Continuing on from this post, this information also comes from Helen Hardacre's book Kurozumikyō and the New Religions of Japan, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1986 - "Chapter Seven: The Unity of the New Religions" (pp. 188-193):

This study has identified a vitalist, spiritualist world view as the most fundamental factor unifying the new religions. Whereas prior studies have recognized a rather standardized list of traits as shared by a number of the new religions, this study has tried to show how those traits are unified in originating from a particular conceptualization of self in relation to other levels of existence coupled with regular patterns of thought, actuion, and meotion. The kingpin of the system is the idea that the self-cultivation of the individual determines destiny.

You can see this clearly expressed in this SGI saying:

"A great human revolution in just a single individual will help achieve a change in the destiny of a nation and, further, can even enable a change in the destiny of all humankind."

That's the belief, at least. We don't see SGI members having anything close to this kind of impact on society or the world at large, and they've had over 80 years to show us all, almost 65 years here in the US. Nothing.

The religious life consists of such cultivation and of repaying the benefice of deity.

Before anyone tries to say, "There's no 'god' in SGI!", remember that Ikeda HIMSELF defined the Soka Gakkai/SGI as a "monotheism". Considering that Ikeda is defined as "the world’s foremost authority on Nichiren Buddhism" and "the supreme theoretician" (with the only qualification apparently being the all-controlling leader of the Soka Gakkai/SGI), so whatever Icky says, goes.
And don't forget the SGI's emphasis on YOUR eternal gratitude.

Textual erudition, esoteric ritual, and the observance of abstinences will not serve as a basis for elevating the religious status of priests above that of the laity. The laity therefore tend to be central.

Hence the inherent tension in the relationship between the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu, ultimately showing that the "new religions" and the "old religions" simply don't mix.

Since individual self-cultivation is the primary determiner of all affairs, fatalistic notions and ideas of pollution must be recast. Unhindered (or less hindered) by notions of pollution, women play key roles.

The "new religions" are so much better positioned to exploit this huge source of donations and free work! The Ikeda cult certainly has.

Because all problems can be traced to insufficient cultivation of the self, one cannot expect fundamental social change to occur through political action.

Even though, ironically, this attitude simply entrenches the status quo and creates no change at ALL. As explained here, this belief simply produces a conservative attitude that rejects society's efforts to collectively help those in need. How many times did you hear in SGI that such-and-so needy person didn't need actual help; they "just need to chant to change their karma!"?? The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. put it succinctly:

Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government. Source

And civil rights legislation has done far MORE to advance the causes of equality and justice than ANY religion ever has. For example, the SGI still clings to its anachronistic, old-fashioned "4 divisional system" based in traditional Japanese patriarchal family norms, even though this is ill-fitting and inappropriate, even offensive, in Western cultures.

Similarly, attempting to cure disease through medical therapies alone can produce only a shallow healing.

As discussed here, this kind of selling point might've flown in the 1800s, even in the early 1900s, and in the chaos of post-WWII defeated/occupied Japan, when people didn't really have access to medical treatment that worked, but now? GTFO. There are very few who will go for this, and they tend to be uneducated. You'll notice this "faith-healing" is hardly a major selling point any more.
Keeping in mind that the focus of this book is on one of the oldest of Japan's "new religions", Kurozumikyō, to illustrate how very similar ALL Japan's "new religions" are to each other, with only minor differences, and this includes Soka Gakkai:

The code of ethics seen in Kurozumikyō is not solely its own invention but is generally shared by both new and established religions. It rests in principles of family solidarity, authority of elders, and a clear-cut division of labor between the sexes.

Is it still required in Japan that female Soka Gakkai employees retire as soon as they marry?
From the March 2022 paper, "‘Genderism vs. Humanism’: The Generational Shift and Push for Implementing Gender Equality within Soka Gakkai-Japan":

This paper investigates how young Japanese women in contemporary Soka Gakkai (SG) navigate Japan’s continuous gender stratified society that remains culturally rooted in the ‘salaryman-housewife’ ideology. How are young SG members reproducing or contesting these hegemonic gender norms that few seek to emulate? While SG has long proclaimed that it stands for gender equality, its employment structure and organization in Japan until recently reflected the typical male breadwinner ideology that came to underpin the post-war Japanese nation-state and systemic gender division of labor.
As an organization that has long claimed to support an internationalist/global ‘humanist’ agenda, driven by Daisaku Ikeda’s interpretation of Nichiren Buddhism, SG in Japan also rose to prominence in a society that culturally and ‘legally’ stratified men and women through a systematic gender division of labor.
According to the global gender gap index reported by the World Economic Forum, Iceland followed by Finland stood at the top of 156 countries as the most gender equal societies in 2021; Japan was ranked at 120 as one of the most unequal societies; the closest other OECD country was Italy, ranked as number 633. Even though the rate of female employment now mirrors other OECD countries, no significant change in women’s employment status and position in Japan has occurred. Women in management positions, economic participation and opportunity ranked 117, while their educational attainment stood as number 92, and political empowerment was close to the bottom, at number 147. Why would Japan, as an affluent, post-industrial society, find it so difficult to achieve gender equity on par with other OECD countries?

The Soka Gakkai (SG) certainly is not at ALL "progressive" on this issue! Ikeda blathered endlessly about "the century of women" and "empowering women", yet the organization HE CONTROLLED completely subjugates and exploits women! There ARE no female Soka Gakkai vice presidents.

Even if SG may be one of the biggest private organizations in Japan, the core work force by comparison is much smaller than the SG organization as a whole. Core regional or national male leaders were typically employed and remain employed as core workers on the general track, while until more recently the equivalent female leaders employed by the SGHQ would retire from paid employment upon marriage, and continue ‘unpaid’ leadership positions in the local area. ... SGHQ consists of the central leadership of the organization, but as an employer was built on the model of a typical Japanese company. This meant male employees were stratified as the core labor force and female employees as periphery, disposable labor. This thinking, on the one hand, reflected assumptions about women’s role as homemakers and mothers, which meant that SG female staff upon marriage would stop paid employment. In reality, this did not mean ‘retirement’ to become homemakers, but rather that married women continued ‘working’ for SG as leaders in the local voluntary organization. The vast majority of female and male members of SG never work for the organization as employees, including most of its women leaders. The organization throughout its post-war period relied heavily on the women’s division or fujinbu 婦人部 (see also McLaughlin 2019 who translates this more narrowly to refer to married women). However, particularly those women trained through working for the SGHQ moved onto become effectively unpaid staff and leaders in local areas once they had married and were economically supported by a husband. Women in SG, both those who were employed at the SGHQ and those that were in employment in other places before marriage—a much larger number—could be said to have been and still today remain the key driving force behind SG’s development in Japan: women organize, execute and lead a range of activities that involve the majority of members in the voluntary organization.

Yes, Soka Gakkai women work hard - just without pay. It's utterly exploitative. You can imagine how utterly dependent women are within this system and how vulnerable in cases of divorce. It's NOT AT ALL "humanistic" OR consistent with any "century of women"!

This family-centered ethic is found in established Buddhism and Shrine Shintō, and no new religion denies it. Some in fact go much further than Kurozumikyō to articulate it plainly and to implement it with a vengeance. The main difference in the familistic ethic between the established religions and the new lies in the sustained attention, systematic socialization, and organizational support available to the follower in the new religions. Specifically, counseling helps followers implement the world view's patterns of thought, action, and emotion, and rewards them for doing so.

Within the SGI, this is the whole "guidance" framework buttressing the (non)discussion meetings as a consistent source of indoctrination, I mean "support".

The question why this world view of the new religions arose as a pervasive orientation at the end of the Tokugawa period (1603–1867) is quite remarkable. In large part the new religions themselves are responsible for its propagation. In addition, however, it harmonized well with social institutions and mores prevalent before 1945. ... The family system as codified in the Meiji Civil Code of 1898 embodied a familistic ethic closely resembling that of the new religions. No doubt these religions were greatly supported by the promulgation of this ethic by the pre-1945 educational system. Even when compulsory education dropped morality courses from the curriculum, the new religions continued to preach much the same content, shorn of chauvinistic rhetoric about the divinity of the emperor and the sacrality of the Japanese nation.
In all the new religions, persons over about fifty years of age occupy most positions of leadership, and the consequences of this fact are weighty.

Indeed. In 1986, when this book was published, Icky was 58 years old. While the Soka Gakkai started out as a "young" movement, the fact that Ikeda held onto power as he aged and never ever "passed the baton" to a younger successor or "turned the reins over to the youth" meant that the Soka Gakkai was doomed to become old and stale. Perhaps it was only the fact of Toda's death at this same age (58) that enabled the Soka Gakkai new religion to ever gain a reputation as a "young movement"; Toda held onto all the power and control until his own death, though it seems more a function of his leadership and less akin to Ikeda's pathological grasping, and it was a lucky break for Icky that Toda cacked it so early. Otherwise, he'd have been left like poor Harada, who only became President of the Soka Gakkai when he was already retirement age, 65 years old. Soka Gakkai is now an elderly, declining organization, and that's because Ikeda chose to gather ALL power and control to himself and KEEP it until his own death. Hardly "progressive" or "visionary"!

These individuals were educated under the prewar system, and they have received as part of their primary education a view of the family as a microcosm of the nation, of its roles as pervaded with a sacred character, paralleling a view of Japan as a divine nation. They tend to see the family in terms of the ie rather than in terms of the nuclear family, and to regard its organizational principles as sharing the quality of sacredness.

This "ie" concept is unfamiliar; in the West, it is most closely approximated by Britain's noble families, such as the "House of Windsor".

when the ie or household system dominated in Japan. According to this system, the eldest son was responsible for the social and economic well-being of everyone living under his household, including parents, spouses, children, and siblings. This was considered particularly important in the years leading up and during World War II when “the government re-emphasized the virtue of the ie system by claiming strong family unions to be the basis of a nation ruled by the emperor, the head of all families.” During this time, almost all marriages were either arranged or approved of by the head of household. Source

This is an interesting angle, because perhaps you may recall the incident, immortalized in whatever form in the original "The Human Revolution" novel series, when Toda approached Ikeda's father and asked him to "give" Ikeda to him - Ikeda's father sounded quite overjoyed to be rid of Ikeda. It was Toda who arranged Ikeda's marriage. Toda was clearly acting as "the head of household" here.
Similarly, Ikeda claimed to be "father" of everyone in the Soka Gakkai/SGI, quite possibly in preparation for replacing Japan's Emperor with himself.
Here is a bit more on the "ie" system - you'll be able to see some of the aspects of SGI that seemed odd while you were "in", I think:

Thus it is not simply efficient or proprietous to obey elders, for women to defer to men, or to maintain clear role distinctions between men and women. It is sacred; failure to uphold these principles is immoral and worthy of censure.

This mentality is behind former SGI-USA national women's leader Akemi Bailey-Haynie's statements about the "ironclad" (as she put it) four divisional system. She knew which side her bread was buttered on, so naturally she was going to lean all the way in.

the SGI’s attempts to feign social progressivism.
SGI attracts many progressive leaning people, because the teachings appear to be democratic and universal. (How many of you heard that Nichiren Buddhism was the only school of Buddhism that held women could also attain enlightenment? I did, too many times to count.) Large gatherings in my area were notably diverse - racially, socioeconomically, and country of origin. The SGI also positions itself as an egalitarian organization without an elite Priesthood class. Everyone is a Buddha - and therefore a spiritual equal. The never-ending propagation focus is inclusive - much in the way of the Borg. Prepare to be assimilated!
All of this masks an utterly authoritarian, patriarchal, Japanese-controlled, socially regressive organization that says one thing and does quite another.

It's the Ikeda way...and of course Ikeda is THE "elite", the BETTER "Buddha" than any of YOU losers. No one will ever equal the "eternal mentor", and don't even fantasize about surpassing him, because you can't. That's SGI DOCTRINE. It's Ikeda's game and no one else gets to play, even when he isn't here any more.

That the SGI would have an affinity group for LBGTQ members that simulates inclusion - and simultaneously maintain the divisional structure that is by definition exclusionary - is as dysfunctional as it gets. Source
For SGI to devise a special group for LBGTQNAA members ("Courageous Freedom", whatever THAT means) that is supposed to represent inclusion, while simultaneously maintaining a divisional structure that BY DEFINITION excludes them - proves that this show of "inclusion" is nothing more than a façade, window-dressing to promote itself and conceal its rotten core, while the "ironclad" dysfunction of the SGI remains unchanged. Source

Regarding the "ie" structure of Japan's hundreds-of-years-old family businesses:

The logic of the “ie” system can be described with the following points:

The primary objective of the parties in the “ie” relationship is to survive and prosper. The “ie” is neither a contractual venture whose objective is to maximize profit nor is it a venture which can be liquidated after squeezing it dry.

Ideally, the “ie” must last forever, and as the “ie” prospers so does the family. Therefore, if the “ie” does not exist, neither can the family.

It is the parents’ responsibility according to the “ie” to continue to have it prosper for the welfare of the family. In a certain sense, it is feudalistic, whereby the parents give children unconditional orders, and the children receive unconditional support.

The “ie” is an organization in which members will give their all for the benefit of the “ie” by sacrificing their own personal benefits.

Each “ie” has its specific precepts, habits, and culture. Members are brought up under the same philosophy, or religion, to create a strong team.

With regard to that last point, that was apparently the basis for counting all new converts as "households" - they were expected to convert everyone in their family to Soka Gakkai. The Ikeda cult took that as a given, which actually makes some sense, given the pre-war school indoctrination the leaders of the Soka Gakkai had all experienced; as stated above, it harmonized well with social institutions and mores prevalent before 1945.
Unfortunately for Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai, the appeal of this kind of structure was losing strength post-WWII; it's easy to see Toda's wisdom in declaring in the 1950s that, "If we don't achieve 𝘬𝘰̄𝘴𝘦𝘯-𝘳𝘶𝘧𝘶 within Japan within the next 25 or 26 years, it's game over." The Soka Gakkai's success in taking over Japan ("kosen-rufu") depended upon that conditioning that was no longer happening in the schools or in the family. Ikeda believed he was great enough that he'd be able to overcome the fading of that all-important cultural conditioning within the population after 1945, and somehow "win" against the odds. He didn't.

The new religions continue to think of the ie as the model for family relations. That is, the idea of a corporate body passed from generation to generation, engaged in a common means of subsistence, its eternality symbolically manifest in the cult of ancestors, continues to be the conceptual norm.
Conversion is almost entirely limited to urban areas.
Large corporations in Japan typically screen prospective employees to eliminate members of the new religions. There is an inherent conflict between these two types of organizaitions, based upon a paradoxical similarity. The company at its largest and most elaborate seeks to accommodate nearly every need of its employees until the time of retirement, with a corresponding claim upon their loyalties and to a lesser extent, those of their families. Thus individuals already committed to a creed and to an organization over which the company has no control are suspect and probably unable to commit themselves to the extent of someone who has no such commitment. But it is necessary to recall that only a small proportion of the work force is employed by large corporations. The new religions provide ladders of prestige and reward for achievement, and this is a potent source of their appeal. ... Much as a man rises through the ranks in a company, members of the new religions can win reward and recognition that might well be beyond their reach in secular society. Since secular success so often depends heavily upon education and personal connections, persons lacking these may find themselves barred from many opportunities.

And there you have it!

https://xenagoguevicene.wordpress.com/2024/05/18/old-genocide-joe-has-got-to-go-by-philip-giraldi-17-may-2024/
Embracing Netanyahu does not constitute a foreign policy
It is extremely difficult to discern what might be the thinking behind the clueless President Joe Biden and his Blinken-Austin-Mayorkas foreign-policy-plus national security team. Or rather, the problem is that there does not appear to be any thinking about it at all if one measures it by what benefits it brings to the American people. It all actually seems to derive from a desire to construct a narrative that will win the presidential election coming up in November, which will fortunately be run against a deeply flawed GOP candidate named Donald J. Trump. But look at what is on the Biden record: the country’s southern border with Mexico is a porous as a Swiss cheese, allowing literally millions of illegal immigrants into the USA since Biden took office; Washington is both de facto and de jure simultaneously fighting and losing two unnecessary wars involving nuclear powers which has cost a nearly bankrupt Treasury well into the hundreds of billions of dollars; and the White House is needlessly sanctioning non-hostile competitors like China while also making illegal popular social media sites like TikTok which have committed the sin of reporting and disseminating accurate narratives about good old “best friend and closest ally” Israel. Predictably, neither of the assertions about the value of the Jewish state is true, nor is it a democracy, but who cares when you’re having fun shooting people and spending someone else’s money?
Oh, and just try to exercise your first amendment free speech rights by demonstrating against Israel’s slaughter of upwards of 40,000 Palestinian civilians using US provided weapons and you will be hit on the head by a cop, possibly arrested, and even expelled from college! If you want to see where this is all going, check out reports of the recent FBI detention and interrogation of distinguished Israeli historian Ilan Pappe seeking to enter the US through the Detroit International Airport. Pappe is a critic of the Netanyahu government and of US policy so he was held, questioned in detailed about his contacts, and had his phone copied before being allowed to proceed. Meanwhile, a group of top federal judges have signed a letter stating that they will strike back against the demonstrating students by refusing to hire any graduates of Columbia University Law School as law clerks. And there even is a bill currently before Congress that would empower the government to label the foreign protesters “antisemites and terrorism supporters” and deport them, with some going to Gaza with the expectation that they would be killed, possibly by the mighty Israel Defense Forces (IDF)! It would be a startling new development to punish those whose crime consists mostly of trespass even given the rather loose ethical boundaries established by the war on terror and the Antisemitism Awareness Act! Or indeed one might follow the Senatorial route led by a chirping Lindsey Graham who recommends dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza to kill everyone who has survived the Israeli onslaught. The area then might be developed after the radiation dies down for those splendid seaside villas for Jews only suggested by the esteemed Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.
To be sure, Joe sometimes mumbles something that might just be viewed positively, like his recent blocking on humanitarian grounds of a consignment of bunker buster bombs on their way to Israel due to Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence that, no matter what, he would invade Rafah to completely destroy Hamas and whoever else might happen to get in his way. Joe predictably reversed that decision last Tuesday, approving a $1 billion supply of munitions after he came under pressure from the Israelis and their many friends in the US, to include a host of Israel-loving GOP congressmen who have carried their fight on behalf of the Jewish state to The Hague, where the International Criminal Court (ICC) is being directly threatened with American wrath lest it try to punish Israeli leaders for their genocide in Gaza. As Bill Astore put it “Last week, President Biden appeared to have strapped on a temporary spine in delaying shipments of ‘offensive’ weaponry to Israel for its murderous invasion of Rafah in Gaza. That spine had a short duration as Biden announced [Tuesday] renewed shipments of tank and mortar rounds to Israel.” Congress has also gotten into the game with the GOP controlled House of Representatives having passed a bill that would compel the White House to continue all arms shipments to Israel. Joe might also be thinking of political contributions, as American Jews donate the majority of Democratic Party funding, as well guaranteeing a friendly media in his campaign as they dominate both the news and the entertainment industries. See, Joe can figure some things out all by himself every once in a while!
Here’s the problem with Joe, apart from the roughly $12 million in gift-donations from Jewish/Israeli sources that he has obtained in his political career. His tactical thinking does not extend beyond his personal interests, to include his corrupt children, a trait very much like that which is possessed by his good buddy Netanyahu who is facing corruption charges of his own in Israel. Joe believes he is much cleverer than he actually is and thinks that an occasional mild verbal criticism of the Israeli behavior will convince his target audience of voters that he really is concerned about the continuing death toll in Gaza, where the Israelis have already been taking initial steps in their attack on Rafah by using their tanks to penetrate into the targeted zone to destroy and kill.
And as for the reported completion and initial functioning of the floating pier connected to Gaza constructed by US military engineers, it will not dramatically change reality on the ground even though Biden is claiming that it will enable the entry of much needed food and medical aid. Israel will still “security” control what is allowed to enter into Gaza proper while Netanyahu is seeing the pier as a bridge to nowhere, usable primarily to export excess Palestinians to foreign lands that are either willing or unwilling to accept them. And its existence creates some interesting possibilities. As it presumably will be logistically supported on the pier itself by US-based personnel, Netanyahu might well be tempted to stage a false flag attack blamed on Hamas to kill a few Americans and lock Biden into Israel’s right-wing Gaza policies from now on. Bear in mind that, in reality, Biden could care less if all the Palestinians might be “disappeared” just as he would like to see any and all critics of Israel be subjected to the harshest punishments, including prison and denial of basic rights as well as being stripped of government benefits. He has called the protesters “lawbreakers” and spreaders of “chaos” and congress is currently investigating the alleged “subversive organizers” of the “anti-Israel terrorists.”
Biden and company, as well as Trump, who is advising the Israeli government to “finish the job” with the Palestinians, clearly have no actual red lines that must not be crossed when it comes to Israel. The war of extermination of the Gazans has been accompanied by a more hidden war being conducted by the Jewish settlers on the West Bank, which has been largely under Israeli occupation since 1967. The frequently armed settlers have been attacking unarmed Palestinians, destroying their homes and businesses, ruining their crops and vineyards, and even killing them on occasion. Israeli police and army standing by do nothing to stop the fun and even frequently participate themselves by arresting and beating Palestinians who are guilty only of being Palestinian. Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested without charges apart from “preventive detention” since the troubles began in October and the jails are overflowing. The clear intention, verbalized without any shame by senior Israeli government officials like Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, is to produce a Greater Israel cleansed of Arabs. And Biden, who pretends to favor a two-state solution to the unrest, helps the process along by vetoing UN resolutions that would help create separate sovereignty for Palestine.
Some of the most outrageous recent developments have been the settlers’ interfering with shipments of food and medicines entering into Gaza, a point that a faux-sympathetic Biden stresses repeatedly when pontificating regarding bringing aid to the starving people who are trapped with nowhere to go inside the enclave. The Israel clampdown even includes the Mediterranean Sea being blocked off by the Israeli navy which shoots any desperate Gazans who try to go close to the water so they can fish for food. In the most recent incidents, observed by the standing-by but inert Israeli army and police, truckloads of food were blocked, the drivers and aid workers removed and beaten, and the food was destroyed and burned before the trucks were treated likewise. In another incident settlers dumped huge boulders on one of the access roads to a checkpoint leading into Gaza, rendering it impassible and blocking any aid. Journalists and aid workers are meanwhile being killed by the army to prevent any reporting of what is going on while the US State Department refuses to condemn the activity. Biden called the interference with assistance convoys “outrageous” but has done nothing whatsoever about it, nor has he followed up on pledges to sanction Israelis who attack Palestinians or their property on the West Bank.
The whole problem is that Israel is a monster, an apartheid state that somehow feels it is empowered by God and the United States to kill all its neighbors and rob the American taxpayer to pay for and equip the slaughter. Israel is backed by an all-powerful US domestic lobby that includes unlimited Jewish money and activist Zionist groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) led by the hideous Jonathan Greenblatt and the venerable American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), both of which are now busy raising money to defeat all congress critters who have ever criticized the Jewish state. ADL and AIPAC are also linked to “that old time religion” knucklehead Christian Zionists concentrated in the Republican Party who have their Scofield Bibles firmly embedded between their ears where their brains are supposed be. A partial solution would be to make the Jewish-Zionist groups register as foreign government agents directed by Israel under the the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which is exactly what they are, but that will never happen. President John F. Kennedy tried to register the predecessor group to AIPAC and many believe he paid the ultimate price for that affront as well as for his bid to stop Israel’s nuclear weapons program.
So, my fellow Americans, what should we do? Well, we should do whatever we can, which includes speaking out about how we have been sold out by our leaders and opinion makers, and we should continue to do that even knowing that they will try to silence us by destroying free speech in this country. It is all we have left and we should continue to oppose what is happening. The first step however, is to get rid of politicians like Joe and Donald, who have been completely corrupted by more than fifty years in the “system” and are totally sold out and irresponsible in their behavior. There are honest politicians and journalists out there and we just have to find them, support them and get them elected and in positions where they will be able to bring about change in how things are done in Washington! One might call it the New American Revolution to restore our rights and free us from foreign oppression!

