mess on top of whatever the family is going through.
You can feel the tension every time you speak in "checking" ways. This happens to me routinely. One of the presenters spoke to the biased and incomplete ways that foster parents or aggravated family members might speak to the nature of the case or anyone's character. I pointed out that case managers can leave out details and massage stories to fit their ends as well. That got ignored and we moved right along. It's a real concern, and you need to know how to protect your relationship with someone who might be specifically directed to undermine your effort to advocate with the evidence.
But it doesn't feel "pleasant" or "decent" when you "want to believe the best" about your colleagues. Is it less true? Absolutely not. I was literally forced into that position from predatory supervisors and watched dipshit coworkers skip along those disingenuous lines without hesitation. Anecdotes fawning over better-inclined and capable FCMs do nothing to erase that.
So I started thinking about "discomfort" broadly. Another concept that's been wholesale abused. We needed to be way too on guard for what or whether we said might be a "micro aggression" or would cause someone to feel "unsafe" or "uncomfortable." Again, our pop psychology and propensity to overstate the noisiest out-ragers, made it so critical thinking and doubt became sinful in and of themselves. Facts don't matter in that space. "Being heard" is afforded only if you're claiming victimhood, but then, only victimhood of a certain type. The own-goal that is reactionary politics when you forgo any genuine attempt at taking someone's, almost certainly mostly irrational but nonetheless real, concern seriously is the ongoing consequence we get to suffer.
I think the more you practice observing conversational patterns, word choices, and trends, you can start to see previously "abstract" things considerably more acutely. One thing I notice is a propensity for "moving right along." I don't care what the topic is, there's a "normal" pace and pater that is preferred. Violate that, and it's time to move on. Point out the failings of the people you're supposed to trust most or even ingratiate yourself to? Let's move right along into the next module, as we all know there's nothing much more to say about that.
Another pattern I notice is the "taken aback pause." It's not precisely a reaction to being "offended," but it's a stark enough detail or way of relaying information that who you're speaking with was not prepared to engage that intensely. If they're quick, it'll be a brink-of-condescending acknowledgement before moving-right-along, or if they're not quick, it'll be a placating obfuscating of what you said to "even things out."Again, these are imprecise norms of conversational behavior around the particulars of one culture at one point in time, but they're real and of consequence whether or not you can see them.
When we use the word "bias," we let ourselves off the hook on the myriad ways it manifests. We let "bias" obscure in the opposite way that we let "trauma" obscure. Trauma is abused to over-explain what should be considered a necessary series of responses or consequences. Bias is abused to overlook how deeply it colors your propensity to engage that over-explaining behavior. You are biased, first and foremost, to your subjective experience of reality. In my experience, almost no one is that clued into their own flow of experience. Even the ones that are, or are showing the most growth and evidence, struggle, and will struggle indefinitely. This includes myself.
That's the point, though. You need the struggle to keep your wits about you. You need appropriate stressors against the things that will help you grow and incorporate. By definition, norms put that insistence to the side so we can all find a baseline mutual understanding to move right along down. The more cliched you sound, if you don't have a reflex to pause and pull back, the more you're training yourself to believe and act on "just whatever it is you say." You're a circular and totalitarian monster by default.
Add to that, you may not have any real ability or willingness to recognize how many cliches you truly are under the spell of. This is what the unironic attempts around discussions of "privilege" do a generally miserable job of explaining. We all have privileges up and down hierarchies and competencies and dozens of other metrics we fluidly transition through all day. None are necessarily going to jar you awake or indicate there's anything worth examining on their own. Your cohort speaks your language. Your education taught you the "right" things. Your hobbies and interests conform to a person of your state and stature. "It's just how things are done."
This provokes people's insecurity as a standing state of a lack of readiness. When you poke people, you'll find they don't have "real" reasons for their behavior, beliefs, or words. It's all been handed to them. They're a series of unconscious forces they're more or less molding to because that's how our brains work. Your brain doesn't care what it forms a pattern around, just that it can do so. There's survival reasons for this, as well as a story of basic capacities to function regardless of the nature of the environment that's all-but certain to otherwise kill you if you can't figure it out.