I am still NOT the Original Poster. That is u/ThrowRA-scarecrow. She posted in relationship_advice. Thank you to u/Direct-Caterpillar77 for the original recommendation and to u/ivy5kin for letting me know about the update
Previous BORU here. New Updates (starting with one from a few months ago and ending with one 7 days old) marked with ****\*

Read trigger warnings

Trigger Warnings: infant abuse; spousal abuse; drug use; stalking; kidnapping attempt
Mood Spoiler: utterly terrifying and disturbing
Original Post: March 16, 2024
My husband (42m) and I (35f) tried for so long to have our boys and girl. Due to a health issue my husband suffered he developed fertility issues and we had to get medical assistance to be able to have our children because if we didn’t he’d probably never have kids. So we went through fertility treatment. He desperately wanted his own biological children and we spent a fortune just to bring them into the world and now he’s jealous and distant with them?
He’s constantly in competition with his own infant children. If I hold the children he gets frustrated. Any time they take my attention away he gets completely pissy. He’s always in a foul mood, irritable and just down right nasty. I don’t understand it. Why is he like this? Our children are barely 6 months and they won’t stop crying every time he’s near. I feel like they can sense his negativity. I tried talking to him. Ive suggested he take interest in the kids and spend more time with us as a family. I know it can sometimes take a little longer for parents to bond with their children but this is down right scary to experience. He’s full of jealousy and envy. He sees our children as competition to my time and affections.
A few times now he has made comments about feeling frustrated that I still breast feed our children. The thing is we mix feed so he has had ample opportunity to feed them and he just doesn’t. He also said that this (meaning our life&our marriage after children) wasn’t what he thought it would be like. I mean what did he expect? A singular baby cries and three of them cry a lot.
We’ve been together for 8 years and married for 7 years. He wanted these children. He pushed for them and now this. I never thought this would ever be me. I am scared. I am scared for my children. I have tried talking to him but he just brushes me off. I’ve suggested counseling. He refuses. He tells me it’s all in my head. I want to save this marriage but I am scared I won’t be able to and maybe it’s not worth saving.
He comes home later everyday. He avoids us on the weekends and any time he has off. I’m not ashamed to say that I went through his phone and there are a lot flirtatious text between him and a “Jessica”. I don’t think anything has happened between them but it sure looks like they are building up to it. I haven’t said anything because I’m afraid. Where do I go with three children, with no money and no family that can help me? I haven’t worked in two years and I’ve spent all my savings on having these children. My mind is in a complete meltdown. I can’t sleep I can’t think and I’m always exhausted.
What the hell happened? Is this him now forever?
Edit: Some of you are some real evil bastards ! Stop blaming me for him mistreating me! I do not deserve to be treated this way and neither do my kids! Stop messaging me evil things!
Relevant Comments:
Examples of 'competition':
If I’m with the kids and say I’m feeding them he gets upset I’m focusing on them and not him, or as he likes to say I’m fussing over them. He expects they sleep through the night and gets upset when I’m with them instead of in bed with him. He has even made weird comments about me loving them more than him.
Did he really want kids or did YOU want kids?
Due to my husband’s fertility issues he was the one pushing for us to have kids. He knew early on that he had a health condition and wanted us to have children way earlier but I asked if we could wait but then his condition worsened so we agreed to get treatment before he couldn’t have any kids. He desperately wanted to be a father and they are biologically ours. His desire to be a father was one of the qualities I liked about him when we started dating.
I’ve always worked and the plan was for me to stay home for the first 2/3 years and perhaps work part time until the kids were school aged. But that’s out the window now because I don’t want to ever be this vulnerable! I’ve been brushing off my cv and scouring the internet for a job. I will never allow myself to be this vulnerable again.
Does he help at ALL? Do you have a support system you could go to?
He doesn’t help me at all. I take care of our kids on my own. My parents are long gone and my sister is abroad. She stayed with us for the birth and a month after the children were born. She lives in France but she’s due to return home this summer. So I know I’ll have her help when she’s back. But I’m trying not to bother her as she’s going through a divorce.
I’ve suggested couples counseling and he refuses. He says everything is in my head.
I’m actually even crying writing this but I do have a small to go bag in the trunk of my car. Just incase. I feel like I’m not being rational because he doesn’t hurt me or the kids but I feel like I’m constantly walking on eggshells. Like what happened to my happy go lucky husband? Who’s this person I’m afraid of?
Are they his biologically? Did you guys go to a support group for infertility treatment?
We didn’t use any sperm or egg donations. The kids are his and mine biologically.
We also went to a support group, two support groups actually. One of them was for couples and the other for men experiencing infertility. He also went to individual therapy to deal with his emotional issues around infertility.
Update Post: March 19, 2024 (3 days later)
Title: He’s (42m) been pinching my (35f) babies?
Thank you to the person who said I should watch his interactions with my babies more closely and frequently. Not even hours after I posted here asking for advice I caught him pinching my son!
While I was scrolling on here and replying to people I decided to check my baby monitor and I watched my husband enter our children’s room and insult them in a hushed and whispery tone. I couldn’t make out much of what he was saying but he was without a doubt telling them that he hated them and wished them dead. Then he pinched my son and my baby boy didn’t even cry which made me think he’s done this many times before.
It all happened so fast and by the time I could make sense of what was happening on the monitor he was already walking down the hallway and down the stairs. At the same time I had lept off the sofa and pretty much tackled him as he came off the stairs. We got into a physical and verbal altercation, we fought, argued and shouted for hours. I guess the police were called by the neighbors because the next thing I know the police are banging on my door. I explained the situation to the police and the officers said that they could not prove that my baby was harmed since he didn’t have a bruise and my baby monitor was only on live feed and not simultaneously recording. Eventually they got my husband to agree to pack a bag and leave. He left reluctantly.
He has since been blowing up my phone begging for forgiveness, talking about how he’s been depressed and stressed by the babies, and that his anxiety and jealousy got the best of him. I just responded once telling him to go fuck himself. I’ve also been in contact with a lawyer and she’s advised me to leave him unblocked incase he further incriminates himself. I don’t even recognize who this man is! Where did this all come from?
How did this happen? Has any other parent experienced this? How did you handle this?
Before y’all start jumping down my throat I am absolutely getting a divorce and I will do everything in my power to get full custody. I did take my children to our family doctor and they are in good health and there are no other signs of abuse. I’ve filled a report with the police and my lawyer is dealing with it. I’m also about to start the process of divorce.
Relevant Comments:
Commenter: He just wants more and better access to his victims. This is someone who gets off on hurting children. Actual human beings who are stressed and depressed do not sneak around abusing children for their dopamine hits.

OOP: Exactly! I’m tired, stressed, depressed and I’m physically still not fully healed from the pregnancy and the cesarean birth but not once have I thought of hurting anyone let alone a baby! I don’t buy his bullshit excuses. He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong otherwise he wouldn’t have been sneaking around and being all hush hush. I do not believe him for one second. He’s a goddamn beastly man.

Update the monitor to one that records:
I’ve set the monitor up to record now! I’ve also ordered a home security system and will be installing it real soon!
On what OOP is doing to protect them:
I’m doing everything I can to protect them! This all happened a few days ago but I am in the process of getting a temporary restraining order. My lawyer is handling it and I understand it takes some time to actually get one and in the meantime I’ve been advised that I can just deny him visitation until he gets a judgement from the courts that forces me to grant him access to my babies but that takes time. So in the meantime he can’t force me or my babies to see him.
I’ve recorded every call and saved ever text. Literally documenting everything. Thankfully he’s saying and texting a goldmine of incriminating things that I hope would be sufficient information for a judge to give me and my babies a restraining/protective order and for family court to grant me primary and sole custody.
Did you tell him you saw the pinch?
Yes. He at first told me I was imagining things. Then switched to saying he was just frustrated our son wouldn’t go to sleep. Then he started saying that he was angry that our son was interrupting our “personal time” and that he was doing it on purpose because the other babies were asleep so why wasn’t he?
Honestly nothing he says makes sense to me. Like my baby boy was just laying there sleepy and he would’ve fallen back to sleep by himself that bastard actually woke him up with his pinching and insults.
He says he went in their room to check up on them and I call bullshit on that he went in there to torment my children. Who in their right mind whispers death to two sleeping babies and a another half asleep baby?!
Did he tell you that over phone or text?
This was on a call which I’ve recorded!
*****Update Post 2: April 10, 2024 (3 weeks after OG post)****\*
Title: How did it go so wrong? For my (36f) birthday he (42m) broke into the house?
Every conversation with him (42m) feels like I’m (36f) losing my mind. The only thing that has kept me semi-sane and able to track what he has been doing is my audio journal and my posts on here.
Last week it was my thirty sixth birthday. Actually I had forgotten it was my birthday and was reminded by my sister that it was in fact my birthday. I decided I couldn’t mope around the house and I got my kids dressed to go shopping and get groceries. We got back and I put away half of the groceries but my babies were fussy and so to tire them out and ready them for bed we went for a walk. When I got back home he was in the kitchen cooking and putting away some of the groceries I had left out. He greeted me and acted normal. I didn’t react because his entire demeanour was freaking me out so I played along. I went upstairs and got the kids down. I did think of walking out the front door but he was kind of anticipating it and so he was following me around and I thought in the moment that the best thing I could do was to get my kids upstairs and away from him. He said he wanted to talk and clear the air because this has “gone on too long”.
We had a long conversation and it started out reasonable but eventually spiralled out of control. We got into physical confrontation because I refused to let him stay. He tried to physically intimidate me and he, well hurt me. While he was hurting me I was still able to contact the police. It took them a excruciatingly long 20/25 minutes to get there.
So here I am sitting with two completely black and blue eyes, a busted lip, swollen face,massive knots on my head and bruises all over. I don’t know what happened to my life or how I got here but here I am. I can’t even look my neighbors in the eyes. I can’t go outside without seeing the shocked faces of people.
I have never felt so ashamed, so humiliated, so hurt and so utterly stupid. I thought I made all the right choices in life. What did I do wrong? When did it all get so fucked? I mean I think I did everything right? Like I created a stable life for myself then picked a man that at time was a very loving partner, I married that man and waited five years before even going through the process of having children with him and now once I’ve had his children he’s just beating on me and our babies?
Edit: My sister is now aware of what’s been happening and she is supporting me as best as she can. I have plans to move out but since I’m not working right now I need some time to save up.
His family is also aware. His family refused to believe that I saw him hurt our child but they can’t deny this attack now that they’ve seen my bruises. Also yes he was arrested and he was bailed out by his brother. He’s currently staying with his brother.
Relevant Comments:
I’m in contact with a dv organization that my lawyer has put me in contact with. I did have a locksmith come out and I have new locks. I also have a couple of safety locks for my windows, and security cameras around the house and I changed our security code but honestly he doesn’t give a shit.
He despite it all broke in and beat the living shit out of me.
Making the audio journal:
I really didn’t make my audio journal to use as evidence. I literally made it because he makes me feel like I’m insane! I never know which version of him I’ll get at any given time. I also keep my journal to keep track of what he says. Every conversation with him makes me lose grip of my fleeting sanity.
Leaving the house:
The biggest reason I haven’t left my home is because he would without a doubt say I abducted the children! I’m already withholding my children from him since I caught him hurting my six month old son.
On advice of my lawyer I have stayed put. It’s my best option for now and it shows that I’ve been reasonably measured in my actions.
Restraining order?
I am in the process of getting one.
Update Post 3: April 25, 2024 (15 days later, almost 6 weeks from OG post)
Title: It was all for the love of another woman? Who barely knew of his existence? He (42m) hurt my (36f) children to further his own selfish desires
I say all of this without exaggeration. I am certain he was getting ready to kill us. After nearly 8 months of turmoil I’m finally close to understanding.
My soon to be ex husband is in love with a woman he came across on social media and he has been obsessing over her for at least a year. She also happens to be a sex worker and he was paying her for her time and attention. In his mind he believed they could have a future together if only he could get rid of my children and me. Even though this woman gave him no inkling that she even wanted to be with him. He has spent so much of our money on this woman. I am at a loss for words that could accurately describe the situation. I can barely believe half of the things he’s been up to.
I’ve spent the past few weeks playing detective and I finally decided to contact “Jessica”. This is obviously not her name but I need to call her something. I contacted Jessica and at first she was very reluctant to speak to me but I literally begged her to and she was kind enough to get on the phone with me.
She told me that she had been seeing him for awhile but she stopped seeing him because he started to scare her. He was sending her unhinged messages and voicemails. He had been stalking her and trying to convince her to be with him. Jessica eventually stopped seeing him and had him blocked and I guess this is when he started to escalate from emotional abuse to physically abusing my children and myself. He was looking for a way out and in his crazy mind, killing us would free him because the only reason Jessica wouldn’t be with him was because me and my children were in the way.
During our long call I also explained to Jessica what had been happening to me and she was genuinely kind and helpful. She also agreed to speak to my lawyer and to send them the thousands of unhinged texts, voicemails and voice notes he sent her. For a little while after our conversation a part of me genuinely hated Jessica and wanted to blame her for everything but the rational part of me pushed out those unreasonable and dangerous thoughts especially after I read his disturbing texts and heard his voicemail/notes to Jessica. She has also been victimized by him.
Honestly there is nothing like listening to your husband and father of your children talk about how you and your children mean nothing to him and how he wishes you were dead. He could’ve just asked for a divorce or just got up and left. I sent him a few texts asking him why? (this was a one time thing and since then I’ve stopped all contact) Why do all of this? Why torment my babies? Why not just walk away? He responded with a message saying any conversation between us should be through our lawyers. His parents have him lawyered up. They know what he’s been up to and they’ve chosen to protect him. His father came to see me and in a not so direct way suggested he could pay me if I stopped talking about what his son has done and was planning on doing. Ever since he broke into the house and pretty much tried to kill me I’ve told anyone who’d listen what he has done. At this point even his colleagues know.
Relevant Comments:
I have emergency custody of my kids and a protective order. I’m in the process of getting two trained guard dogs haven’t gotten very far though and I have a security system.
I’m also seriously considering a gun. More than seriously actually I’ve applied for a permit. Of course I do plan on taking lessons in gun safety and training.
Be careful with the dogs, he may just kill them:
He probably would but the few seconds to minutes he needs in order to do that is perhaps the chance I need to save my children and myself.
This may seem horrible to you but I rather have them as a buffer then my children getting harmed. I of course don’t want this to happen but I’m in a situation now where I need to do everything I can to protect my children.
His parents:
Oh they really are bastards and refuse to believe their precious son could ever do the things he’s done despite the fact that I installed security cameras after I caught him abusing my babies and despite the fact that my neighbors have signed witness statements attesting to the fact that they saw him break into my house and attack me. They’ve seen the police report. They’ve seen the pictures of my battered face and bruised body. They are feigning ignorance but they know, and I know they know.
You don't want to give him ammunition in the divorce- maybe stop telling people?
Actually me telling people has been the best thing I’ve done so far. It’s what has kept me safe. My neighbors now look out for his car and call the police if they see he’s anywhere near the house.
What was he like before all of this? Were there any signs?
We’ve been married for nearly 8 years. Will actually be 8 years in 2 months. We never had any issues. Sure we had minor squabbles but that was few and far in between. Never did I have any issues that would lead me to think that he’d try to hurt us let alone kill us.
It was during my pregnancy and birth that he became verbally and emotionally abusive, this is also the time period he met Jessica and started fantasizing about running away with her. He was angry and jealous that my attention was more on the pregnancy and the babies and this built resentment towards me and my children. It also pushed him more into his obsession with Jessica and when he was also rejected by her, he spiraled into this insane mindset. At the same time he escalated into verbally and physically abusing our infant children and when I found out he hurt my children, I attacked him. I caught him hurting my son and we physically fought and my neighbors called the police and he was escorted out of the house. Then he came back and broke into the house, he attacked me and beat me into a bloody mess. He was arrested for this. I’ve since attained a lawyer and I’ve been granted emergency custody and a protective order.
Again- why isn't he in jail?
He’s out on bail.
Update Post 3: May 11, 2024 (2+ weeks later)
Editor's note: This post was deleted by reddit. I have transcribed it from this youtube video and this tiktok video
Title: My (36f) husband (42m) has been arrested for stalking and attempting to abduct his former “mistress”.
Last week Thursday at approximately 2:00 AM in the morning, my (36F) husband (42m) of nearly 8 years was arrested outside of Jessica's house, (the sex worker he met online and used to pay to spend time with him until he started to creep her out by his stalking and obsession.)
When he was arrested, they found in his truck small baggies with drug residue and they also found tools of abduction. I honestly do not know what these are exactly.
My soon to be ex FIL called me at around 4:45/4:50 AM to tell me that his son was arrested. My FIL was the one who used the term tools of abduction. When I asked him what the hell that means, he said he didn't have time for my interrogation tactics. He then asked if I could help them find a lawyer for him and to stand by his son throughout all of this. When I said to him "how the hell am I supposed to find a lawyer this early in the morning," he lost his shit and then was just screaming.
My soon to be ex MIL took over the phone, telling me that I'm a goddamn b****, and that all this is my fault. I hung up before she could say anymore.
I never knew this man to take drugs. Sure, he drank occasionally, but hard drugs? I honestly don't know what's happening anymore or how I got here. I mean it does make sense he was on cocaine the past 7/8 months now that I look back at things.
I mean, I don't even know anything about drugs to be able to recognize the behavior pattern, but once I researched it, it seemed clear. The moodiness, the disappearances, the lies, the anger, the sudden outburst and the violence- it all points to drug usage, as well as him being an abusive piece of shit.
His parents and the rest of his family had called and texted me so much abusive shit and they occasionally switched to begging me to go see him or pick up his calls, but I've mainly ignored them. I don't have the time, the energy or the love that is needed to be there for this man and his parents. I've given him eight years of my love and affection, and he spat it back into my face during the hardest and most vulnerable time of my life
Also, why would they think I'd help him after everything he's done? Especially since I think he deserves to be in jail for not only hurting my children, but also for hurting myself and Jessica.
I hope and pray he's jailed for the rest of his natural life. I mean I've tried being a good wife, but he has attacked my children. He has attacked me. He has lied and tormented us, and I'm supposed to help him?
I don't even know how I got here. How did we get here?
I've packed everything up and I'm leaving. I'm disappearing with my kids, and anything else between me and these people can be handled through my lawyer. The only person who knows where I'm moving to is my lawyer and my sister. I mean what else can I do to protect my children? His entire family blames me. And how do I keep my head high when I'm now being treated like I'm an evil and disgusting person by pretty much everyone I once called a family? These people are trying to destroy me inside and out, and I don't know how to survive them. How am I supposed to rebuild my life when they won't stop tormenting me?
In less than a year of their birth, I've managed to fail my children...
TLDR: My soon to be ex-husband was arrested while stalking his former mistress/sex worker and during his arrest they found drug residue and tools for abduction
Relevant Comments:
Change your surname/the kids' surnames:
My kids and I have double-barreled surnames (my surname and their dads) but when I can we will drop his and we’ll all go by just mine.
People blaming OOP:
The sad fucking thing it’s not only his parents. It seems like everyone is blaming me.
OOP's response to a crappy (now deleted) comment:
“ You need to discover the reasons why you failed to notice or do anything about everything that was going on with him. You have to build skills so you can take full ownership over your own life.”
This genuinely has me fucking raging right now! I feel like everyone keeps blaming me!
And I don’t know why everyone keeps blaming me for his shit! We didn’t have any problems in the previous 7 years of our marriage. He started doing drugs during my pregnancy and this is when he started to behave abnormally. I tried to get him help because I thought it was depression or the stress of being a new parent.
When I noticed his irritablity, combativeness and generally shitty behavior was more than just depression or jealousy of me spending more time with my new born children, I kicked him out, I got a lawyer and involved the police because there no way in hell I’d stay with someone who hurt my children or let him get away with it and I also made sure to get emergency custody of my children. This is also around the same time when he spiralled into using more drugs. I don’t know what else I could’ve done but I know I took all the right steps when I noticed his escalation!
I’m so sick of everyone acting like I was making him do drugs and like I’m suppose to know that he’d ruin my life after having had a good marriage before he started taking drugs and going out of his mind.
What has your lawyer said about disappearing?
I currently have emergency custody. My lawyer is the one who suggested to disappear (meaning moving to new house and not letting anyone know) because she says this is a time of great danger and I heartily agree. Since my ex-husband first went to look for me at the house but me and my children went to stay somewhere else for a few days because I was scared he’d come back after he broke into the house previously and attacked me.