I, routinely, provoke that insecurity. I've learned to show considerably less ambivalence about the person after they've been provoked, but it happens just as an ongoing and predictable course of my practice. This is my practice. I analyze. I pull back. I try to identify and speak to patterns, even if they're abstract, but certainly concrete enough for me to anticipate them and work with or around them. I know what kind of response I need built into what I can reliably anticipate is going to be yours. I know how to piss off and get ignored by "the internet," and I know how to illicit a thousand likes. What's important to me is that I'm speaking as closely to my real perspective or agenda as possible, and not being driven by an elusive brain chemical game subject to the mercy of algorithms or inarticulate desires to unhealthily fit in.
I want to fit in, but with an ever-winnowing type of person. I want to be less-wrong in the information I share, but not at the expense of someone's capacity to hear it or learn from it if I can't be bothered to temper how I say it. I want to grow in my capacity to accept people, but not at the expense of their obligation to better account for and relay their own experience. I've been told my whole life that I'm not allowed to expect the same things from other people as I might of myself. I think this is fundamentally wrong and condescending. I think I should maintain the expectation while doing everything in my power to reduce the barriers to any one person getting to whatever heights you think I've managed or been born with.
Here again, we stay lost. How do you remove barriers you can't see or might even be dispositionally against even acknowledging can exist altogether? How many "boot straps" types can even be bothered to acknowledge the impact of the villages they're living in? How many "deeply empathic" people would entertain pairing their sensibilities to the word "toxic" under any circumstance? It's pretty easy, now, for me to see when my forthright manner acts as too blunt an instrument. Can you see where your baseline disposition and sympathies cloud your judgment and capacity to act more accountably?
I feel like "accountable" itself is poorly understood. Just count! Count the disquieting contradictory thought. Count the intensity, frequency, and severity of the feelings. Count the attempts to mitigate or times you recognized forgoing to do so. Accountability doesn't mean wildly wielding an axe to bring down dramatic consequences upon everything and everyone that wasn't noticed until now. It's just asking yourself, over and over again, what can I control about this situation? What can I act on that speaks to my values and perception?
Let's take the real world example of me and Byron. I can't control his perception of what he thought he was doing in service to the kid. I can't control his awareness of any creeping mental health issues that might have arisen. I can't control whether or not he responds affirmatively to my new boundaries. I could control telling him what those boundaries were altogether, so I did. I can affirm that I'm only going to communicate along the lines that hopefully help the boundary conditions get met before I'm willing to get more colloquial or back to friendly. I can respect that he told me our friendship is "invaluable." I can't truthfully say I think we'd be using that word in a mutually understood way until I see practical, tangible effects upon my life that counteract where I feel I am as a direct result of my expression of friendship getting grossly taken advantage of.
Until then, I'll treat him like I would any client. Show me. I'll patiently-enough nod along, provide whatever perspective or reframe that I can, and remain open to demonstrated behavior changes. I don't have to throw myself back into his fire. If I'm going to claim a desire to protect and maintain genuine friendships or care for those in my life, I'm not going to treat myself with the ambivalence I see others suffer from themselves every day.
I choose that level of discomfort. I only mildly complain today, as it's gotten dramatically better, about doing things alone and never having anyone to hang out with. Byron was my go-to spot for killing time or hanging out. Not once in my free time have I said, "You know, fuck my boundary, let's hang out there!" How could I look myself in the mirror? How could I advocate for you establishing better boundaries with people in your life? How could I ignore what I would characterize as gleeful and willful defiance of doing "better" than playing out battered-wife excuse making? I will not play-act friendship with someone who can't be bothered to work as hard on themselves or in service to me as I've been for them. That's not the kind of friend I am, so it's not the one I'll let back in lightly.
What's normal, though? No matter how bad someone fucks you, forgive and pretend to forget, right? They're "family." Life's too short. It is what it is. They didn't mean to or weren't aware. That's not who they were in the past. Holding grudges is unhealthy. Your insecurities around being isolated or alone betray you. Your obligation to play along and appease your mutual network takes over. Whether any real healing or mutual understanding comes into the equation is perfectly mute because we need to just move right along and "love each other."