Hello!
I hope we're all doing well!
We did relatively okay last time, with our secondary parlay landing clean! Everything else kinda fell apart, but I did a bit better than I feared i would have done.
Another rough fight night to predict here! Should be a fun event though.
Onwards to the predictions!
(c) - Champ
D/DWCS - Debut/Dana Whites' Contender Series
FLS - Fight Lose Streak
FWS - Fight Win Streak
NS - No Streak
(#x) - Rank in Division
x/3 - Confidence Levels
lets go!
Prelims
Women’s Strawweight
Emily Ducote (-275) (13-8-0, NS) v Vanessa Demopoulos (+220) (10-5-0, NS) - Oh look, a fight that’s probably going to go to the scorecards. Ducote is coming off a relatively strong win against Yoder, she was very capable of stuffing all of those takedown attempts coming her way and matching the tenacity of Yoder on the feet. Now, I am always a bit iffy when it comes to someone with a record like Ducotes’, but I do believe they (The UFC) didn’t quite build her up properly, giving her opponents like Godinez and Hill very early on in her UFC career. Ducote is a fairly well rounded fighter who does well on her feet, but most importantly, her grappling is relatively good, having been capable of defending the takedowns of Godinez, which isn’t a small feat since Godinez is well known for her wrestling capabilities. That ability to defend takedowns is massively important when dealing with someone like Demopoulos, whose main threat in most of her fights are her takedowns and grappling attacks. Ducote has fairly standard striking attacks for a well rounded MMA fighter, she is very quick on the feet and throws a lot of volume when she attacks, which could prove challenging to Demopoulos as she tries to enter range and initiate a takedown. Now, whilst Ducote has a lot of volume and speed to her strikes, she lacks in the “finishing” area, she doesn’t quite have the tenacity to finish her opponents, there’s no hurry. With that said though, she does have a bit of a familiar pattern of touching up her opponents until that right hand finds its mark, then she adds emphasis on that right-side punch. She has, however, one weird tendency to just stand there, staring, whilst in the pocket, with a rather square stance, and whilst that might help her with the offensive output, she is still standing there with minimal defences. That’s something that has contributed to her losses in the past and something that Demopoulos could possibly use as a way to find an entry for a takedown. Demopoulos is coming off a win against Murata, but it was a fairly unimpressive performance with Demopoulos getting taken down a lot, and although she looked fairly good on the feet with powerful single attacks, I don’t quite know how effective she is going to be against a volume-heavy fighter like Ducote. Demopoulos has a few tendencies as a fighter that are great, she is fairly active in the guard off her back, throwing up submissions very quickly, but the problem with that is nowadays if you can’t lock in a submission, then you are losing the fight, and I think if Demopoulos does pull guard, Ducote should have the ability to control her on the ground and avoid submissions. This is a very, very 50/50 fight in my opinion. Ducote has a slight advantage on the feet due to her speed and volume, but on the ground it’s looking like Demopoulos has the advantages there, as she does have great instinct on when to lock in a submission or shift the hips. The safest bet here is either o2.5 rounds or the fight going the distance, this isn’t a ML bet fight by any means in my opinion. As for my prediction, I am very split but i’m leaning towards Ducote to win this one, but it’s the slightest lean one can imagine.
Ducote via UD - (1/3)
Bantamweight
Alatengheili (+150) (16-9-2, NS) v Kleydson Rodrigues (-185) (8-3-0, NS) - This is a fascinating one. Alatengheili was scheduled to fight a month ago but it was cancelled due to an illness, so I fully expect him to fight again this week. The kinda good news about that is he doesn’t really need to have a big camp since he already had the conditioning and cardio from that other camp preparing for Victor Hugo. Alatengheili is a very aggressive and powerful fighter, everything he throws has so much speed and power behind it, and whilst there might not be a lot of volume behind those punches, he shouldn’t be underestimated on the feet because of his explosiveness. Alatengheili also uses that explosive power to wrestle, and he is fairly good on the ground, able to maintain a strong position at all times and just land heavy ground and pound. Alatengheili is powerful but he doesn’t display that power with reckless abandon, he tends to be a bit of a counter puncher, his hands are often low or loose, which lures his opponent in to strike, in which he then propels himself forward with a quick flurry of dangerous punches, then there’s a reset and he waits to lure his opponent in again. That’s his typical gameplan and it works a lot of the time, but I do think he might get exposed by one thing that Rodrigues could do, and that’s chop at the legs to remove or mitigate that explosiveness that Alatengheili relies on. Rodrigues on the other hand has not had as much experience nor octagon time that Alatengheili has had, but his style seems to be a bit of a challenge for Alatengheili, at least from what I can see. Rodrigues is very well rounded, he is very quick on the feet, but most of all, he doesn’t do anything too crazy to be lured into a potential counter-flurry by Alatengheili. Rodrigues loves to kick at range, he is so dynamic and can switch up the angles of the attacks so quickly that he could possibly just keep kicking Alatengheili until the fight is over, as long as he keeps a safe distance from a retaliatory attack. He is very quick at throwing out those kicks and I do think if he attacks the legs early enough he is going to be effective, as Gutierrez was when he fought Alatengheili. Alatengheili is going to have to mix it up in this fight to get ahead, he is going to have to rely heavily on his wrestling in order to get a win here, because we have seen that Rodrigues is mostly a kickboxestriker, and if Alatengheili can push a nasty pace and pressure (something he only does if he is successful with his counters or see’s his opponent is hurt), that completely removes Rodrigues’ ability to kick. However, the biggest danger with any sort of aggressive forward movement from Alatengheili is the ridiculous hand speed of Rodrigues, his boxing speed is ferocious and he doesn’t necessarily overthrow, everything is clean and tight, and given how open the defences are with Alatengheili, I do think a check left hook or an uppercut is going to be a highly effective tool that Rodrigues is going to utilise, especially if Alatengheili is going to look for takedowns. The focus and timing of Rodrigues is something that I really like also, he is so calm but intense in the cage, he sees a lot of his opponents attacks coming, and since Alatengheili’s actions are huge and relatively easy to read (as there is quite a wind up for it) Rodrigues should be able to avoid it or counter effectively. One major thing I want to point out here that makes me lean on Rodrigues even moreso is the striking inaccuracy of Alatengheili, he is a powerful fighter, i cannot state this enough, but it is thanks to that power and his willingness to throw down heavy punches that he often misses. I’m gonna list some stats, so bear with me… These are his striking accuracy stats from a handful of his recent fights, starting from the most recent to ones earlier in his career. Gutierrez with 28% Accuracy, Anheliger with 37%, Lopez with 30% and Kenney with 26%. This is why I emphasized before how important Alatengheili’s wrestling is going to be in this fight, because if you’re going to go up against a very tricky and accurate striker like Rodrigues, you cannot play that accuracy game and risk winging punches against him. With that said though, don’t count of Alatengheili here, his power and explosiveness are always going to be a problem and it should generally be a good idea to sprinkle a little bit of money on him, even moreso that he’s an underdog. My prediction for this fight is a long, drawn out Rodrigues win, but it’s a tough one because we haven’t quite seen that much greatness from Rodrigues.
Rodrigues via UD - (1/3)
Women’s Strawweight
Piera Rodriguez (-175) (9-1-0, NS) v Ariane Carnelossi (+145) (14-3-0, NS) - Normally, a lot of fights interest me, even the ones that don’t interest the vast majority of others… but this one? I have no feelings one way or the other about this one, it seems like a filler fight lol. Rodriguez is a relatively well rounded fighter coming off a tough loss against Gillian Robertson, and I mean, that kind of loss tends to come with the territory of wrestling a well known submission specialist, so I don’t exactly fault Rodriguez for losing in that way. There is very little doubt that Rodriguez is going to have a major advantage in the wrestling department, a lot of her fights involve her taking down her opponent, it's what she does exceptionally well and considering how dreadful Carnelossi’s takedown defence is, it is going to be Piera’s imperative to take down Carnelossi. The problem with Rodriguez is that she's a little bit one dimensional, she doesn’t do too well on the feet and Carnelossi does have very strong strikes, I mean, look at her, she’s absolutely a power puncher. Rodriguez is highly diverse with her striking, both in terms of range and variability of attack, she has excellent fundamentals with the boxing, landing combinations in the pocket and moving away, and one main thing she does extremely well is that jab, its a really long, lunging jab, and the reason why I point that out is because it somewhat masks the takedown, she uses that jab over and over, and because that motion to jab is almost similar to a level change, she doesn’t necessarily feint the jab to get to the level change/takedown position, but her opponents just think another jab is coming. This is going to be a great set up against Carnelossi, attack her with long, prodding jabs, and after a few of those, go for a level change, because its that long lunge that looks like a level change. To put it bluntly, anything to get a level change and a takedown will be highly effective against Carnelossi. Carnelossi is an interesting one to talk about because she had a fun start to her career with an extremely entertaining fight against Liang Na, but if you look closely, she is just a fun fighter, not a great one. Her punching power is probably her biggest asset, because everywhere else she absolutely is not worth talking about, and it’s that punching power that will be evident when she inevitably clips Rodriguez. Carnelossi is one dimensional, but boy is she scrappy and I don’t think Rodriguez can afford to get crazy with her on the feet, because Rodriguez will be hurt by something in the pocket, the smartest thing Rodriguez can ideally do is level change and absolutely remove the power from Carnelossi, and considering that Carnelossi’s power is generated from a very still-standing stance, it wouldn’t take much to take her off her feet. I got Rodriguez winning this one, it should hopefully be a fun fight.
Rodriguez via UD - (1/3)
Middleweight
Abus Magomedov (-250) (25-6-1, 2 FLS) v Warlley Alves (+205) (14-7-0, 3 FLS) - It kind of seems like they are setting Magomedov up for success here. Magomedov may have had a tough last two bouts, but considering the fact that he faced Strickland and Borralho, that’s ridiculous levels of competition for a newcomer. Magomedov had one major issue exposed when he fought Strickland and that was his cardio, everything else he looked absolutely incredible at, he has a lot of power in his hands, he’s long and dynamic with his attacks and he has great wrestling, but it was his cardio that made him fall apart. During his Borralho fight, despite losing that bout, those cardio issues didn’t seem as present, he has seemingly learnt to pace himself and he honestly looks to be a decent up and comer now that he’s facing slightly more adjusted competition instead of straight up killers. Magomedov has a massive, massive reach advantage over Alves, and that’s going to be prevalent when Magomedov lands those beautiful strikes at range. He does use his kicks alot, and alongside said kicks are a lot of knee feints, it's a bit odd to look at, it could just be him getting ready to check leg kicks or to feint a kick, but it's just one of those things that I can’t quite figure out. Anyway, Magomedov’s cardio is going to be in question again today, and whilst I did say that he seems to be mostly fine, or at least a bit better than when he fought Strickland, he still tends to overthrow a lot, there is no pitter patter of punches that you somewhat see, they’re all still big actions and those big actions cost him his cardio early on. The best way to kind of describe Magomedov, at least cardio wise, is a slightly more talented and skillful McKinney. My main concern is how exposed his face is to getting hit, all it would take is for Alves to rush in like a bull and throw some heavy overhand punches, make it very gritty in there and make Magomedov tired. That’s the only way I can kind of see Magomedov struggle a lot. Alves is an exceptionally quick starter, he is an absolute firecracker and if he can catch Magomedov early, that’s going to be absolutely massive given the size difference. Everything Alves throws comes with silly amounts of power, and he isn’t necessarily a headhunter, he chops at the legs and body occasionally, he’s quite diverse and I think those leg kicks are going to be problematic for Magomedov, considering Magomedov needs to push forward in order to get his combinations off. Alves is a tough, tough fighter, and whilst he is coming off a savage knockout by Aliskerov, I do think that Alves is still one dangerous fighter to take on, maybe not as technical as Borralho (to compare to Magomedov’s last opponent), but he is an absolute monster when it comes to aggression and that alone could exhaust Magomedov. However, the reach and movement of Magomedov is going to be a major challenge here. I am not completely counting out Alves here, I think he is being a bit underestimated here, but I just think Magomedov has a lot more tools in his arsenal that is going to be boosted by that reach advantage, and it does seem that Alves is fairly susceptible to down the pipe shots, something that Magomedov does well. Range and distance are going to be the main gameplan for Magomedov and his time I think. I got Magomedov winning this one, but i am not very confident in this one due to the volatility of Alves’ actions. He is a wild and fast starter so I expect that first round to be the most sketchiest.
Magomedov via KO R2 - (1/3)
Women’s Bantamweight
Tamires Vidal (+300) (7-2-0, NS) v Melissa Gatto (-410) (8-2-2, 2 FLS) - This is certainly an interesting one. Vidal is coming off a tough loss against Rendon, and it was a bit of a boring fight in all honesty, with Vidal being somewhat effective on the feet with big and powerful attacks, but ultimately succumbing to the wrestling of Rendon. I don’t see that much changing this time around since Gatto is a great wrestler and Vidal has clearly shown major defensive issues in the wrestling department, so to put it bluntly, it just seems like Vidal has a puncher's chance, and if she does land those punches, I do think the tides can change a little in her favour, but it would only take one takedown for Gatto to be in full control for the rest of that round. Outside of her loss to Rendon, Vidal looked fun against Pascual, then again, a lot of fighters of a reasonably low calibre can look good against Pascual, so I think that was one of those “set up for success” fights. Still, the aggression and threat of a knockdown/out from Vidal will be fairly prevalent during this fight. But that’s about it, shes a powerful striker and quite dynamic, but her takedown defence is going to be a problem. Gatto was scheduled to fight Dudakova a few weeks ago, however that fight fell off, which is probably good for Gatto coz she’s ready for a fight regardless, shes still somewhat fresh off camp and was going to probably employ the same strategy against Vidal that she would have against Dudakova, and that was to wrestle. Gatto’s wrestling has always been a bit of a highlight for her, she’s physically strong and is able to do well in advantageous positions, holding her opponents down and either landing ground and pound or just grinding them out, exhausting them for a large chunk of the round. Gatto is also very dangerous on the feet, she has deceptively quick and powerful punches which she uses to both damage her opponents but also as an opportunity to raise their guard so the level change is more easily accessible. No matter what way you cut this slice of cake, I think Gatto’s wrestling is going to be a major problem for Vidal, and Vidal’s only way to win this fight is to keep it standing and just brawl, make it look gritty in there and potentially freeze up Gatto’s ability to wrestle cleanly. I am leaning on Gatto to win this one, but that unpredictability of Vidal’s aggression is going to be a big factor here. No major bet advice here, it seems like there is a possibility of it going over 2.5 rounds, but that’s about it.
Gatto via UD - (1/3)
Light Heavyweight
Oumar Sy (D) (9-0-0, 9 FWS) v Tuco Tokkos (D) (10-3-0, 3 FWS) - ITS DOUBLE DEBUT TIME!!! These are getting rarer and rarer the more we see fighters from DWCS make their way to the UFC, so this is a fun little occasion. Sy is coming into this fight a little bit more prepared, at least physically and cardio wise, than his replacement opponent in Tokkos. Sy is coming off a string of beautiful fights on various promotions, but most importantly he’s been relatively tested on KSW, which is one of the better promotions to come out of the European world of MMA. Sy is a long and rangey fighter who has dangerous head kicks and dangerous wrestling skills that he uses really well, and whilst he has a massive reach advantage over his opponent, he doesn’t exactly strike in any traditional way, you don’t see him throw a lot of jabs, he mostly uses his reach to lock in takedowns (since it’s easier to lock in takedowns with longer arms), and the moment the fight goes to the ground, expect him to find a position to where he can reign down heavy ground and pound. I would love to see him strike a bit more, but most of his fights are him taking his opponents down and landing ground and pound, and if he does that against a replacement fighter in Tokkos, I expect him to dominate and completely shut down Tokkos since it would take preparation to get out of funky positions that Sy puts his opponents in, and I don’t know if Tokkos has that wrestling background to handle the larger and longer opponent in Sy properly on the ground. Tokkos seemingly came out of nowhere this last week, and that one thing that blasted me in the face was the record of his second most recent opponent, Brian Jackson. Dudes got a 1-7 record and Tokkos torched him (expectedly), that doesn’t bring a lot of confidence to me that a guy like Tokkos, coming from a relatively decent gym in Kill Cliff FC, takes on and fights someone like that. Tokkos is overall a decent fighter with some strong wins under his belt, but the main thing going against him here is preparation time, and whilst he does have a fair bit of experience under his belt, I just don’t think he’s ready for someone like Sy on short notice. Tokkos is a relatively well rounded fighter with great wrestling and decent striking, but i just think all of that is going to be possibly negated by the substantial reach advantage of Sy. This is a double debut though, and whilst I normally steer clear from calling someone new to the UFC a lock, I think the fact that Sy has had a full camp for… three fights (Bellato, Trocolli (both cancelled) and now Tokkos), I think he’s ready for this fight and ready for the UFC. He will be an optional lock, but still a 2/3 confidence pick, if that makes sense.
Sy via KO R1 (2/3)
Lightweight
Tom Nolan (-450) (6-1-0, NS) v Victor Martinez (+340) (13-5-0, NS) - Both fighters made their debut and lost in the same way, in the same round, so let’s call this a second attempt at a debut lol. Nolan made his debut against knockout artist Nikolas Motta, and honestly that is a dangerous fight for anyone to take, but it probably made sense to the matchmakers since both fighters are prolific knockout artists. Nolan does finish his opponents very quickly a lot of the time, and I do think he has a massive advantage on the feet against Martinez since Martinez isn’t exactly a big threat on the feet, and his inactivity over the past few years (or lack of solid activity at least) leaves some questions hanging in the air. Nolan has a reach and height advantage here, but the most prominent advantage will be with his reach where he can string together gorgeous straight combinations to decent effect, and that’s what he’s really known for, he’s got awesome boxing and he is very confident in his punching power. He is also relatively defensively sound for someone with his size because I have pointed out before that a lot of taller and longer fighters don’t shell up a lot or have a lot of defensive layers to their style, but Nolan is overall a fairly solid boxer both on the offence and defence, it’s just a shame he got fed to the wolf when he fought Motta. Nolan made the simple mistake when he fought Motta of being in the pocket without care, and i think those kinds of mistakes are easy enough to fix, and considering Martinez is not the same kind of threat on the feet compared to Motta, I do think that gives Nolan a bit more freedom to string together combinations and overall look great on the feet, as he was meant to be, since his whole career up until that loss to Motta has been him having gorgeous striking. Martinez is coming off a KO loss also, but it was by Jordan Leavitt, and that’s just a painful look on anyone's record to get knocked out by someone who is not known for his striking. Martinez is overall a good striker, he has very fast hands, but I have noticed one thing about him that I can see Nolan landing cleanly. Martinez has the tendency to leave his right hand far from a block position, its more of a parry position, in front of him instead of beside him, and he tends to lower that hand when taking a back step, and I cannot help but see the Southpaw striker in Nolan land that left hand to the chin of Martinez. Now, any sort of exchange between either fighter here is going to be a dangerous one for both parties, but that is where reach comes in, Nolan has a diverse boxing skillset and his long attacks allow him to carry power as much as anyone elses short hooks would. One major thing Martinez is going to have to be careful of is a knee up the middle by Nolan as Nolan’s height is going to allow that knee to come up to target without a major loss to momentum, and I mean, if Martinez got dropped by Rosales on DWCS, then by Leavitt, I just don’t know if he has the chin to withstand the battering that comes from Nolan. I got Nolan winning this one, but this is going to be a fantastic fight which isn’t likely to go the distance.
Nolan via KO R1 - (2/3)
Main Card
Women’s Strawweight
Angela Hill (#12) (-160) (16-13-0, NS) v Luana Pinheiro (#13) (+130) (11-2-0, NS) - This is a great fight. Hill is coming off a very strong win over Denise Gomes, and it was honestly such a brilliant performance by someone who a lot of people tend to ignore. Hill is an incredibly diverse fighter, she is tenacious on the feet, highly capable of stringing together strong combinations from all ranges, and as she closes the distance, she’s good at tying up her opponent in a clinch and landing awesome knees and elbows. This is all Hill and her cumulative experience in the Octagon against a wide range of different fighters and styles, and it’s clear to me that her preparation for a lot of her fights involve solid planning and back up plans, because whilst her record reflects a rough run through her career, her level of competition is insane. Hill isn’t a finisher though, but she is someone who can keep a ridiculous pace for three rounds, so I do think that she has the capabilities to overwhelm Pinheiro on the feet, especially since we just saw Ribas do the same thing a little over 5 months ago. Hill will have a striking advantage in this fight, she throws a lot of volume at high speed towards her opponent and they do land effectively, and with a slight edge in reach I do see her having a bit more success on the feet here especially since Pinheiro does not have a lot of head movement or striking defence. Pinheiro is a danger to Hill in the grappling department though, especially in those transitions from standing to ground, she utilises hip throws relatively well and could make this fight ugly on the ground, but I don’t think there is a major submission threat here, I think her style is predominantly control and ground and pound, both things that Hill has experience in dealing with, although she still will lose the round if Pinheiro executes her gameplan well. Pinheiro has power in her hands, she could potentially make Hill a little bit frozen and hesitant on the feet once Pinheiro lands that overhand right that Pinheiro loves to throw early, but she doesn’t throw it often enough to lead to a significant finish, she’s a very low volume, high impact striker and that could play in the favour of Hill if Hill’s volume walks Pinheiro back into the cage. Pinheiro could make this fight dangerous for Hill on the ground, but we have seen a few times now that Hill is very good at the basics of takedown defence, underhooks, whizzers (if i spelt that correctly) and quickly getting back to a standing position, she is not complacent on the ground or in that transition to the ground, and I think any sort of failed takedown attempt from Pinheiro is going to fuel Hill a lot more, since Pinheiro only has a few kinds of takedowns. This is a hard on to pick in all seriousness, I might get the prediction wrong, but I have a strong feeling that we are going to see this fight go over 2.5 rounds, or even hit the scorecards. As for the prediction, looking at this fight, I am kind of leaning on Hill here, because Pinheiro’s wins aren’t as significant as Hill’s wins, and i do think Pinheiro fades a little bit as the fight goes on.
Hill via UD - (1/3)
Bantamweight
Adrian Yanez (-350) (16-5-0, 2 FLS) v Vinicius Salvador (+275) (14-6-0, 2 FLS) - I love this fight. Yanez is coming off two painful back to back KO losses, whenever a young fighter comes into the UFC, tears through the division, then hits a losing skid, it’s always a concern to any fan or pundit. However, I do think that leg kick KO is anomalous to the UFC, it rarely happens and I don’t think Salvador is much of a leg kicker anyway so the threat isn’t there. However, I do want to add that the psychological factor of maybe getting leg kicked to oblivion is going to weigh heavy on Yanez’ mind, and I do wonder if Yanez has drilled checking leg kicks before. Now, Yanez is still a dangerous opponent for anyone to take, he still has incredibly technical MMA boxing, and that’s going to be on full display this weekend. Yanez is so fluid and yet tricky on the feet, he’s very good at gauging range and firing away from different angles, as well as timing his shots off his opponents striking attempts, everything involving striking exchanges will most likely be in the favour of Yanez, he thrives in that space and I do believe his experience and his wins prior to those two devastating losses are going to shine this weekend. My only concern about Yanez is his ability to not get carried away and show his chin too much, because whilst Salvador is yet to get a win in the UFC, he still has had some mild striking success against fighters like Altamirano and Vergara, and it wouldn’t take a lot for Salvador to find the chin of Yanez. Salvador is a very funky and unorthodox fighter, and whilst that always brings positive attention to him, I also think that has been a product of failure for him also since the more cleaner fighters outbox him, are generally a lot faster and just find their mark a bit quicker, if that makes sense? I mean, Salvador’s stance is fairly loose, his chin is in the air and his shell is rather loose, and that’s not good news, especially if he’s facing a vicious fighter like Yanez. Salvador thrives in chaotic fights though, he is awesome and making it dangerous and risky for his opponents to fight in the pocket, but his style emanates a lack of self preservation. He is a kill or be killed kind of fighter in my opinion, and I firmly believe that when he got dropped numerous times in that first round against Victor Altamirano, it only showed us, and any future opponent (via tape watch in prep) that he is very hittable, his head is right there and the only reason it wasn’t there for Vergara was due to the significant difference in height and reach. Salvador moving up to 135 could make him a lot more interesting in terms of being able to explode more often and having more power behind his punches, but I also think it means he is dealing with more harder hitting fighters, and with the accuracy and boxing skill set of Yanez, I just think Salvador is going to get outdone here. I got Yanez winning this one, but I am interested to see if Salvador has what it takes to win and upset a lot of parlays out there.
Yanez via KO R2 - (1/3)
Welterweight
Ramiz Brahimaj (+170) (10-4-0, NS) v Themba Gorimbo (-205) (12-4-0, 2 FWS) - Brahimaj is coming back after two tough years away, and the reason why it’s tough is because he has been dealing with a spinal injury, and boy do i empathise with that. Now, his injury is mostly C-Spine and shoulder area nerve damage, this is terrible for a fighter because it effectively eliminates your ability to comfortably strike, sprawl, wrestle, underhook/overhook stuff, everything that you see in a fighter typically comes from shoulder rotation and all that stuff, so for Brahimaj to be out for two years, dealing with all of that, does not give me a lot of confidence in him being 100% coming into this fight against Gorimbo. Brahimaj is a dangerous grappler who thrives on the ground, he is honestly only dangerous on the ground, but the problem is that Gorimbo is very good on the ground himself, at least good enough to know what is being set up, and it’s on the ground where Brahimaj has his only chance to win. Unfortunately for Brahimaj, it’s going to take some work to get the fight to the ground and Gorimbo is more than willing to keep the fight standing, so honestly, I just don’t think Brahimaj is going to be as well rounded or as effective as he needs to be in order to get a win here. Gorimbo is riding some momentum coming into this fight, as he is coming off a lightning quick KO over Pete Rodriguez, and I mean, Rodriguez sucks, he’s one of the worst fighters in the UFC and that KO means nothing in the grand scheme of things, it’s just an additional win on a record with barely any weight to it. Gorimbo is going to be a lot more confident in his boxing though since that win, that feeling of getting knockouts is an addictive one and I think he’s going to be using his incredible reach advantage to look to get another KO this weekend over the possibly rusty Brahimaj. Gorimbo is a very well rounded fighter who honestly has a lot of potential to be a star, he has excellent boxing, and honestly very good wrestling and grappling, and I do think if the fight does go to the ground, Gorimbo has the fight IQ to notice set ups coming, neutralize them and remain on top in control, landing ground and pound or just advancing to his own submission positions. The most likely scenario though is Gorimbo keeps this fight standing and overwhelms Brahimaj on the feet, because he probably wants to chase another KO since that feeling is notoriously addictive. I got Gorimbo winning this one, I can’t wait to see how far this man goes in his career.
Gorimbo via KO R1 - (2/3)
Co-Main Event
Welterweight
Khaos Williams (-125) (14-3-0, NS) v Carlston Harris (+105) (19-5-0, 2 FWS) - This feels like a classic Striker versus Grappler fight. Williams is a strong, powerful striker who is such a threat on the feet, especially early on when he wants to push a nasty pace and land those devastating punches. He is known for being a bully, crashing forward with crazy power and aggression. There is no clean technique coming from Williams, it is mostly wild, wild punches and he is confident in his ability to knock out his opponent, that’s what makes him a dangerous threat to his opponents, that confidence. The right hand is Williams best weapon, his right overhand or hook is going to be the one that knocks out Harris if it lands, but that’s all he is, a powerful right side puncher, and if Harris times a takedown well, all of that threat is gone. On the flip side, Harris is primarily a grappler with a solid grappling base, and whilst he has faced his fair share of dangerous strikers, I believe Williams’ power is something different. Now, Harris has the potential to take this fight to the ground, I know that according to UFC stats that Harris has an 80% takedown defence, but there has not been enough wrestling in his fights, by his opponents, to fully prove that his takedown defence is that great, it’s only been used sparingly against him since most of his fights are absolute wild exchanges and beautiful displays of violence on the feet. Williams' propensity to head hunt could lead to an opening for a level change by Harris, but it’s a risky thing to do because any punch that lands on Harris is going to hurt him, and considering the age factor here, its possible his chin isn’t going to hold up well against the power of Williams. Now, Harris was getting rag dolled and outwrestled by Wells when they fought, and whilst that isn’t a great look for Harris, I don’t think Williams has the wrestling capabilities that Wells has, so I think the main submission threat from Harris in this fight is going to come from the clinch, so guillotines and front head choke variants are going to be on the menu for Harris this weekend, it’s just a matter of if he gets into that position or if he gets his head blasted over and over by powerful punches from Williams. This is a dangerous fight to bet on if you’re thinking of Moneyline betting, it can easily go either way since both excel in their respective styles, the safest and smartest bet here in my opinion is that this fight doesn’t hit the judges scorecards. As for my prediction, I don’t think i’ll be getting this right due to the volatile nature of this match up, but…
Harris via Sub R2 - (1/3)
Main Event
Featherweight
Edson Barboza (#14) (+125) (24-11-0, 2 FWS) v Lerone Murphy (-150) (13-0-1, 5 FWS FWS) - Man this is a funky main event. Barboza is a legend of the sport, but most importantly, and perhaps most relevant to this write up, he is an old dog who can still hang with the toughest. His last two wins have been against Yusuff and Quarantillo, two very difficult fighters to take on at 145 and it’s his win over Yusuff that I want to highlight… Yusuff exploded in the first round, looked for that finish and Barboza survived and thrived throughout the rest of the fight, it was a beautiful display of heart, toughness, and adaptability, because that was not the first firefight that Barboza has been in, and considering his current opponent, it sure as shit won’t be his last. Barboza is well known for his outstanding kicks, but he’s also just overall a ridiculously dangerous striker. An understated aspect of his whole game though is his wrestling and grappling, he might not be looking for a lot of takedowns when he fights, but he is well versed on the ground, having taken down Yusuff 3 of 4 times in the final round of a high pace main event is testament to his cardio and conditioning, despite the concern surrounding his age. Barboza is going to be a true test on the feet for Murphy, and I think it’s going to be the toughest fight of his career. Murphy is coming off a string of strong victories in the UFC, with his most recent one being against Culibao, and I gotta say, Murphy is one of those dangerous prospects that we all should keep an eye on. Murphy is a rapidly improving fighter who adds weapons to his arsenal every single time he comes out. He was originally a boxer with outstanding punching power and speed, he was ridiculously slick on the feet, but after each fight he adds more kicks, more movement and wrestling, he has slowly become a very well rounded fighter, and this makes his upcoming bout against a very tested veteran who is still here to stay in Barboza incredibly fascinating. There is a slight catch to all of those additional things added into his arsenal though, and that’s each time something has been added, the next opponent has something else to prepare for. I firmly believe that Murphy’s rise to this position and to this fight is not from his outstanding skill level, but from his incredible repertoire of techniques he has acquired and learnt over his UFC career. Unpredictability is king when it comes to new fighters, we have seen new fighters add things to their game that have completely changed and accelerated their growth, and that’s exactly what we have seen for Murphy. Murphy has a wide variety of strong strikes he uses effortlessly, from standard boxing combinations to a very snappy high kick, to strong grappling and control on the ground, he hasn’t mastered any of these things, but since they are added along each and every time he fights, his opponents are rarely prepared. This is not going to be the case for Barboza, Barboza is very, very well rounded and well versed in almost every aspect of MMA. Ill keep this short. I got Barboza winning this one, but I am still going to be a fan of Murphy, regardless of result.
Barboza via UD - (1/3)
Primary Parlay: Ducote/Demopoulos o2.5 or GTD + (optional Gatto/Vidal o2.5 or GTD) + Nolan/Martinez ITD + Hill/Pinheiro o2.5 or GTD + Barboza/Murphy R3 Starts
Locks of the week: Optional Sy + Nolan + Gorimbo
Alt Bets: Alves KO R1, Pinheiro Sub R2 or 3, Williams KO R1, Murphy KO R1 2 or 3 (combo rounds)
And that's it!!!!
Prediction accuracy as of 2024: 64.6%
If you would like to donate and support me, as this is my only income, please do so via Paypal. All write ups are free, donations are insanely optional! https://paypal.me/Slayertip?country.x=AU&locale.x=en_AU
if you wish to keep in contact with me or follow me on twitter, my twitter handle is @Slayer_Tip, and my Discord is Slayertip#7013.
Lets have a fun and friendly discussion down below about this weekends card!
I hope you all have an amazing day, look after yourselves, and enjoy this awesome event!