I watch that dance justify literally every conceivable level of atrocity. It is the exact same self-servicing motivatedly ignorant pattern. From your god's behavior right on down through your secret satisfaction and smirk at punishing your pet a little too aggressively just that one time. What you don't account for counts on you to carry out its consequences. And you are, every day, in big and small ways, and it's predictable and fixable, but only with stuff like this. You have to own it. You have to "yes, and" like it's an improv class. You have to perpetually entertain the thought that you are a misguided monster, but that fact doesn't have to dictate your behavior going forward nor need to illicit some special amount of stress or talking in circles.
Then you might have a prayer of genuinely helping anything, because you see how you're otherwise fucking it up within yourself. You can resist the insistence to move past meaningful details. You can point to specific repeatable demonstrations of your values. You can see other people responding to your confidence of relatable recognizable capacity, and not the shadow game of peacocking virtue signaling and mantra echoing.
I will spend thousands of dollars, use all my tools, and spend every waking hour I have trying to help. I think most people I've met would say the same thing. Who is actually doing so? And in service to whom? Do you trust what drives them? Do you see equitable put in get out dynamics? Or is it codepedence? Or insecurity? Or some noble story of infinite sacrifice and unconditional love?
I'm willing to set the conditions because I expect better than what's normal of and for myself. Were circumstances reversed, I wouldn't treat you as I've been treated, and most importantly, have the demonstrated behavior from myself to trust. I've spent the time and money. I've opened the conversations. I've challenged the mismanaged powers and privileges. I've risen to the challenge of creating circumstances that inch me closer to what I actually want or think is better versus what's expected of me. It never ends. Every second you pretend otherwise, you disappear, and I have to fit your abstract abdication into my specific constructs.

Hello, I am trying boric acid for the first time and I am extremely nervous as they are pretty controversial. I am also a redhead with already naturally sensitive skin. I got the AZO brand with aloe in it for hopes of not dealing with a burning sensation, however i just put one in about 20 minutes ago and I am already starting to feel like I have to urinate, but when I try I cant. I am scared that when I do, it is going to burn. Is this normal?? Also, has anyone had issues with it being irritating in the beginning but it still cured the issue? and have you used it since it caused irritation? Some people say the irritation is normal, but it still works for them.

Heresy is not native to the world; it is but a contrivance. All things can be conjoined
I’ve seen similar thoughts to this floating around, but not put together in exactly this way. And while I don’t think my theory is the most likely, I *do* think we have almost two months until the DLC, so I’m going to throw it out there anyway.
As a community, we seem to have largely accepted that Messmer is Marika’s child, which makes a lot of sense. He (presumably) calls her (presumably) mother, he has her statue behind him, and that Miyazaki interview (https://www.ign.com/articles/hidetaka-miyazaki-elden-ring-shadow-of-the-erdtree-interview) says that “Messmer stands on equal footing to these other demigods and children of Marika.”
But the phrasing of that has always stood out to me. It seems to very deliberately not say that Messmer is one of Marika’s children, just that he’s of equal significance to them. This could, of course, be a quirk of the translation, or an attempt to avoid spoilers about Maragon, or simply nothing. But what if Messmer isn’t one of Marika’s children, at least not in the sense that Godwyn is, or Morgott is, or even the Carian step-kids are? What if the closest equivalent to Messmer is not a rebellious son like Mohg or Rykard but someone entirely else? What if it’s Radagon?

Law of Regression

Radagon spends his whole life trying to embody the ideals of the Golden Order. And I do mean embody–even before he took the Elden Ring into his torso, he was bringing Caria into the fold by marriage, becoming a more complete champion by learning sorceries and incantations, and, if his prominence in the Stormcaller Church is any indication, casting his body in GO-sanctioned dragon cult lightning. It’s not enough for him to support Marika’s Golden Order: He has to be it.