The moderation team does not vet or endorse crowdfunding campaigns.
Link to page
Sammy is his name, he needs help now more than ever because he is currently fighting for his life. Two months ago he was attacked by a pitbull that had no leash while my brother was walking Sammy. The entire attack happened in less than 10 seconds but the damage was devastating. The only reason why Sammy survived the attack was due to my brother's quick actions. My brother wrapped his hands around the pitbull's neck and choked him until he let go of Sammy (No the pitbull wasn't hurt at all). When the pitbull let go Sammy came off his harness and took off running despite his right front leg being broken. My brother ran after Sammy and was just barely able to get to him before a car passed by almost running over Sammy. Sammy was in critical condition but he lived to fight another day.
For the next two months Sammy spent all his time in and out of hospitals. He had a broken leg, had a tube on his stomach, stitches all over his back, and of course had to wear a cone. The first night he got back home he was hardly able to lay down to sleep due to the cone, broken leg, and tube on his side. All of this happened meanwhile the owner of the pitbull faced ZERO CONSEQUENCES for his actions. Due to living where we do, and what we've heard regarding the individual, we felt like we couldn't do anything about it. Like I said, Sammy had pulled through and was on track to being 100 percent .
Thousands upon thousands of dollars later, Sammy was about 90 percent back to "normal"....That was until this past week
Not even two weeks after Sammy had healed from the pitbull attack.. Sammy started to lose control of his body... he refused to walk and fell going up the stairs. He was tripping over himself and was drinking loads and loads of water. Once again Sammy needed to go back to the hospital.For the past three days Sammy has been in the hospital receiving all the care the rest of our money could offer him. Although we have tried our best, everything is pointing to neurological issues. We are tapped out of money, neurologist are already insanely expensive...WE LIVE CALIFORNIA... we have no idea just how insane the price tag will be for everything Sammy will need moving forward...if he has a tumor I can only imagine...Sammy does not deserve to go out like this. Before we had Sammy he already had lived a tough life. He was relegated to living in backyards with no shade in the California heat. He was in and out of animal shelters. Who knows what else he went through before he came to our lives. Sammy has spent the past almost ten years now living with a family that truly loves him. I personally would give ten years of my life to save him. He has two other brothers that wouldn't be the same without him...
I ask, will you please help Sammy out? It would mean the world to us all. Please help us help him live a truly long life. He still has so much to live for. Any donations will be appreciated.All donations will go to Sammy's treatment.Update, thank you to anybody who has donated so far, it means a lot, currently we have Sammy back at home, he was unable to see a neurologist due to costs. It was going to be the first time Sammy would be treated by neurologists and the cost was already at being billed at 8,500...with what's going on with Sammy he would require several trips to the neurologist and etc. Once again anything helps. Sammy seems to be doing a bit better from the three days he was hospitalized but definitely needs further help.

My NPD is there, I just don’t have the energy or the brain power to deal with it. I just wish I was normal and didn’t have to work on myself. My (f34) spouse (m36) has been upset about the way I handle things, and my inability to realize how my actions affect him or our kids. However, about 4 years ago he quit his job when COVID started and he was hoping to start a company but that didn’t work out. I started working because I was unemployed and we were able to survive on my income and the stimulus for COVID for about a year. Then I quit my job because I was hating it there plus the kids were wanting me home and I was unsure of how he was handling the kids because they frequently would complain about him. He agreed that he would get a job so I put my notice at work.
After a couple of months of him refusing jobs, we couldn’t make rent and I was doing what I could to find a job. We got a eviction and have had like 2 years of moving to different states to stay with family until we decided to stay in our original state because I have more family here. I’ve gotten jobs and donate plasma to make ends meet but he doesn’t even try to pass the 2 month mark with any jobs he ever gets.
Anyhow, my thing is that he claims he doesn’t want to work because I’m just treating him like a wallet- which is insane to me since I’ve been the main breadwinner for like 3 years. I might have my negative qualities but I still know we have to provide for our kids. He says we are in this homeless state because of me. He doesn’t want to work while still with me because he wants to get ahead by himself.
So does your SO blame you for things that make no sense too?

Nineteen years after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, the storm remains one of the deadliest hurricanes in United States history. Though the death toll remains uncertain, at least 1,300 lives were lost as a result of the tragedy, with dozens more still missing.
One of those lives was an unidentified woman, nicknamed Jane Love by locals, who was found a week after the storm passed between the foundations of two wrecked houses in St. Martin, Mississippi*. She wore a University of Michigan t-shirt over black pants and had pierced ears. Jane Love was determined to be a middle-aged woman, likely Black. In the chaos of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Jane was unable to be reunited with her family. When the woman, along with another unidentified man, went unclaimed for months after the hurricane, a local funeral home donated caskets for the two to have a dignified burial, side by side in a municipal cemetery. Sheriff's Deputies stood in place of pallbearers, while a Baptist minister recited prayers at their funeral.
Today, almost two decades later, Jane Love has been identified through genetic genealogy as Tonette Waltman Jackson.
Tonette, a forty-five-year-old Black woman living in Biloxi, believed she and her husband could ride out the storm despite their home being only a mile from the Gulf of Mexico. The couple's children took shelter further inland, though Tonette and her husband were determined to remain in their home. After all, Tonette reasoned, the government went door-to-door telling people to evacuate for their safety during past disasters that put them in danger, so if nobody showed up, it was safe to stay.
Their daughter Mary begged and pleaded with her parents to seek refuge in a safer place, knowing that her father couldn't swim. Tonette brushed it off, joking that she would save him if she had to. The pair boarded up their windows and hunkered down until the worst passed.
Unfortunately, despite surviving the hurricane, Tonette and her husband were caught in the storm surge, which dumped tons of water onto the Gulf Coast, wrecking everything in its path. Floodwater rushed into the house and the couple had to break a hole through the ceiling into their attic to escape the rising deluge, which kept on rising. Praying for their safety, they grasped onto the attic's rafters, though those soon broke apart under pressure, soon followed by the entire house giving way, described later as 'breaking in half'. Without solid ground to stand on, Tonette fell into the rushing water, while her husband managed to grab hold of a sturdy tree branch. He grabbed her by the wrist with his other hand, fighting the force of the water. Tonette let go of his hand and told him to take care of their family, before being washed away into Biloxi Bay, never to be seen again.
Her husband Hardy Jackson's heartwrenching testimony of losing her to the storm during a live interview with reporter Jennifer Mayerle was viewed by millions nationwide, encapsulating the death and suffering Hurricane Katrina wrought upon the Gulf Coast. Moved by the video of Jackson, soul musician Frankie Beverly donated a house in Atlanta, Georgia to the family, who had been living with relatives at the time.
Hardy passed away in 2013, though not before seeing their grandsons be the first in their family to graduate high school. It is unclear how Tonette was not matched to Jane Love sooner.

*The Doe Network lists her as having been found in Ocean Springs, a neighboring town, but LeMoyne Boulevard is definitely in St. Martin.

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/wccos-jennifer-mayerle-shares-unforgettable-story-of-katrina-survivohttps://dnasolves.com/articles/tonette-waltman-jackson-mississippi/
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1093853
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/08/28/no-one-knows-how-many-people-died-in-katrina
https://www.weather.gov/mob/katrina
https://justicebeserved.blogspot.com/2009/09/list-of-victims-of-katrina-may-they-be.html
https://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1256ufms.html
https://www.telegram.com/story/news/state/2006/02/03/two-unidentified-victims-katrina-buried/53133330007/

Edit: If you are going to comment on the length of this post, please don't. This is not a simple snark but rather an actual critical think piece about feminism and Taylor Swift.

Introduction

Pertaining to Taylor Swift, "Female Rage" has deviated from its intended meaning after Swift debuted a new performance of The Tortured Poets Department during the Eras Tour. Now, according to Swift's use of the phrase, female rage is interpreted as public backlash against Swift's dating choices rather than as a response to the broader injustices against women and women's rights. This post examines Taylor Swift's flawed feminism, philanthropy, branding, and the controversial trademark petition for the phrase "Female Rage: The Musical". Swift's background as an entertainer, indeterminate politics, and alignment with capitalism over feminism pervades her legacy, again threatening her public tolerance as not just an individual but as a brand.

Once Upon a Female Rage...

If you were cognizant in the early 2010's, you've heard countless jabs at Taylor Swift in the media. Magazines, radio, or online. Music critics did not take her seriously as a songwriter; parents put a woman on an unrealistic pedestal as the ideal role model for their children; she dated too much and used men as lyrical fodder. No matter the story, it inevitably spread, conjoined with everyone's respective opinions, and you'd be left to wonder, "Why does everyone hate this girl so much?"
Taylor's target demographic has always been young or adolescent girls, more so when Swift herself was one. She made music that spoke to the awkward misfit, cultivating a para-social relationship with fans on MySpace, then later twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, where Taylor posted relatable vlogs showcasing the life of a homegrown American girl. Taylor had a delayed public "growing up" and, compared to her female pop contemporaries, Swift never "gratuitously sexualized her image and seems pathologically averse to controversy" (and, apparently, never even had a sip of alcohol until she turned 21). She was more than happy to spin this narrative to allude to an inherent moral superiority above other women in the industry (Better Than Revenge, heard of it?), engaging in the very slut-shaming that she herself endured (the Madonna and Whore archetypes). The victim complex arose with the need to prove Taylor as a different type of pop girl. Based upon her holy and clean image, Swift had been dubbed "a feminist's nightmare", and that "[To Swift] other girls are obstacles; undeserving enemies who steal Taylor’s soulmates with their bewitching good looks and sexual availability." Feminism and Tennessee-Christian country values don't exactly mix, it seems.
Years later, Swift befriended Lena Dunham and thus experienced white feminism osmosis, where Dunham taught Swift that real feminists defend rapists, makes insensitive jokes about rape and abortion, and prioritize all-white casts. Swift then declared herself a feminist in 2014, saying,

"Becoming friends with Lena – without her preaching to me, but just seeing why she believes what she believes, why she says what she says, why she stands for what she stands for – has made me realize that I’ve been taking a feminist stance without actually saying so."

I suppose the male-centric songwriting subject that permeates Swift's discography contained covert feminism and that we just didn't see that. Perhaps, the "Bad Blood" song and music video were written only in jest and not about poor Katy Perry, for Swift, as a feminist, would "never make it a girl fight" or tear other women down (though all Katy did was date your terrible ex-boyfriend and allegedly steal three backup dancers from your tour). In 2013, Swift said, in response to Tina Fey and Amy Poehler's joke towards her serial dating, "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."
There was that time in 2015 Taylor said that Nicki Minaj was "invited to any stage [she is] on" (as if Taylor expects to have access to every stage, award, and platform that Nicki might not otherwise have as a black female artist...yikes!) in response to Nicki's criticism of the white + thin VMA nominations. Later, Nicki responded with confusion, as Swift continued, "It’s unlike you to pit women against each other. Maybe one of the men took your slot..". Of course, this 'beef' was 'squashed' when Nicki performed with Taylor at the VMAs, with Nicki quite literally only having 38 seconds of stage time without Taylor. Maybe all that parading around with a legion of famous white women - similar to the way Taylor might've done with her numerous 1989-era handbags - was in fact a stance against gender inequality, and that this display of "girl power" should be enough to constitute Swift as a feminist icon.
Even while Swift says that Dunham informed her feminist outlook, she dances around the exact contents of those beliefs: "what she believes, what she says, what she stands for" is not exactly insightful towards what beliefs Swift might have inherited. Taylor never broaches women's rights topics such femicide, FGM, forced pregnancy & marriage, sex trafficking, women in slavery, women's financial and political oppression, women's educational rights, women's health, or women's autonomy, so we can assume she only gives a fuck about "girls supporting girls" (whatever that fucking means).
Despite some questionable (and sometimes vindictive) behavior, Taylor as a young woman did not deserve every media lashing that she received. We cannot deny that most headlines and criticisms perpetuated a misogynistic rhetoric which has plagued Swift for a majority of her career. Acknowledging events such as the development of her ED, her sexual assault trial, "Famous" lyric and MV depiction of Taylor, and the explicit Twitter deepfakes, for example, as both disgusting and unfortunate things that happened to a young woman in Hollywood does not negate the fact that Taylor is mostly a performative feminist.

Get Your Fucking Ass Up and Be a Philanthropist, It Seems Like Nobody Wants to Be a Philanthropist These Days

In 2013, Taylor Swift cut the ribbon at the grand opening of the Taylor Swift Education Center at the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville, Tennessee. The donation amount - $4 million - was the largest individual artist gift ever donated to the Country Music Hall of Fame, which is, of course, mentioned on Swift's website. The two-story facility features three classrooms, an instrument room, and an interactive children's exhibit gallery. Swift also performed at "All for the Hall" charity shows and has donated numerous artifacts from her career (such as notable guitars, tour costumes, etc) to the museum.
This was over 11 years ago, and it is still the only notable philanthropic contribution Taylor Swift has made.
For a woman of her net worth and stature, and a woman who recognizes the difficulties for women in film and music, you would think that Taylor Swift might establish a scholarship program for women to study the arts or something. Perhaps Swift might even consider becoming a member of organizations that support female artists, or one that supports LGBTQ+ causes (since she is now proudly an ally), yet she remains superficial with her graces. Broader philanthropy, such as donating relief aid to Palestinian women or women impacted by violence and discrimination will probably never receive any financial support from Miss Swift because then she'd be using her money towards philanthropies involving anyone but white entertainers.
She even says herself in Miss Americana, "My entire moral code as a kid and now is a need to be thought of as 'good'." Well, she's certainly thought of as good, though her actions say otherwise. She's more than happy to do a vaguely altruistic song and dance for a clip-worthy interview quote and mass appeasement, then fuck off to one of her mansions on a 20 minute private jet flight, rather than actually contribute to anything pertaining to the causes she has endorsed. Yet, far too many people continue to give a woman such as her their money, time, and energy, and she hoards these resources to herself.

I Like Some of the Taylor's Songs, But What the Fuck Does She Know About Feminism?

Swift continued with her self-proclaimed feminist campaign, positioning herself as a political activist and LGBTQ+ ally in the Miss Americana documentary. The primary focus of the documentary consists of the sexual assault trial, Andrea Swift's cancer diagnosis, Taylor's ED and body dysmorphia, media scrutiny, and, largely, finally speaking up about her politics publicly, mostly her opposition to the 2018 Tennessee Republican senate candidate, Marsha Blackburn, and Blackburn's beliefs. Swift says, following a scene discussing her experience during the trial,

"I just couldn't really stop thinking about it. And I just thought to myself, next time there is any opportunity to change anything, you had better know what you stand for and what you want to say."

We must ask ourselves, though: when has Swift ever spoken up to change anything? Okay, pulling her entire catalogue from Spotify because they didn't pay their artists enough and similarly pulling her catalogue from Apple Music are changes that she leveraged due to her revenue potential and power, but they are not pertinent to the average woman's rights. Moreover, these are issues that directly impacted Taylor's income, which was enough reason for her to protest in the first place. Swift has sold the most units for a female artist in first week sales, is the first female artist with 100k monthly Spotify listeners, is the first female artist to win the Album of the Year Grammy 4 times, and is the first female artist to do X, Y, and Z, all while being inoffensive and family-friendly to boot. The actual Taylor Swift seems unwilling to compromise the brand of Taylor Swift by contributing in meaningful ways to feminist causes, especially if it is for women outside of America and Hollywood.
The reason political anthems such as "The Man" and "Only the Young" of the Lover era feel disingenuous and corporate is because, well, it is. Taylor has taken every opportunity to advance her career or public image at the expense of other women. What is truly genuine to Taylor's outlook on other women is vying for male attention, taking down female competition, and vocalizing feminist injustices only if they directly impact her and her money. Some will argue that it's satisfactory for a woman with such a huge platform to even TALK about feminism, but that just isn't enough. It's even less impressive when you candidly look at the scope of her feminist lens: "If I was the man, then I'd be THE MAN", or "I really resent the ‘Be careful, buddy, she’s going to write a song about you’ angle, because it trivialises what I do", and, of course, "We all got crowns". Feminism, but only when it happens to me. It gets worse when you look at Taylor's track record of copying other famous women and removing other female artists as potential threats to her pop prowess.
It's good for PR to align yourself with certain blanket feminist and political beliefs, therefore good for branding, therefore good for ticketing and merchandise sales, therefore good for business. And Taylor Swift is a business.
She's not a feminist. Taylor Swift is a capitalist.

I Can't Pay Those Sweatshop Workers a Livable Wage or Benefits! How Else Would I Make My Billions?

Recently, Taylor's team filed to trademark the phrase "Female Rage: The Musical" after Taylor said during Paris N1 of the Eras Tour,

"So you were the first ones to see The Tortured Poets at the Eras Tour...or as I like to call it, 'Female Rage: The Musical'."

This trademark petition was filed last week on Saturday, and news comes about just as numerous unofficial fan-made merch designs have cropped up with this phrase plastered on Fruit of the Loom basics. I'm of the opinion Swift's team motioned for a trademark so that they can send out cease & desists to all those that make knockoff merch, which disrupts potential sales for Bravado, UMG's choice merchandising company; however, since it was filed earlier, perhaps Swift has bigger plans with the bizarre use of the gendered phrase. One Swiftie referred to the phrase "female rage" as "a funny Eras Tour joke". Could it be a possible fourth version of the Eras Tour Movie? Whatever the reason, the motion to capitalize off of such a concept is disgusting, but not unsurprising, for a woman that profits on her vain feminism.
Swift, through her company, TAS Rights Managements, has also trademarked over 200 phrases, including "1989", where she owns the property rights to this calendar year on keychains, phone cases, sunglasses, stationary, bags, beverage ware, clothing, entertainment services, your subconscious, and, of course, Christmas ornaments.
The vapid consumerism in Swiftie culture is, frankly, disgusting. Bravado's sustainability statement is non-existent, the quality control is abysmal, and the materials they use are horrible. The materials, such as acrylic and polyester, are made from petrochemicals. This means they are non-renewable, shed microplastics, and are quite toxic in production. The manufacturing process to make all of those lazy-rushed Eras Tour logo graphic tees is a huge blow to environmental well-being. Apparently, though, Swifties don't give a fuck. They sell out products in seconds and either have to face the manufactured scarcity or buy from a scalper that resells for 200% of the already ridiculous retail price. This doesn't include the environmental impact of vinyl records, CD, and cassette production, of which Taylor produces many variants that sell unsustainable amounts.
If we're talking about women's rights violations, why is no one acknowledging the women that work in the inhumane sweatshop conditions that have to pump out fugly t-shirts and hats? The millions of plastic microfiber dander they are inhaling, or the toxic dyes that touch their bare skin? Are they being compensated fairly for their skilled labour and are they in safe working environments? Do these women have minimal bargaining power, and do they have authority over their worker's rights? Is Taylor Swift female raging at their injustices? Does Taylor Swift ever feels bad that her wealth was built on the backs of women of color, disadvantaged by the demands of the global economy and garment industry? Do you think she ever says a little white feminist prayer for them before she goes to sleep at night?
What's even crazier is not that Taylor herself doesn't care, it's that Swifties don't care. There CANNOT BE ethical billionaires. You only make a billion dollars if you are exploiting other human beings for capital gain. Based on public perception of the possible "Female Rage: The Musical" trademark, it seems like Swifties are already asking for merch with this phrase. "If Taylor made it, I'd buy it." Oh, cool. So not only do you champion Miss Swift's avarice and billionaire status, but you also are unashamed to admit to your blind consumption of her music and merchandise, no matter where they might originate in production or sincerity. Just as Swift takes and takes and takes, Swifties' consumerism of Taylor Swift cannot be quelled.
The tortured artist's most vulnerable and sincere poetry...available now in 21 different versions!

I Am Tortured Poet, Hear Me Whinge

Look - even if Taylor's intention is to characterize TTPD as more "tortured" and "angry", the main thread of the album is "I was ghosted by my decade-long situationship with a controversial indie boy and my fucking stupid fans wrote a 'Speak Up Now' open letter prompting me to drop him" anger, which is adequately expressed in the lyrics and performances. The extent of Taylor's "female rage" on TTPD is on tracks such as "Who's Afraid of Little Old Me?", which contends with relentless media scrutiny; "But Daddy I Love Him", where Swift firmly states she'll date whoever she likes no matter how "Sarahs and Hannahs" may react; and "The Albatross", a track mythologizing her reputation and the consequences of dating her. Of course, these coincide with deep psychological wounds that formed during Swift's early years in the media, and so, from her feminist perspective, these subjects tackle the misogyny and double standards that she faced.
Yet Taylor Swift still has no grounds to be claiming that TTPD best exemplifies female rage and therefore she, in the context of this album, is female rage incarnate. As the daughter of a stock broker and mutual fund marketing executive, Taylor was born into wealth and allowed privileges like trips and subsequent relocation to Nashville all so that she might get a record deal. Her father even invested at least $120,000 into the then-fledgling label, Big Machine Records, which ensured Taylor's place with Borchetta after leaving her dead-end development deal with Sony. The fact that her parents were able to buy her a fucking brand new guitar for Christmas and pay for music lessons says so much about the financial security and safety of her childhood.
Money is privilege and protection, and despite Swift's experiences with misogyny and loser boyfriends, she does not know what female rage is.
Her rage is derived from her frustrations with her obsessive fans pulling the moral superiority card on Taylor in response to her rebound with Matty Healy. That's literally it. She's just pissed that the monster she created is no longer obediant, it's become a feral, sovereign entity that depletes the world of its natural resources and thinks it is more intelligent than it actually is because it's mommy has started to talk to it with big words. Apparently, 'illicit', 'elegy', 'nonchalant', and 'precocious' are considerably big words for the oafish monster, and I find it strange that this level of literacy is present in a group of fans that allegedly have GPAs of 3.5 or higher, but I digress.
Taylor Swift has never been one paycheck away from destitution. Taylor Swift has never experienced racial discrimination. She may have instances of gender discrimination, but she possesses the ideal white, blonde American beauty standard and therefore reaps the benefits of being a conventionally attractive woman. Taylor Swift has sufficient social capital. Taylor Swift is a billionaire woman prolonging her victimhood though she, as a woman, has mostly had control over her image and music (unlike her contemporaries). Taylor Swift is NOT entitled to be championed for her "female rage", nor should she be. Taylor Swift has never even been the struggling artist, for fuck's sake. I don't give a fuck if she's trying to fill the empty lunch tables of her past. Taylor Swift purporting herself, her unpolished album, and her lukewarm feminism as a musical bleeding with female rage is asinine.