There’s that (really excellent) Sinclair Lore video that goes into the psychological and metaphorical implications of Radagon chasing perfection. I, instead, will be focusing on space magic bullshit. What if a lord has to embody the order they preside over? I mean this in a political sense, like the theater of Putin hunting bears shirtless to show that his government is tough, but also in a metaphysical sense, that the lord is sustaining their order by exemplifying it. After all, the Elden Ring itself seems to stand for both the political rule and natural laws of the Lands Between, and changes to the (physical?) makeup of the ring can warp those pretty wildly. It would track that the Elden Lord would have similar rules, and what the lord embodies ends up affecting the age they rule in pretty fundamental ways. This could explain Melina asking you about your principles and ambitions while leveling up: your Tarnished’s physical attributes end up defining the type of Elden Lord you will be and the shape of your order.
This is a bit of a reach, but we can kinda see this in the other Elden Lords we encounter. In a very literal sense, Godfrey’s order includes beasts in positions of prominence, and he has a lion in his fucking back. More figuratively, Godfrey’s order has gone from bloody conquest to stately dynasty, and he’s a bloody conquerer turned stately dynast. We don’t know too much about Placidusax, but he’s a primal, draconic lord during a primal, draconic age, and his five heads could be an embodiment of the five finger sentience the beastfolk receive. At first, Radagon’s red hair seems to contradict this, but it actually makes a lot of sense: Because she couldn’t extinguish them entirely and instead gave them a job, the fire giants/Fell God/flame of ruin are part of Marika’s Golden Order, just marginalized and unwanted, and Radagon’s hair is an unwanted part of his body. There’s also a really interesting theory that I cannot seem to find about how the mending runes are all the bodies of the people who make them, and while that’s not exactly the same thing as the Elden Lord, it’s another potential case of the person and the order being one. It makes me wonder if this is Martin’s further critique of the idea that a good person makes a good monarch, and he’s taking it to a fairly horrifying extreme here, but that’s a tangent on a tangent.
So, Radagon’s attempts to be a paragon of the Golden Order could, in turn, shape what that order entails. And if Marika was trying to build a very particular order for herself, then influencing what Radagon is and wants to be could end up influencing that order as well. We haven’t reached a consensus on what the deal is with her and Radagon, but an interesting strain of theories is that she created him to later merge with, whether by ascending a Misbegotten or separating herself alchemically or making him out of a silver tear. That last one is especially interesting, since, with the Mimic Tear flavor text, it would mean she’s not the first Eternal Citizen to build their own lord, and that lords in general are something to be forged–deliberately constructed, artificial, crafted for a specific purpose. She made an aspiring Lord, a deeply insecure man trying to reshape himself to fit an ideal, and then put him in a position to enforce that ideal across The Lands Between. Whether she did this with Radagon’s buy-in, a direct command, or more subtle manipulation (“I’m sorry, it’s just, redheads really aren’t my type”), the result seems to be a custom-made lord and a custom-made order. And then she fuses with him, and I’m not sure exactly what that’s about, but being goddess and lord both would let her influence the order even more directly.
So, tl;dr: Marika shaped Radagon so he could shape her order, and made him Elden Lord so that his ideals would become The Lands Between. That’s why Radagon, gold-infused, FTH/INT, and desperate to be complete, embodies the Golden Order so well.
But the thing is, the Golden Order isn’t just defined by what it finds holy. That, despite being fairly willing to introduce new concepts into itself, there are a whole bunch of things it very explicitly rejects and oppresses. And if we have a lord to define all that it venerates, perhaps there could be a lord to define all it despies, who embodies everything blasphemous and heretical. Such a lord would need to have red hair without apology, of course, and probably partake in the forbidden dragon communion, and may have a connection with the Godskin, and would be big into snakes, and would certainly use flame, whether that’s bloodflame or the flame of ruin or both.
Oh, hey, we have an artist’s reconstruction of what that lord would look like: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/eldenring/images/f/f7/ER_Messmer_the_Impaler.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20240221155427

Law of Causality

So here is the actual meat of this theory: Messmer is, like Radagon, a creation of Marika, but instead of defining her Golden Order through positive example, he defines it through negative. Or, rather, if Radagon seeks to be complete in alignment to the Golden Order, Messmer is complete in opposition to it.