Sigh Try and Come For My Job, Poors

Out there in the world right now is a 23-year-old woman, a recent college grad, who works as a barista. She has to wake up and get ready to go into a minimum wage job because she cannot get a job in her field. She doesn't have healthcare benefits or sick time, so she has to go into work no matter how she's feeling. All day long she is berated by vicious customers and creepy men, and, exhausted from being on her feet, she knows she has to go home to her shitty roommate that never does the dishes and her roommate's shitty dog. To comfort herself, she considers getting a treat, but thinks against it when she remembers that matcha lattes cost $15 and they taste like milky dirt. She knows that she needs to buy groceries this week, and so the woman resolves to go home, but notices that her gas tank is low. She goes to put gas in the car, but the pump stops at $27.86 because that's all that she has in her checking account. The woman, bereft and reeling, sinks into the driver's seat. "Well," she thinks, her head in her hands, "at least I don't have Taylor Swift's job. I just couldn't imagine."
Fame is somewhat of a choice. If at any moment Taylor feels that she is misunderstood, misconstrued, or overwhelmed by public opinion, she can LEAVE the public eye - Lord knows she has the retirement fund and residuals to do so. In "I Can Do It With a Broken Heart", the TTPD song about meeting the demands of your career-zenith mega-tour while in the relationship trenches, Taylor ends the song by rambling,

"You know you're good when you can even do it with a broken heart...you know you're good...and I'm good, cause I'm miserable, and no one even knows!...try and come for my job."

Yeah, obviously we wouldn't know, you recently passed the billionaire threshold and are the most famous and in-demand performer in the world right now. Taylor Swift makes an estimated $10 to $13 million dollars A NIGHT on the Eras Tour. Furthermore, the Eras Tour movie grossed $261.6 million globally, (which, as the producer, Taylor takes home 57% of the ticket sales) not counting the streaming revenue from Amazon Prime Video and the estimated $75 million deal that Disney paid to have it on Disney+. We're not even considering the income from cheap plastic popcorn buckets and drink cups plastered with colored squares in her Era-specific likeness.
It's funny. Taylor Swift often said that being famous wasn't hard, that she "isn't complaining". I'm sure it is difficult to always have to present in a good mood, else you'll end up misrepresented in the media, and I'm sure it's invasive to virtually have no privacy or semblance of anonymity. Still, Taylor Swift shows up each night of tour and performs. For a majority of her career, she has penned her sad songs while on the road. Most of "Red", her breakup album, was written in the thick of the Speak Now World tour. Now, some Swifties say they almost "feel bad" for attending the Eras Tour with Swift's revelations in this song, that they have had a 'dimmed experience' upon hearing Taylor's misery whilst performing. Despite the fact that Taylor said that "this was the happiest she's ever been" at Gilette Stadium in May, the lyrics "boohoo, woe is me, smile for the cameras and make the fans happy!!!" are jarring for Eras attendees.
While Taylor Swift was making double-digit millions a night in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and feeling miserable, Ana Clara Benevides Machado passed away due to heat exposure. The concert promoters, Time For Fun, are now the subject of a criminal investigation due to their lack of adequate hydration and safety. Taylor Swift cancelled the Sunday show that was to follow and offered VIP tent tickets to Benevides Marchado's family, which was a kind gesture, but perhaps incongruous to the incident of which they were offered as consolation. Everyone grieves differently, of course, but I'm not sure attending the very show at the very same venue that my daughter or sister passed away in two days prior, where the singer CONTINUED the show despite her death, would be healthy for closure.
There was no female rage at the show as Swift never saw Benevides Machado pass out. There was no female rage towards the disregard for fans as humans while Swift elected to proceed with her Brazil tour dates despite the country being in historic heatwaves (at risk of overheatting herself). If Taylor Swift was so shaken by touring with a broken heart or a fan's passing, she wouldn't have added an additional North American leg of Eras just two months after the Matty breakup. She's brokenhearted but willing to mend the cracks with your money and move onward with her worldwide female rage induced pillaging.
No matter what happens, even if you die at a Taylor Swift concert, Taylor collects a big fat check and flies away. She doesn't know you as anything other than a conversion rate or earning potential despite what her nearly 20-year long parasocial relationship with fans might otherwise indicate. She knows that, while some Swifties are without disposable income, they feel obligated to spend on a "48 Hours Only!" exclusive vinyl variant instead of necessities because they are so entrenched in Taylor Swift's intoxicating celebrity, they'll prioritize materialistic fandom before their needs. This is good enough for her because this means she can expand her real estate portfolio and finance her cat's lavish lifestyles. They're worth an estimated $100 million dollars. Her three cats could pool their net worth and solve world hunger.
While you and I might be denied bereavement leave and barely surviving the current political and economic climate, Taylor Swift has to, instead of gets to, perform for stadiums at full attendance for three nights in a row across the globe. You and I might be replaced by AI at our longtime jobs, but Taylor Swift is threatened with losing more and more money each time you listen to a "Stolen Version" of her songs. If we don't buy every variant of all of her albums, then who is going to pay for the fucking cats?
It is tone deaf to spend as she spends and lives as she lives in this economy, but this is her reality. She was able to donate $100,000 to all of her tour truck drivers, and that's wonderful, but it leads me to wonder about the ethos of the 2020s where one woman can hoard such life-changing amounts of money. Remember in 2014 when she gave a fan $90 ($120 in today's money) to get Chipotle because she had no fucking clue how much it cost? This is a 34-year-old woman who is increasingly out of touch with the reality for working class people and women in general. Normal everyday adults must wake up and go to their thankless jobs, and yet Taylor Swift, despite all her riches, incessantly references the lows of her life and career as a public figure and entertainer to farm sympathy and drive sales. And still, the corporate women have latched onto "I cry a lot, but I am so productive! It's an art!" as their cubicle battle cry.
Do you think that, from up in her private jet, Taylor Swift gazes at the world through her poetic, tortured eyes, and thinks, "All the little people, in their cars, walking, going about their lives...all those girls that don't support girls...do they know that I've made an album about female rage?"

Conclusion/TLDR

Thank you for reading. I would love to hear your critical insights towards this entire ordeal: TTPD, the trademark, the implications of it all.
TLDR: Taylor Swift is a bad feminist and is delusional to think that the TTPD eras set exemplifies female rage at women's injustice.

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.]

Husband (32M) found a lump last Friday. Got in with his PCP on Monday and they ordered the ultrasound. Got the results last night. Postive for malignancy. Got a stat referral to Urology, but our insurance does not require a referral. Going to call on Monday to get everything scheduled. I used to work as a cancer research coordinator in GU at the James, so luckily, I already know the doctors. I know logically this is a very survival cancer and many only have the surgery and move on with life, but it was still not the news we were hoping for, and last night was hard. My husband and I work for the same company, so I should be able to donate some time to him to cover the leave after surgery. After path, blood, and imaging come back, I know there may be more treatments. I think he is in shock still. I am going to do more research on surgery aftercare to make sure we have everything. Sounds like stool softners are a must. He does work from home, so hopefully 2 weeks of rest and he will be okay to start back. We also need to figure out how to tell our 8 year old.
Update: called 5/13 and got an apt with urology oncology for 5/24, but they called today to ask if we could come in. Doctor was great! Got blood, CT, xray, ECG all done. Surgery is tomorrow! Everything moved so quickly.

(most important note in the end, dont miss it )
Note.1.😊😊👇👇👇👇
This is totally depends on how long have been you doing this..
Understand this first.
Now if you doing from past 10 or 15 years it take time to recover your body tissues.
I understand you feeling low but it's never late if you realise your mistake now follow this steps if you doing this from long time..
• As you know you are doing this from long time so you first need to do that do not fap yes you heard it right do not fap at any cost it will completely make your life hell.
• Due to long time problem may be you find night fall problems but relax don't be serious it happens in starting just calm down no matter what happens don't use your hand at any cost believe in yourself.
• Avoid sugar drink more water do exercise when you urge to do the same thing busy yourself take a good diet for 100 days
• After 100 days you will feel more energetic and on your face you can see yourself more confidently in mirror all the best.
Now for Those who doing this from short period of time like 1 years or 3 years.
Just follow this simple steps.
• Do not fap for 30 days yes you heard it right just do this and you will feel more confident
• You will realise your worth
• Take a good diet Avoid junk food all the best.
1.End 🤗🤗🤗🤗
2 👇👇
Masturbation is much more harmful then Alcohol, cigarette smoking, or other drugs. It makes u addicted to dopamine. When u r watching porn, enjoying masturbation ur dopamine lvls rise to 200-300%. Now ur brain thinks it as a new normal value of dopamine. If u try to stop masturbation ur brain is already addicted to dopamine’s high lvls… so brain doesn't allow… u get bad mood, no motivation to work, no social life…until u return to masturnation again. Also a lot of mitochondria are released from body having a lot of energy in the form of fructose.When u r masturbating twice or thrice a week ur brain considers reaching climax faster to ease the stress as a result premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction occurs.U also get dark circles under eyes. Most of the ppl on internet say there is no scientific evidence of harms of masturbation…ask them what is it then.U can masturbate but not daily.If u say masturbation is safe ppl do it 3–5 times a day that is really very dangerous.
U should think urself if u had to masturbate and wet ur clothes daily then why there are girls on earth.There is time for evwrything.Ur body will deplete of fluid if u masturbate daily. Also u will be unable to satisfy ur partner. So, I will say u need more then 1–2months to recover from fluid deficiency and vital minerals. U will aso had to take gud diet. If u do not masturbate the energy and minerals of extra semen will be utilized to regenerate dead cells of ur skin and repair brain cells. U will feel more attractive to Girls.
Body has natural mechanism of restabilization. If u leave masturbation, extra receptors for high dopamine will degenerate themselves.U will discover sharp memory, more motivation, faster then ever, more energy, more testosterone(during first week). Finally ur interest will change to females instead of masturbation and watching porn. It will take 3 months. U should go for no fap or ask ur frndz for keeping an eye on u.
My experience:
I have been practicing semen retention for two years.I feel motivated, more focused,on my daily tasks, more energetic, Sharp memory. I have made habit of sleeping at 10 daily so that I won't indulge in such habits of porn and masturbation… as a person is alone sometimes at night and have urges that time…..
2 end 🤗🤗🤗🤗 ( copied from internet (quora) ( there is some typing mistakes but you will understand )
🔥🔥🔥 part 3 🔥🔥🔥
Can pornography be a healthy thing?
Blue films and porn movies are fake/false. Nothing is true in them. It is not sex at all. It is acting only with lots of technology effects. Today so many technology is available like editing, good quality of many cameras in different angles and at different distance, animation, illusion technology which is generally used in fiction movies. Then female expressions are totally fake. In movies it look like that they are enjoying but actually they are in lots of pain. They are exploited in movies. They use plastic surgery, breast implant (upto 500 cc silicon implant per breast), other make up for female and Viagra, drugs, sometimes fat injection into penis for male. Lots of lubricating agents for both male and female. By editing, 30 second movie are made upto 10-15 minutes. Each clip/movie made after shootings for many months. Performers are drug addicts, mentally unfit persons, very poor and many of them do not do it by their will, they do to get some money to survive. In these movies corn starch, pina colada mix, some protein mix used which looks like sperm/semen only. In movie many times they pour this mix on female organs and viewers are not able to recognise that is it from penis or not, because of editing. Female orgasm is totally fake. These movies are not sex at all. Whatever you are watching in these movies, hardly 10 % are true. These movies are addiction even more than alcohol, drugs. They are made like that only so that they can make money only. They are not for sex education. Do not fall down in trap of them. Better to watch romantic movies. These blue movies can destroy your mental, physical health, sometimes your life also. These are anti-social, anti-natural, anti-religion, anti-morality, anti-ethics and anti-humanity.
Real life sex include hug and kiss at female forehead, lip, eye, chick, neck, and breast. You can use your hand gently not harshly on female body parts. Then ejaculation (intercourse) in vagina and this ejaculation takes 1-2 minutes only. Not like porn movie for 30 minutes. No man can last more than 1-5 minutes. Women breast do not have any special feeling and its main function is for feeding to child only. Many women do not feel anything many times during intercourse so they can use pillow below their hip. Do not copy different positions from any porn movie. They all are the effect of camera at various angles. Try whatever both partner feel comfortable. Try to make love with your partner. Female is not for sex only. Treat them as a human being and make more love then sex. Respect your female partner. Enjoy with her. You can use condom for intercourse. Do not do excessive sex also, not good for man physical health. Try lots of kissing and hug. Try to spend quality time with your partner. Rarely any girl watch blue/porn movies and it is their best quality. You can enjoy more, if do not watch these illogical, mis-guiding, mis-leading, fake, fiction movies. These movies creat biasness. Use your brain. Do not follow anything blindly. Mainly sex is for making child, family and only sometimes with precaution to enjoy.
Porn is not a real sex. They are fake. Pornography is not made to educate, but to sell. It's a big business that makes a lot of money and doesn't care how. They'll show you whatever they think will make you come back and buy more. So, pornography will tell whatever lies attract and hold the audience. Porn thrives on lies -- lies about sex, women, marriage and a lot of other things. It is misleading, unrealistic and more than 90 % of clips, shots, poses or expression are fake medically means scientifically men’s penis tip has special nerve ending and inside of female vaginal opening has special nerve endings which causes sensation/pleasure/enjoyment while having intercourse. This enjoyment can be feel by intercourse or penis in vagina only. Rest of the body parts of female for eg. Breast do not have any special nerve ending/sensation and except genital part female will not feel anything special in other parts. You should not reenact/follow that which you see in porn! For health reasons! For reasons of respect for your sex partner ! Make Love Not Porn”. Female orgasm (moment of most intense pleasure) is totally fake it is not real. It is a money making shot for them.” The moviemakers know their viewers want to see the moment of orgasm, and they usually want to see it all over the woman’s body like back, butt, chest etc. and believe it is 100% fake/false/lie. It's fiction. Why is it that people lose their brains when the subject of pornography comes up? She’s faking it, dude. Well, first off, the woman you saw doing that thing is a professional. And she is an actress. She is paid to do those things/pretend to do those things/pretend to enjoy doing those things. Because the folks who do that/pretend to do that/pretend to enjoy doing that are actors. Beside this it is finally made after lots of editing, lots of camera shots in different angles, lots of use of computer software (technology) so that it looks true. Many things used are artificial which looks like real for eg. Men ejaculation sometimes not true instead of true they use some corn mix with some chemical which looks same as semen. Female breast are not natural. Most of them go for some artificial incorporation inside breast. Porn is known to often cause problems in relationships. Even apart from the issue of pornography addiction, which is a phenomenon that can absolutely destroy a relationship, heterosexual men who consume porn tend to report experiencing less satisfaction with the woman they have sex with. A problem without a purpose. So porn is a touchy subject. And we’re not even talking about violent porn here. But even the more vanilla forms of it are based on fictions and falsehoods. But even though porn is fake, the problems it can cause are all too real. But you can tell someone something over and over and over again. Porn is not real. Porn is not real. Porn is not real. Porn pollute viewer’s mind. One of the most vital parts of mental environment is a healthy idea of who we are sexually. If these ideas are polluted, a critical part of who we are becomes twisted. The problem with porn's shallow perspective is that relationships are not built on sex, but on commitment, caring and mutual trust. Being with someone who loves and accepts you, someone who is committed to you for your whole lives together, someone you can give yourself completely to, that is what makes sex really great. Let's look at some of lies/fake/false of porn and see just how badly they can mess up your life and attitudes. • Lie #1 - Women are less than human Porn often refers to women as animals, playthings, toy, pets or body parts. Some pornography shows only the body or the genitals and doesn't show the face at all. The idea that women are real human beings with thoughts and emotions is played down. • Lie #2 - Women are property Porn displays women like merchandise in a catalog, exposing them as openly as possible for the customer to look at. It's not surprising that many young men think that if they have spent some money taking a girl out, they have a right to have sex with her. Porn tells us that women can be bought. • Lie #3 - A woman's value depends on the attractiveness of her body Less attractive women are ridiculed in porn. They are called dogs, whales, pigs or worse, simply because they don't fit into porn's criteria of the "perfect" woman. Porn doesn't care about a woman's mind or personality, only her body. • Lie #4 - Women like rape "When she says no, she means yes" is a typical porn scenario. Women are shown being raped, fighting and kicking at first, and then starting to like it. Porn teaches men to enjoying hurting and abusing women for entertainment. • Lie #5 - Women should be degraded Porn is often full of hate speech against women. Women are shown being tortured and humiliated in hundreds of sick ways and begging for more. Does this kind of treatment show any respect for women? Any love? Or is it hatred and contempt that porn is promoting toward women? • Lie #6 - Illegal sex is fun Porn often has illegal or dangerous elements thrown in to make sex more "interesting." It suggests that you can't enjoy sex if it isn't weird, illegal or dangerous. • Lie #7 - Prostitution is glamorous Porn paints an exciting picture of prostitution. In reality, many of the women portrayed in pornographic material are runaway girls trapped in a life of slavery. Many having been sexually abused. Some of them are infected with incurable sexually transmitted diseases that are highly contagious and often die very young. Many are addicted to drugs and alcohol just to cope. Pornography makes a profit from the ruined lives of young women and entraps men who will spend lots of time AND money succumbing to their product. We might think that the things we see and hear don't affect us. Yet we all admit that good music, good movies and good books add a lot to our lives. They can relax us, educate us, move us or inspire us. Just as uplifting media can benefit us, pornographic images can negatively affect us. Images are not always neutral. They can persuade us. Businesses know that if they can get a persuasive image of their product in front of you during a highly emotional moment, it will sink into your subconscious mind. Pornography entraps you with lies.
What are the effects of pornography? What kinds of ideas is porn putting into our heads? If the wrong things keep getting dumped in, your mental environment can get so polluted that your life is going to have problems. One of the most vital parts of mental environment is a healthy idea of who we are sexually. If these ideas are polluted, a critical part of who we are becomes twisted. Porn Addiction: The Pull of Pornography Not everyone who sees porn will become addicted. Some will just come away with toxic ideas about men, women, sex, marriage, and children. However, some will have some kind of emotional opening that allows the addiction to really grab hold. The porn companies don't mind at all if you become completely addicted to their product. It's great for business. Dr. Victor Cline has divided the progress of addiction into several stages; addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out. For porn addicts, I've found that there is another stage that comes first -- early exposure. Let's look at these stages: EARLY EXPOSURE Most who get addicted to porn start early. They see porn when they are very young and it gets its foot in the door. PORN ADDICTION You keep coming back to porn. It becomes a regular part of your life. You're hooked and can't quit. ESCALATION You start to look for more graphic pornography. You start using porn that disgusted you earlier. Now, it excites you. DESENSITIZATION You start to become numb to the images you see. Even the most graphic porn doesn't excite you any more. You become desperate to feel the same thrill again, but you can't find it. ACTING OUT SEXUALLY This is the point where men make a crucial jump and start acting out the images they have seen. Some move from the paper and plastic images of porn into the real world, with real people, in destructive ways.
Blue films are not real. They are edited to show extraordinary sex. Ultimately, pornography is bad for sex. Offensive to women. But many person don’t understand that porn is fantasy. Demerits of watching it is to such an extent that, Overnight a Billionaire becomes pauper, elite conservative studious boy lands in jail., teenagers become drug addicts, experiments to get AIDs too. Otherwise peaceful Society turns to be under siege of a terrorist group, and the list is much more to disclose in these columns.
To brief specifically, films are Only Stories. Films get produced after many takes, rehearsals etc., over many days, to months and gets be edited to portray the story and events of over many decades too, in less than a couple of hours Only. Same is applicable to Blue Films too, misunderstood by over 80% of it's viewers. Trying to imitate those scenes by them leads to all problems, as mentioned in short already. In High school level, knowledge in sex education is a must, but shall not be thro Blue films, to bring up a healthy new generation. Also the Blue films can destroy marital harmony.
As Addendum: I would like to state that, films marked or advertised as X or XX or XXX shall be illegal, in our set up & cultural background for at least a Century more.
There are no merits of watching blue films. In fact, there are many demerits of it.
(1) Weakening of body """""""""""""""""""""""""" Watching a blue film causes stimulations in the sexual organs of the body of the person. These stimulations weaken and loosen the muscles of these organs which adversely affects sexual capacity.
(2) Provocation of masturbation """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Watching a blue film also provokes the person to masturbate. Masturbation is an activity very harmful to health because many hormones and fluids vital to the body are rapidly lost during masturbation. These hormones and fluids are responsible for energy, tolerance, fearlessness, and self-confidence.
(3) Provocation of criminal activities """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""... Watching blue films causes considerable changes in the attitude of the person towards other people. He begins to fantasize people indecently. For example, he fantasizes their nude appearances and doing sex with them. This may provoke the person to indulge in criminal activities like molestation, rapes, and gang-rapes
( copied from internet / quora ) ( there is some typing mistakes but you will understand )
part 3 End 🔥🔥
part 4...🔥🔥👇👇 very important 👇👇🔥🔥
" Lord Buddha on how to control sexual urge '
Buddha emphasized mindfulness and awareness as key tools for understanding and overcoming cravings and desires, including sexual urges. His teachings suggest observing these urges without judgment or attachment. Here's how you might apply his teachings to dealing with the urge to masturbate:

Awareness: Start by becoming aware of the sensations and thoughts associated with the urge to masturbate. Notice how it arises in the body and mind without trying to suppress or indulge it.
Observation: Observe the urge with a sense of curiosity and detachment. Instead of reacting impulsively, take a step back and simply observe the urge as it comes and goes, recognizing it as a passing phenomenon.
Understanding: Reflect on the impermanent nature of the urge. Recognize that it is not a permanent aspect of who you are, but rather a transient experience that arises and fades away.
Non-Identification: Avoid identifying yourself with the urge. Just because the urge arises does not mean you are defined by it. Cultivate a sense of separation between the urge and your true self.
Acceptance: Practice accepting the urge without resistance or aversion. Acknowledge that it is a natural part of human experience and that it's okay to feel these sensations without acting on them.
Redirecting Energy: Instead of acting on the urge, channel the energy it generates into more constructive activities, such as mindfulness meditation, exercise, creative pursuits, or engaging in meaningful relationships.
Compassion: Be kind to yourself throughout this process. Recognize that overcoming ingrained habits takes time and effort, and treat yourself with patience and understanding.

By applying these principles of mindfulness and awareness, you can gradually weaken the grip of the urge to masturbate and cultivate a greater sense of inner peace and freedom.
End🔥🔥
Remember , if you not understand yourself first . Then motivations not gonna help. i mean you will start again after few days. So first understand yourself how to fight against urge. how urge looks like . You will win this fight after you understand it yourself . Just think about life and reality . Good luck 🔥🔥 ( if you feel tired , hungry , sleepy , less motivate to work... now your fu##ed up brain try to urge you to watch porn or masturbation . So first understand that thing. Stay safe ,healthy and stronger . ❤❤

2 weeks later Lauren and Greyson drove up to her new home with boxes and whatever she hadn’t sold. Lauren had walked through her empty home and said goodbye to each room wondering if she was making the right decision. The house was pretty much sold already and Lauren reminded herself to keep going.
“Audrey will come around Ma. She really will miss you and she doesn’t want to change. God forbid she tell you right out that she is going to miss you. “ Greyson said. Lauren hadn’t spoken to Audrey directly since she had told the kids she was moving. She had come over at one point to get some furniture and mementos and had been snarky the entire time that Lauren had been in the house. Lauren had had quite enough of it and went to the backyard to smoke until Audrey and her man of the week had taken off. They hadn’t even come out to tell her they were leaving. Lauren had had another good cry after that and then made herself margaritas with her mixer and called Natalie to come over for a good farewell bitch session. They had gotten tipsy and talked about ungrateful kids and sent nice little waves to Grace who huffed at them.
“Well, maybe she will and maybe she wont. She always favored your father and I never told her she had to pick sides but all the same she felt like she had to. The divorce was harder on her than it was you older two.She was only 8.” Lauren said lamely.
“I think Cora and I were just glad you guys weren’t fighting. Dad was great with us but he treated you terribly the last few years you were together and it was just so much easier to not hate him when you guys weren’t around each other. Audrey was definitely his favorite though and any time she came over he just made sure they did everything she wanted because he was afraid she’d hit puberty and would decide she didn’t like him anymore. Like Cora.”
“Well that makes sense. How’s you-know-who?” Lauren asked changing the topic.
“Miranda? Alright I guess. Her mom picked Liam up last night for the weekend so I could help you, says she called a month ago and sounded good. I don’t know if that means anything or not but I don’t think she is going to come back wanting to be Liam's mom. At least not any time soon. I don’t really care, she had him and that was the deal. That’s all I asked for. I’d have supported the other way too but I really hoped she’d just let me keep him. She told everyone who asked she didn’t want kids. Everyone. I kind of wonder if she’ll want to meet him and be afraid to because everyone will expect her to be someone to him.” Grayson drummed his fingers anxiously. Lauren couldn’t understand this arrangement that Grayson and Miranda had. She kept wondering if it wasn’t some form of depression or something but Grayson insisted it wasn’t. He’d had Liam all to himself from day one and never complained.
“You think taking this was too impulsive? The job? I didn’t even do a face to face interview. It was on that skype thing. Eric set it all up. It’s legit but maybe I should’ve driven up first to check it out. Maybe I’m just running scared.”
“Maybe it was but taking risks makes your life exciting. Besides, I hate thinking of you alone in the house waiting for something bad to happen.” Grayson patted her leg. “Besides you said there were discounts on cabins and I’d like that. Plus unlike the last job, if Liam gets sick he can hang out with you when he can’t go to daycare.”
“I would like that.”
They pulled onto a winding dirt road and drove another 10 miles. The woods on each side of the road pressed in on them. It was a nice feeling. It was quiet out here and Lauren appreciated it. She had thought she would be more scared to be alone out here but she found herself looking forward to it now. Settling down and maybe a beer.
The GPS took them toa large sign marked Camp Thellgar in front of a fork in the road, one marked OFFICE and the other marked CAMPING. They turned into the OFFICE fork on the left. A man sat on the porch at the first building they came up to. He shaded his eyes and stood as they approached. Lauren took a shaky breath.
“Does my eye still look weird?” Lauren asked Grayson.
“Nah, the makeup covers whatever is left. It looks a little off I guess but I don’t think anyone would guess why. You’re old, he’ll think you had a stroke more than likely” Grayson teased. Lauren let out a high pitched laugh and took a deep cleansing breath.
“Hi I’m Steven Connor, you’re Lauren Jackson I hope.” Steven stuck his hand out for her to shake.
“I am indeed. Nice to meet you, you look different in person.” Lauren said laughing. He did, he looked older than he had on the computer, tired maybe. Steven shrugged. “This is my son Grayson, he’s helping bring my stuff up for me.”
“Right, good of you to help your momma. Come right in here. This is the main office, just off of what will be your cabin. Initially they were one in the same but years back we decided the caretaker could use some more privacy when we added more cabins in. The cabins have only been part of the deal for about 15 years, before that it was just the tent sites. No electricity on those. They’re a little easier to maintain. This time of year we mainly get people who want to use the tent sites, families out for a day hike. Summer rolls around and you’ll be pretty busy. We hire help from the nearby towns, you’ll let them know what to do but you’ll need someone in the office most of the day. There’s an alarm here that will pop up on your phone, when synced with the app of course, that way you can be out on the grounds. There’s an ATV for getting around a little easier. You’ll be in charge of taking reservations and handling the payment, cleaning up the campsites when they leave, looking in on them to make sure they’re kept up. Same with the cabins. Do a thorough cleaning and dust once a week. Aspen Cunningham, that’s the girl from town, she’ll be up every other day to assist with cleaning out the cabins. Here’s the card for Aspen, the card for a maintenance guy we use, Roger, and my card if you need to get ahold of me.” Steven led her from the office which was a small front room with a storage room behind it. Off of that there was a door with a good lock that led into a small house. It came in by a small half bath and then stairs leading to 2 bedrooms upstairs and a full bathroom. Next to the stairs a door led into a small living room with a few bookshelves and a dated TV, past that a kitchen with a dining area. It was cozy and Lauren was in love immediately.
“The last guy was pretty organized, we have our own binder we put together for new employees, he made his own as well. I skimmed through it, mostly a heads up on common maintenance issues. There’s a copy of maintenance performed on each cabin and site that also goes in the main book that’s stashed in the office.” Steven handed her a heavy worn binder.
“I’ll go ahead and start bringing in your stuff mom.” Grayson said backing out the main front door that didn’t lead into the office. Lauren followed Steven into the office and he showed her where anything she could need to find would be. She watched a safety video that featured Steven’s family, made when Steven was a kid. His smiling face running around in the background.
Grayson hung out for a while after Steven left. Lauren was overwhelmed and felt exhausted. She wandered through her new house while Grayson made her spaghetti. She laid on the bed. It was firmer than she was used to but it was ok.
After they ate Grayson hesitantly left. Reminding her to call if she needed anything, asking if she was sure she wanted him to leave. Lauren had a feeling he would’ve spent the night if Miranda’s mom didn’t have Liam. There was a firepit in the backyard so she got a fire going and sat back watching the flames while she drank a beer. She thought about getting stoned but it felt too new here and she was afraid of freaking herself out. The noises of the woods were relaxing. It felt quiet. Quiet was exactly what she needed.
The next few months went quickly, Lauren got in a groove of checking all the sites in the morning and doing general maintenance. Aspen, the girl who cleaned, came up twice a week not every other day like Steven had said. She was a sweet girl and spent a few hours dusting and vacuuming the empty cabins. Lauren and her got along really well and Lauren was grateful for the company. Summer came and Lauren was busy, she barely left the office it seemed. If it wasn’t reservations, it was families asking for maps of the trails or information on the town below. It was a nice busy. Lauren had expected the cleaning to be worse than it actually was, most people cleaned up after the campsites before they left. Fall came and the people started to slow down, most of the people she saw were people hiking the trails and less camping By November she was slow again.
One day her phone went off alerting her to a visitor in the office. She jumped on her ATV and headed back up. There was a small run down car waiting when she pulled up. Lauren ran her hands through her hair as she entered the door. 4 middle aged women stood waiting patiently.
“Sorry, I was a little further out today, how can I help you? Cabin?” Lauren asked, coming around the desk.
“Where’s Jim?” One woman with darker hair asked.
“Jim? Was he the man before me? I’m afraid he doesn’t work here anymore. Just me, I’m Lauren. Regulars?” Lauren grabbed the binder from underneath the counter and flipped through until she came on regulars. Scanning the list she found a November regular, along with a few other months. “Ok, here we are. It says the Helgas, tentsite 42. Yes?”
“That’s right, what happened to Jim? I'm surprised to see that he’s gone.” The dark haired woman handed over her credit card and tapped on the table anxiously. The other women moved around like they were trying to look as if they weren’t paying much attention.
“Not sure. No one really told me and I didn’t think to ask. I’ve been here since late spring, right before the summer rush. “ Lauren felt like she was being judged by the women.
“We’re particular about our privacy.” One of the women from the back said, trying to sound casual.
“That’s no problem, I won’t need to come by until you leave.” Lauren assured them.
“Jim left the entire area alone. I mean, we prefer to be left completely alone.” She clarified. Lauren was taken aback but nodded. After they left and had driven off she looked back down at the binder.
Helgas
Camp site 42
November Full Moon
December 21
March 21
Require all sites in the area empty. 3 day reservations. Noise level low, some disturbances.
Lauren closed the binder. She’d flipped through it before but obviously hadn’t retained much information. It occurred to her that this wasn’t in the main binder. She picked up the company binder, flipped through until she found regular reservations. Nothing helpful from the last 10 years. She booted up the computer and pulled up the spreadsheet. There it was. Reservations, regular. A list of people and campsites and cabins. The program was designed to automatically block off the areas that were supposed to be reserved. Campsite 42 was not on the list for today. Maybe because it was a full moon reservation and not a specific date? Lauren flipped through December and it wasn’t in there either. She sighed. Lauren went to the main screen and added in the December reservation and it stopped her. Ok. So it's here somehow. Or it wouldn’t have stopped her. But it doesn't show up. It’s hidden. Lauren crossed her arms and dropped her head down. She wasn’t completely computer illiterate but she really didn’t know how to see this. The last guy, Jim? Jim. That guy must’ve done something to the computer system. Why would he have done that? He did all the reservations. Unless he didn’t want the company itself to see. They could log in through the main office and see what was going on up here. There was another location they owned and the computer program was designed to work with that one. Lauren shook her head and sighed. Maybe she could get ahold of Steven and ask about Jim.
Lauren opened Jim’s binder again. There were only a few regulars that didn’t have reservations that showed up in the company system. By the time she was done it was dark outside. Lauren sighed and shut everything down. She locked up the office displaying the note to ring the doorbell. The doorbell that alerted her phone to a visitor that would need checked in. Lauren wasn’t worried about it, not in November. It was warmish for November but still cold. No one hunted up here because it had too many people walking up the trails, further out maybe but they would rent a cabin ahead of time if they stayed up here and on the weekends.
Lauren went into her kitchen and got a jar of chili out of the fridge. Cora had made some and sent it home with her after Saturday dinner a few weeks ago. It was easy to heat up. She got a glass of wine and started a fire in the fireplace to warm the house up. She turned the tv on and laid across the couch until she could smell the chili. She’d had a bus day and found herself drifting off before she’d finished eating so she cleaned up and took herself to bed.
Lauren found herself awake in the forest. Barefoot. It was silent. Completely silent. Lauren cautiously spun around trying to get her bearings. She saw movement off to the right. Her heart stopped, she looked over trying to make sense in the dark. Something moved next to the trees, an animal? Lauren took a step toward it without thinking.
Someone or something stepped out wearing an animal skull. Deer? Lauren couldn’t think through her fear. The clothes were baggy and run down. Like a t shirt over loose black pants tied up with a rope and black cardigan. With a black long jacket.
“Who are you?” Lauren asked, dazed.
“I should ask you the same thing. Where is the keeper?” The thing asked, but it wasn’t said aloud, she heard it in her head.
“I-I don’t know. I just got hired here a few months ago. My friend's friend helped me get the job.”
“Then the Keeper sent you here.” The thing insisted
“I don’t think so, the man before me, I didn’t know him.”
“I see. What did they tell you about this place?” The thing asked, circling her. Lauren realized it was tracing her with a skeletal finger.
“How to take reservations and how to clean.” Lauren murmured, trying not to look as scared as she felt.
“I could tell you.” The thing offered. Lauren felt her anxiety rise up and suddenly felt like she needed to be gone. She shouldn’t trust this thing, whatever it was.
“Um, no thanks.You could-could tell me who you are though.” Lauren said instead
“I’m insulted is what I am. You’ll have to figure out who on your own.” With that he was gone and she was in bed sitting up breathing hard. The raspy voice still echoing in her head.
Lauren blinked. A dream. It was a dream. But it had felt real. She checked her feet and saw that they were clean. A dream.
Lauren’s whole day was off after that. Everything looked sharper almost and she found herself pinching her arm to make sure she was actually awake. She avoided the tent sites circling around with the Helgas but found herself inspecting the rest of them carefully, unsure of what she was looking for. After that she rode down to the cabins and did a quick inspection, checking the windows for torn screens and the doors for any sign of break in, double checking the lock. All good. Lauren was done early and decide to walk one of the trails to shake off the oddness. There weren’t a lot of trails she hadn’t already walked so she picked one of the harder ones and grabbed her backpack with snacks and water.
In the months since moving up here she had grown stronger from the work and the access to trails. Anytime she felt herself slipping into a depressive episode or started thinking too much she would go on a long trail and try to exhaust herself. At some point she had started running in the mornings although had stopped in the last few weeks because of the cold and how long it took the sun to rise. Lauren ran a few miles awkwardly with the backpack and then slowed. There was a not well used trail off to the side. She was certain she was still on the company's property but had not seen this one before so she cautiously went off the main trail and headed down it. It didn’t take long for it to grow darker with the trees overhead. There were still nature noises but they seemed almost muted. Lauren pinched her arm just to make sure, it definitely hurt. She was definitely awake. Lauren pulled her camera out of her bag and began snapping pictures of the area around her, partly to remember where she had come from and partly because she was in awe of the area around her. It was beautiful out here and the trees made her feel small and light. She checked her phone and saw that it was nearing dark. She stopped and drank some water before turning around. Lauren moved at a brisk pace as she headed back and almost missed the flash of light off to her left. But as such she had just managed to catch it and it stopped her in her tracks.
“Hello?” Lauren called out, if it was a hunter she had run into, which she didn’t think it was, not as close to the campgrounds as they were, but if it was she wanted it clear they were dealing with a person. No one answered her though. She hesitantly stepped off the trail and walked toward it. She couldn’t think of anything that would flash out here. Cameras? She wasn’t aware of any out here but it had never occurred to her to ask anyone. Regardless, she should check to see if it was a camera before she asked about there being any. She came to a massive tree. She craned her head back and light hit her eyes so that it was difficult to make out the top of the tree. The branches started low giving her a compulsion to climb upwards. Off to the side of it the roots rose up seeming to form a circle. Lauren took a few pictures of it without thinking. She got as many different angles as possible. She had seen roots that came out of the ground but had never seen one that formed a perfect circle. Lauren looked around and realized that it was dark now, she checked her phone and saw the battery was almost drained. She had been here for 3 hours. Lauren blinked and shook her head. 3 hours? That was impossible. She started shaking and spun around when she realized how silent it was, even for night time.
SNAP
Lauren gasped and took off running. She didn’t think about anything other than heading back in the direction she had come. Adrenaline coursed through her and she felt like she was running faster than she had before. It was dizzying how sharp everything was and how fast it seemed to go by her. She hit the main trail and kept running. She could feel her energy start to dip and she pushed herself harder. By the time she emerged from the woods she fell on the ground sobbing and gasping for air. She grabbed a fistful of grass with one hand and put her other palm to her mouth to stifle the sobbing, screaming sounds she was making. It felt like an hour of laying on the ground trying to collect herself. It was one of the Helgas that found her.
“Are you ok? Ma’am? Guys! She’s out!” Lauren heard the thinner of the group yelling for her friends to come help The 4 of them lifted her to a sitting position and tried to get her to respond. Eventually Lauren started to come to and her breathing returned to normal.
“What happened? “ The dark haired one asked firmly,
“N-n-nothing. I-I-I don’t know. I was in the woods and I heard… I don’t know. I’m so sorry, I have no idea what came over me.” Lauren stuttered. Trying so hard to reign her emotions back in. “Nothing, I just lost track of time there and I guess I got myself spooked. I have quite the imagination. What are you guys doing here? Was there something you needed?”
“We came up to see if you were ok, we were doing a little night hiking and saw you running and we followed you.” The dark haired one said. Lauren thought she was lying but didn’t know why she thought that.
“I could use some wine honestly, would you 4 like some wine?” Lauren felt like she was drunk as she walked back to her back door, the short one linked her arm in Lauren’s and walked with her steadying her.
“Wine sounds nice, we have some back at camp, we could get ours and bring it back.” She told Lauren in a soothing voice. A mom voice.
“Nonsense. I always stock up in town, I have plenty. I’ll get a fire going and-”
“We can get the fire, you get the wine and Addy here will help you bring out the glasses.” The dark haired one gestured to the short one who smiled and headed toward the door to open it for Lauren.
Lauren had 2 wine glasses and used regular glass cups for everyone else. She grabbed a couple bottles of red wine she’d gotten clearanced out after Halloween, the bottle had a blurry outline of trees and Lauren had felt it looked so magical she’d bought 6. Of course it wasn’t her favorite so now seemed like a good time to try to offload a little.
“I’m Lauren by the way, I know that’s Addy, who are the rest of you?” Lauren asked as she and Addy passed out glasses and poured wine in front of the fire.
“I’m Sara. “ The dark haired one said taking a generous drink from her cup
“I’m Therese.” The blond smiled and waved,
“I’m Rian.” The thin one said, pronouncing it Ree-ann.
“Is this a girls trip? I hope I didn’t mess anything up.” Lauren asked, pulling her blanket from the house tight around her. The fire was nice and warm but not warm enough to fend off the November chill.
“You didn’t mess anything up, honestly we were hoping to speak with you anyway. We knew Jim fairly well, I guess as well as you can know someone you only see 3 times a year. He had a pretty good idea of what he’d signed up for when he started but we got the feeling you didn’t and we were curious.” Sara said, watching Lauren’s face intently.
“I guess I don’t. I’m not sure what you mean.” Lauren said, wondering if they were crazy. The witchy types who came out here to dance naked in front of a fire and sing before going back home to suburbs and corporate lives with toddlers and teenagers. Lauren had dealt with those types over the summer but not very many.
“Well how did you get the job?” Therese asked, spinning the wine in her glass like she’d already had a few before they started.
“A friend of a friend. I was looking to make some changes in my life and he thought I would be a good fit here.”
“The Keeper?” Sara asked, leaning forward.
“I don’t think so. He just seemed like a regular guy. Who is the Keeper? “ Lauren asked nervously. The woods looked darker and it occurred to her that she didn’t know if she could beat them back in the house if she wanted to run. Then she remembered the Keeper comment from her dream, now hazy but still there.
“The Keeper doesn’t do a whole lot from what I can tell, not directly I mean. He just keeps information and contacts who he needs. He got Jim hired on, we don’t know much about him, we’ve personally not seen him ourselves. We’re not sure if he changes every so often but as far as we know it’s been the same person always. These woods are full of magic you see and not all of it is good magic. “ Sara explained. “We come out 3 times a year to make a blood sacrifice to Eglas. He or She, is a … something. Hungry mostly. Instead of one person we use 4 or 5 sometimes. Same amount of blood and no one dies. Occasionally one person will donate more for a favor but it’s not often.”
“I’m sorry, what?” Lauren said dumbly.
“He/She said they came to visit you last night. They said that you didn’t know much about your job. Eglas seemed very angry so we came to help you” Rian told her.
“There’s not much to your job. You keep the grounds maintained and then you make sure that we are able to do our work. I don't know what else is in the woods but I know about Eglas. My family has for at least a century come out and offered blood to keep Eglas satisfied. When they started settling the area, they disturbed a lot of spirits. Eglas was curious and found the taste of human blood to be… good I guess. Eglas would go into homes and take people, in the beginning it was a lot. Most families fled the area, but the ones who stayed came to Eglas one night and offered to give him what he wanted if he backed off. Or she, really Eglas has no real gender. It’s a fairy or demon, I’m not sure. Either way, Eglas was satisfied with a person a year but that got old quickly, not a lot of people lining up to do that obviously, they really weren’t getting a lot out of that deal back then, they could farm the land peacefully and that was it. One day a young farmer offered himself but when it came time he talked Eglas into changing the deal, a little from the strongest men in town. Eglas got the best there was and it was willingly. Eglas threw in the part about 3 times a year since the body wasn't included in the deal. That’s the lore anyway.” Sara told her story well, moving her hands and body, changing her pitch like a natural born storyteller.
“I think fairy because it makes the most sense with the woods and the deal making. You don’t have to believe us yet, you will eventually, but we come out here and do our ceremony and leave.” Addy told her.
“That sounds, nice.” Lauren said hesitantly. She drank more and could already feel the events of the afternoon fuzzing away.
“He’ll come to you again tonight, you’ll know who he is now. “ Therese said, smiling nicely.
“And you’ve done your ceremony already?” Lauren asked, trying to see if there were cuts visible. The girls nodded and Addy pulled her pants down showing off a long cut on her thigh. Lauren hissed through her teeth at the sight of it.
“Oh it’s not so bad. It hurts but it always heals quickly like it was never there. “ Addy assured her.
“Jim knew about this? “ Lauren asked, remembering a note in the binder about them being .
disturbing or something
“Yes, he did.. He knew before he started though. It kept him safe. We were a little worried that leaving you to the wolves so to speak, that you wouldn’t survive.” Rian explained.
“I’m afraid I’ve worn myself out. I think I’ll go to bed.” Lauren said, getting up carefully. The women were nice company and Lauren couldn’t think of the last time she had sat around the fire with anyone, but the conversation made her nervous. They looked at each other and nodded.
“We leave early tomorrow but I’ll leave my card on your door, you can call if you need anything.” Sara assured her.
Lauren didn’t get into bed as much as she collapsed into it. Her legs ached already and she knew that she wasn’t getting around much tomorrow. Between the wine and adrenaline wearing off, Lauren was able to fall asleep quickly.
She was out in the woods again. She must be dreaming because she wasn’t hurting.
“Do you know who I am?” The creature asked in her head again. Lauren couldn’t see the creature but didn’t feel the need to look for it either, just stood waiting.
“Eglas.” Lauren answered out loud. There was a chittering sound that somehow sounded pleased.
“Smart woman. I have been watching you.”
“I’d prefer you didn’t.” Lauren said dryly.
“You have questions.” Eglas stated.
“I can find answers.”
“I can give you answers if you ask me. It’s easy.” Eglas encouraged.
“Nothing is ever free and I have no intention of indebting myself to you. Accidentally or otherwise.” Lauren said, making herself clear. Eglas chuckled out loud and Lauren heard a swooshing through the trees. Lauren involuntarily shuddered.
“Have it your way, but you know where to find me.” Eglas said.
Lauren woke up the next morning as sore as she thought she would be. She managed to drag herself out of bed and to the bathroom and pulled on sweats that could pass as clothes. She thought that was the advantage of getting older, no one expected as much fashion wise. Lauren considered sitting on the stairs to go down but pushed through each painful step until she was in the kitchen. Ibuprofen and a freezer meal with a bottle of wine and she headed to the living room. She’d be close enough to answer any visitors if they came but she could sleep on the couch or watch tv. Lauren couldn’t find anything interesting on tv, or not enough to block out the clear dream she’d had last night that seemed to stick to her. When the ibuprofen kicked in she felt good enough to sit up, she looked around the room and noticed the bookshelf was getting dusty again. There were books on the shelf that had come with the place but Lauren had never really looked at them before. After flipping through movie selections and still not seeing anything she could find any interest in she got up and wandered over to the shelf. Reading the titles she figured out why she hadn’t wanted to read them before. History of the area mostly. Then a book about ghosts in the area, that sounded like it could be interesting. When Lauren was a kid she devoured books about ghosts. Next to it was a book without a title, it was slim and blended with the other books well. Lauren grabbed it as well, mostly curious. She settled back on the couch and pulled the blanket around her. The book was interesting, the usual ladies in the woods and drowned men, children warning of danger. Then there was a chapter that mentioned Elgas.
TRANCHLURE
He arose from the mud, hungry,ravenous.
He crept through the trees and on the strange mist observant first.
When the people came and Eglas fed He found a way to satiate the hunger and then slept for years and was awoken
He massacred the nearest town and those who lived in the woods found a way to drive him back into the caves, not dead but mostly sleeping until someone falls into his cavern, never to return.
Was it about Eglas? She didn’t think so.
Lauren went into the office and grabbed the binder that mentioned the Helgas. Even the binder was coded though obviously.
With her limited knowledge though she was thinking that they were groups of worshippers coming to celebrate differently. Lauren wondered if she could order some books on astrology to understand it better.
She opened up another book on fairies, but this had highlighted sections. A recipe for some kind of tea to see fairies. In the side there were some notes on things to leave out around the forest, offerings for the spirits. Lauren traced the handwriting and wondered if it was Jim who had written it or someone else. Apples was what it said.
There was a ring telling her someone was here. Lauren got up again carefully and headed in to the office. A man with a sleepy toddler on his shoulder stood waiting. He looked haggard and nervous.
“Cabin?” Lauren asked softly.
“Uhm, yes please.” He said.
“Any preference? You kind of have your pick this weekend.”
“Something toward the back.”
“Alright, cabin 15, more towards the middle honestly but it branches off so it’s a little more secluded?”
“Yes sounds fine. ‘
Lauren handed him his keys and a small map and sent him on his way, she then hobbled back to her couch. Sighing, she went back to the original book and started a story about a woman who had gotten lost in the forest and run into a sprit offering wishes. A wispy in between soul. Lauren noted that the spirit could be found by a landmark she knew. Slowly she started to doze.
Again she found herself barefoot in the forest.
“Hello again.” He or she whispered in her head
“Hello. Why am I here again?” Lauren asked dreamily.
“Because I am a generous soul. The man came today to ask for a favor from the fairies, he bought his offerings but he failed to realize he had put his daughter in danger. She’s gifted, she’s why he knows to come here. She’s also hit the magician and witches' radar, he needs protection.”
“Ah, and why do you care? There’s always a price.”
“I’ll protect her, for a price, obviously, just a little blood offering. From him if that isn’t clear. I need you to go and tell him my offer before his daughter is spirited away. Awaken now.”
Lauren woke up suddenly, she was annoyed and irate at being ordered around. But she got up and found a card that Sara had offered her the night before. Nervously she rang the number.
“Hello?” Sara answered.
“It’s Lauren, are you far away? “ Lauren asked, wondering how her rational world had changed in such a short span of time.
“Not far at all, maybe a mile.”
“Eglas, came to me, he wants to offer his services to a new camper here.”
“We’ll turn back around immediately.”
A few hours later Rian stood at the office smiling.
“It’s been taken care of, I didn’t realize what you being here meant. You’re the new Keeper.” Rian looked on at her with admiration.
“I don’t think so.” Lauren said firmly.
“You are, whether you know it or not, that’s why you’re here. Eglas might’ve told you that was why he was coming to you but he told us.” Lauren didn’t like the culty feeling she was getting off of Rian right now.
“Well, I don’t know what that means, I’m a caretaker, a well paid caretaker. Not a Keeper for things I don’t believe in. “
“I don't know much about the Keepers, but I have a very strong feeling that you should find the person who sent you here and ask some questions. I don’t know as much as the other girls about the magic in the forest but I do know that the fairies have an affinity for ceremony.”
After a few days of thinking, Lauren finally made a call to Eric. Eric was due up today.
Eric came to the regular front door instead of the office door.
“You’re the Keeper.” Lauren said without saying hello.
“Yes. Jim was a Keeper as well, but he… Well he isn’t anymore. You are up for the position obviously. I’m assuming you brokered a deal for someone out there if you figured it out. Which is accepting the position.”
“I don’t know about any of this. Eglas came and told me a girl was in trouble. I offered protection through another group that I know offers blood sacrifices. I feel like I’m too old to be any sort of Keeper. “
“Well it’s in your blood. That’s part of the reason you were chosen. The night you came to me I had a day of signs, then I heard about Jim. I was thinking of sending another established Keeper to this area and then I saw you. One big sign. I watched you for a few days and then I made the decision to send you up here. You have done very well so far. “
“Is there like a meeting for this? An instructional booklet? “
“I’m guessing Jim left a book of notes behind. He was good about notes in his day and when he realized he was coming to an end he told me he would leave things behind for whoever came next. I’d just look for books and binders.”
“But I don’t understand it.”
“Well you’ll have to learn fast”
“Rian said there was likely a ceremony.”
“There is an introduction. You’ll spill your blood by a great tree that connects all of the mountain. You’ll be recognized and the creatures will know to come to you.”
“What kind of fairy tale is this?”
“The kind that you’re a part of. “
“If it’s in my blood shouldn’t I know something?”
“I guess not.”
Lauren stood in front of the tree on the next full moon, freezing and nervous. The Helgas joined her for emotional support. Lauren held a sharp knife and sliced her hand to let the blood flow over the ground. Energy started from the ground and worked its way up her feet and through her body. With her feet firmly planted it felt as if she came up out of her body and rose above the trees, like looking through a microscope if she concentrated on a certain area she could see everything going on. At first she thought she saw people, but it was much too late for that. They were creatures. They roamed and played. I could see everything.
Welcome to Camp Thellgar