Pretty much the first thing people noticed about Messmer was that he seemed to have a lot of blasphemy going on without a single clear theme. We've seen him theorized as a Lucifer figure, cast out and taking on all sorts of perceived evils, or her wetworks agent, carrying out awful things she cannot connect directly to her rule. What I'm saying here is a variation of the latter: I'm sure he's done awful things to help Marika gain power, but his primary role is a metaphysical counterpoint to the golden Elden Lord, an attempt to define her order through what's prohibited, what it's fighting against. Marika is contriving a binary, and if she has a hero who embodies its virtues, she needs a villain who embodies its signs.
But so what, right? Even if this is true, and Messmer is an anti-Radagon, why do we care? Well, first off, because he's also an ante-Radagon. If the Lands of Shadow is where Marika became a goddess, that means she probably made Messmer before she made Radagon. If her overall goal was to craft the order she wanted, she didn't start by defining what it was for but what it was against. This fits with the repeated alchemical idea of separating to purify before conjoining, an extension of what we already see with Radagon, in line with exiling the Tarnished so they grow strong and run. It also reminds me a bit of Foucault on sexuality–the idea that ostensibly repressive Victorian discussions of sex and attempts to define perversion ended up creating the modern conception of sexuality. The focus on regulating “deviant” sexuality was key to determining “acceptable” sexuality and building up the discipline of study as a whole. The negative example preceded the positive one and the moralistic order itself.
This suggests that an order is more durable when it’s built in opposition to something, but that’s getting dangerously close to themes, and I promised space magic. The other reason that Messmer being a Radagon could matter is it tells us what Miquella is doing in the Lands of Shadow. If Messmer truly is some figure equivalent to the Elden Lord, then Elden Lord rules may apply to him too, and marrying an empyrean could make that empyrean into a god, with the lord helping to define the order. We know that Miquella “awaits the return of their promised Lord,” and I wonder if that lord is Messmer. This could give Miquella the ability to reshape, not the Golden Order directly, but what the Golden Order opposes, making space for the groups it marginalizes.
This is largely wild speculation, but there is a bit of a basis for it. It’s interesting that, of all the shardbearers, there are two that already declare themselves lords of something: Rykard and Mohg. If there is an equal and opposite anti-Elden Lord that embodies everything the Golden Order hates, both Rykard and Mohg could fit that pretty neatly. Rykard is straight up “the lord of blasphemy,” and Mohg’s an omen who embraced an outer god and whose followers use dragon communion. I’m not sure if I think they know about Messmer and are actively emulating him or just fitting into a space that a religious and moralistic cosmology leaves pretty conspicuously open, but each could be aspiring to the Elden Lord’s counterweight. And, of course, Mohg has Miquella.
The idea that Miquella compelled Mohg to kidnap them is, understandably, contentious. The only way that “mind-controlling someone into abducting you” maps onto the real world is victim-blaming. Within the fiction (and within the fiction alone), it’s possible given what we know about Miquella, who can make people love them and seems to have a master plan, but it’s also possible that Mohg abducting Miquella was that plan gone awry. Either way, Miquella has already been the consort of a blasphemous lord, but not in a way that led to their godhood–perhaps because they hadn’t given up their body and everything golden just yet. And with Mohg necessarily dead to start the DLC, if Miquella wants an anti-lord, they’ll have to look elsewhere.
But just becoming, like, Satan, doesn’t really seem to fit with what we know of Miquella’s goals. They’re scary, but they don’t seem mustache-twirlingly evil. In fact, if we take their cut ending as indication, their goal is a world where “all things flourish, whether graceful or malign.” They don’t want to excise grace completely, simply inverting the order where Messmer would be the ruling force and Radagon the hidden opposite. They want it all, blasphemy and fundamentalism both. And to have both, perhaps, just one lord isn’t enough. For raw, pure abundance, Miquella needs a heretical lord and an Elden Lord. They need Messmer, yes, but need you too. So, at last, all things can be conjoined.
Final tl;dr: Messmer is the anti-Elden Lord made to help define the Golden Order, and Miquella is going to three-tickets-to-Challengers Messmer and the player character in order to achieve real completion.
Misc thoughts:

• true lord of totality is turtle pope confirmed let’s go
• dlc turtle anti-pope also confirmed let’s go
• If Messmer is a Radagon, why does Messmer call Marika mother? Well, the better question is, if Marika made Messmer and Radagon both, why doesn’t Radagon call her mother? And hey, maybe he does–not trying to kinkshame.
• If we take the Law of Regression to mean mathematical regression (and after watching Levovit Lore’s video on the topic, I do), a linear equation can go infinitely negative as easily as it can go infinitely positive. A little more poetically, I picture a basic rational function (y=1/x), with two distinct curves, one heading up and one heading down, defining the vertical asymptote. And that asymptote, an invisible axis that makes the shape of everything else, is the binary Marika is ultimately making.
• The idea of the Elden Ring itself as a regression is interesting–a 2D model attempting to account for all data points. Like a regression, it creates an equation that can be extrapolated from. And, like a regression, it can’t really explain outliers.
• I wonder if Radagon embodying the Golden Order is related to Ranni and Miquella both giving up their bodies to achieve some sort of freedom–like they can’t escape the order built into themselves.
• Speaking of Foucault(‘s wikipedia page), his argument that the definition of perversion ended up creating a more holistic, less moralistic understanding of sexuality could match what’s going on here, with an embrace of the anti-lord leading to the breakdown of the strict binary.
• In place of lords needing to embody their order in general, it’s possible that Radagon’s attempt at perfection is specific to the Law of Regression–that all things need to converge in him.
• Since we know that Miquella doesn’t really like outer gods, I wonder if the issue with Mohg as an anti-lord was that he explicitly allied himself with the Formless Mother, and so joining with him would give her a door into the new order.
• If Messmer is supposed to be all things blasphemous, it’s actually pretty damning that he doesn’t seem to have omen or deathblight elements, so I’m banking on those showing up in phase 2.
• I have no idea what Marika’s ultimate goal is and make it pretty much whatever I need to be given the theory I’m gnawing at.

The main force of Praetorians steadily tracked down the road from Westbridge Crossing, neat red ranks escorted by armored vehicles and small detachments of scouts from each battalion (a new development directed by the Colonel). Meanwhile, miles away from both them and from the safety of Westbridge’s defensive lines, the five black-uniformed and armored Praetorians of Team ARTEMIS gathered around a tree stump in the slowly melting snow as the sun started to approach the horizon. “Let’s review the plan,” Lieutenant Idena Verona said, unfolding a small map and laying it on the tree stump. “The T’au have a small listening post in the hillside approximately one mile from our current location, here. Colonel Burton’s men identified a likely command center here, and a radio tower here, hidden by the treeline. Our task is to destroy it without the T’au getting off a message that we’re there. We know there’s natural cover all along this side due to that rock face, and they have sentry drones along here. That’s why we’re going to go in from this direction.”
Sergeant Virginia Woolworth nodded. “I’ll take the left with you and Raycraft, ma’am,” she said, pointing to a small hillock overlooking the post. “We can approach from here and have a good firing position.” “And I’ll blow the tower while Violette covers me,” Corporal Rachel Darling said with a nod of her own. “Correct,” Idena said. “But don’t detonate the explosives until we give the signal that the T’au are changing guards. They’re likely to change watches just after sunset, which gives us just enough time to get there. Once the tower’s blown and we’ve picked off the guards, we go in fast and quiet, clear each room, and then collapse the place – bring the hillside down on it.” Darling grinned at the prospect of detonating the entire complex. “Say no more, ma’am.” “Good. Let’s move,” Idena said with a nod.
“Comms check,” Corporal Lucy Raycraft said into her vox-headset. “Loud and clear, how me?” whispered Specialist Violette Wake-Stewart’s voice in her ear. “Have you the same,” she replied, tapping the tiny microphone control. “Ready to crack this tin of corned grox, Sarge?” she asked Woolworth with a smile. “Ready as ever,” Woolworth replied thinly. The team of two and the team of three split ways and proceeded to each side of the small grey concrete building under the eaves of the rocky hillside, and Raycraft took her place beside the LT and the sergeant. Idena had unslung the long sniper rifle on her back and fitted a noise and light suppressor to it, crouching down beside a frostbitten bush for cover as the sun inched below the horizon. She could see the two fire warriors in their winter camouflage standing guard outside the building, shifting slightly in place as they waited. “Relief section’s coming in,” Woolworth said quietly. “I see them,” Idena nodded and shifted to a prone position. “Take positions.” Raycraft and Woolworth took places near her and steadied their lasguns. “Tower team, status?”
Darling slid softly down a snow bank and up to the foundation of the tower, which was surrounded by a thin fence of barbed wire. “Violette, got the clippers?” “Got them,” Wake-Stewart said quietly, sliding beside her and taking out a set of wire cutters. After checking to see if the wires were electrified, she snipped them one by one, allowing Darling safe passage inside. “I’m going to circle around this side, give you better cover,” she said, as Darling shrugged off her pack and began to place three small blocky explosive charges on the tripod legs of the radio tower. “Tower team, status?” crackled the LT’s voice. “Planting charges now,” Wake-Stewart replied. “Going over the ridge line to get a better view for cover.” “Negative, hold position,” Woolworth cut in. “The sentry drones have visibility on the ridge, remember?” “Okay, didn’t know that,” the redhead muttered.
“It was in the intel briefing. You did read the intel briefing, right?” asked the sergeant, not sounding amused. “Of course I did,” Wake-Stewart said, spotting a sentry drone and pressing herself against the hillside. The line was silent for a moment except for a skeptical throat-clearing from the sergeant. “Alright, I didn’t read it, I skimmed it, happy?” she said, rolling her eyes. Idena’s voice broke in. “We can talk about that later. The guard section is about to change now. Stand by for –“ Her transmission was drowned out by a deafening boom as the radio tower’s legs detonated in a ball of flame, bringing the spindly metal structure down in a heap of scrap. “What the – fracking hell, weapons free!” Idena shouted into the comms. “Corporal, what in the hells were you thinking?” “Sentry drone would’ve spotted the explosives,” Darling said with a shrug, visible only to Wake-Stewart as the two of them sprinted down the bank, shooting behind them at the now-agitated sentry drones. “Didn’t really have time to ask for permission.”
Idena clenched her jaw in frustration as she squeezed the trigger a third time, nailing the fire warrior she was aiming at directly through the sternum. Three of the four fire warriors who had been outside during the guard change were now dead, but the fourth had run inside to warn the others – exactly what she hadn’t wanted to happen. “We need to move in now, not wait for more of them to come out,” Raycraft said, and without asking, slung her lasgun and vaulted the hilltop. Woolworth looked like she wanted to punch someone, but she couldn’t argue with the logic, so her and Idena ran after Raycraft, reaching the door and stacking up on both sides. “Breach on three,” Idena ordered, having switched her rifle for a lightweight las-carbine repeater. “One – two – three,” and Raycraft shot the lock off the door. Simultaneously, the other door into the facility blew off its hinges with a bang as Darling detonated another small charge. “Tally-ho and all that,” the corporal said with a smirk as she shot two T’au in the process of rushing toward the door to investigate the noise. “LT, we’re in.”
The remaining T’au inside the facility proved little obstacle, either falling to lasgun shots or Raycraft’s combat knife. As she finished gutting the facility commander with her knife, she turned back to the LT. “Think that’s the last of them, ma’am. The report said there were 11, right?” The bang of lasgun fire came from the other side of the command center. “12,” Wake-Stewart said with satisfaction, kicking the dead T’au she had just shot. “See, I told you I paid attention to the intel briefing. Just the important parts.” Idena rolled her eyes. This would take some work, but at least the five of them could get the job done well enough. “Corporal, let’s blow this place and get out of here.” “We really should use names, not ranks, when you think about it,” Darling suggested helpfully. “There are two corporals, after all.” “Rachel, then,” Idena said with emphasis. “Rig this place to blow and hold the back-talking for later.” Four minutes later, they slid down the snowbank away from the facility and looked back at it, now barely visible in the near-total darkness. “And…now.” The facility exploded, sending chunks of concrete spinning down the hill as the rocky hillside above it slid down to cover it. “Lady Britannica’s favorite team of misfits one, Xenos zero,” quipped Wake-Stewart as she slung her rifle and the team began the trek back to Westbridge.