I Hate The Character Limit, so much.
Previous Posts:
Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/PathToNowhere/comments/1clu2tn/path_to_nowhere_sfw_headcanons_part_4_shalom/
Part 2: https://www.reddit.com/PathToNowhere/comments/1clu7gw/path_to_nowhere_sfw_headcanons_for_shalom_part_2/
35. She has joined several other Sinners in keeping an eye on the chief and making sure she does not overwork herself too much, with her method of getting her to stop being to simply walk into the office, grab her by the wrist, and pull her away from her computer and off to either of their rooms.
When that does not work, she will resort to decidedly more underhanded methods, such as slipping into the office via one of the hidden passages, putting her hands over her eyes and telling her that it is time to go to sleep as she waits for her to surrender.
Another option is to utilize the most tried and true method, that being the NHH method, which involves sicking either Nightingale or Hecate and Hella on the Chief, with said method ending in her either being drug out of her office by the Adjutant, often still in her chair, or being bullied into going to sleep by Hecate’s pleading and Hella’s cursing as she chews her out.
But should all of the above fail, should all seem lost in this endeavor, then Shalom has perfected a final tired and true method of forcing the Chief to relax, one that, during her first attempt almost ended with her becoming a head shorter courtesy of a rather infuriated Sumire.
The method in question?
Step 1: Walk into the office. Utilizing passages is not necessary as the sound of approaching heels clicking on the floor and knocking on the door adds a valuable psychological factor to the approach.
Step 2: Do not respond to any of the Chief’s questions, merely meet her gaze with a smile and walk towards her, navigate around her desk and push her back towards the wall behind her.
Step 3: Utilize greater than average strength to force her to remain in the chair by pinning her to ii, typically done by straddling her lap.
Step 4: Lean in close to her ear and begin to hum a lullaby as you stroke her hair, and rub her upper back, certain fragrance perfumes also assist in this method, particularly ones including lavender.
Step 5: Wait for her to give in and then wheel her out of the office and towards her room.
So far this method boasts the 2nd highest success rate out of her other methods of coercing the Chief into resting, the highest being the NHH method, though other Sinners boast of having more successful ones…granted one of them involves rendering her unconscious and another involves paralyzing her, but they still work, thus the Hush shall not stop until she perfects a method of getting the Chief to cease overworking herself.
Her current approach being to simply insure that there is no reason for her to overwork herself, with her providing aid on matters that would otherwise take up too much of the Chief’s time, though the Chief is yet hesitant to fully trust her with much of her work, she has so far allowed for the help.
Only time will tell if this method works though.
36. She has a curiosity regarding the various other nations that exist beyond the walls of Dis, something that has led to her gathering as much information and memorabilia from those nations that she is capable of.
She regularly searches out any of the Sinners from foreign lands to speak with regarding their former homes, such as Pacassi and her long vanished hometown, Eirene and Fraser, KawaKawa and Stargazer for WhiteSands, or OwO and Goldion Ville.
It has become a small dream of hers to one day visit the lands beyond the walls of Dis and see what the world is like outside of the reach of Paradeisos and herself, though she does not want to go alone, so she has decided that she will try and take Rosa, Rahu, Christina (and of course where christina goes, Thistle goes.), and or the Chief with her come the chance to slip away.
But for now she will settle with enjoying what trinkets and information she can from those distant lands. She is particularly fond of the chess set that Eirene had brought over from her home city and the paper lantern that OwO made for her.
37. Similar to Langley, she has many times made use of the skills of the Phantom Thief pair of Priscilla and Tetra, though she has never directly spoken to them, instead utilizing multiple online accounts and middle-men to hire them.
The pair have long since ceased attempting to investigate just who it is that is behind all of the jobs that Shalom has given them, their previous attempts having ended with the pair finding a flash drive tucked into a drawer that contained their…toys, during a rather passionate moment.
Their session of intimacy being cast aside as they investigated what was on the flash drive, the pair soon finding themselves clinging onto one another as they saw a file containing both videos and images of them going about their daily lives, as well as on their missions, even their homes outside of the Bureau, including safe houses even the Chief was unaware of.
Amidst the flurry of images and videos was a single document, a simple text file that contained words which managed to send a chill through their cores.
“I would advise you to not bite the hand that feeds you, I harbor no malice towards you at the moment…but if you continue to pry into things best left unknown…then I will be forced to take much more direct action against you.
The presence of this hard drive should be proof enough of what I am capable of, as well as the extent of my influence, and be advised that what you see here is but a fraction of the data I have gathered on the two of you.
But that is neither here nor there at the moment, and I would truly hate to sully the wonderful working relationship we have at the moment, and in the same vein lose two exceptionally useful allies, thus I will take no action against you at the moment.
For now, I would advise you to hold one another close, perhaps enjoy the wine you have stored away in your cupboard. It is a wonderful vintage that pairs quite well with the dark chocolate that Tetra purchased a couple of days ago.
Take some time off to process this information, don’t worry about anything, your superior at the Bureau is a kind woman, she won’t pry too much, and you have likely received a rather sizable transfer to your account for a job well done in regards to your last few missions from me.
With that said, I must be going, I have a great many things to attend to that require my personal attention, though before I go, I have to admit that I was impressed by the variety of toys you possess. My own collection seems paltry in comparison…perhaps I should remedy that.
Sincerely X.”
The pair would take their mysterious benefactors' advice and spend the next few days with each other, not only scouring their homes and cell for bugs, but also in trying to bury the terror that the flash drive caused them.
That the damn thing vanished the next day, only further heightened their fears of this unknown X.
Curiously, the days following this incident would see Shalom spend a rather lengthy amount of time browsing certain…illicit sites in search of new additions for her own collection, that she asked Rahu, Rosa (Who she communicated with via sharing her screen in a call or by phone), and the Chief their opinion on the objects in question, is something 2 of the 3 mentioned would very much like to forget .
38. Upon learning that Peggy and Joan were two of the musicians whose tapes and records she possessed, she took time out of her schedule to ask for their autograph’s on the tapes and records in question, paying them quite handsomely in return.
She has likewise requested recording of several other musician Sinners performances, from Dudu, who spent several minutes in dumbfounded silence at just how much Shalom offered her before energetically shaking her hand and running off to get started, to Echo and her saxophone, the young musician being ecstatic to record a tape for someone at last.
Whether or not the music is any good by the standards of the masses is of no concern to Shalom, all that matters is that it is her choice to listen to and enjoy it, and not the whims of her former masters, with it also serving a memento of some of the more vibrant souls present within the Bureau.
39. Given her fixation on spreading happiness, and Shalom’s desire for happiness, it is a fair assumption to say that she has something of a relationship with Serpent, with the serpentine Sinner having taken upon herself the challenge of making Shalom give her a genuine smile through any means necessary.
As a result of this, Shalom has many times found herself given a front row seat to the shows that Serpent puts on within the Bureau, the serpentine Sinner having pulled out every stop during her shows to try and coerce as much genuine emotion as she can from Shalom, with the Hush often finding herself feeling emotionally drained and yet deeply satisfied after each performance.
She has also met the monstrous snake that Serpent keeps as a pet, granted their meeting involved it slithering through the vents and into her room as she was reading a book, but unlike many of her fellows she did not immediately panic and was instead able to keep the colossal snake busy until Serpent could arrive to recover it.
Though it did take them a rather long while to convince the snake to uncoil itself from around her and her chair, especially given that it seemed to be enjoying the story she was reading aloud to it.
That is not to say it is an entirely one-sided deal, as Serpent has come to find herself with enough money in her account to be able to afford the sun lamps she has wanted for a long while, with Shalom also taking upon herself the duty of babysitting Serpent’s snake when the woman has to leave it behind on a mission.
She has also aided Serpent in her quest to make the Chief happy, not only through funding but also by helping her in researching a rather large variety of means to try and appease the woman in question.
The Chief has since come to expect that whenever Serpent has a show, she will find herself being seated near the front with Shalom on one side, Eirene on the other, and Rahu and Christina as far away from the giant snake that accompanies Serpent as possible.
40. She gets cold easily due to her fragile nature, her heavy coat helps her with it to an extent, but during particularly cold or windy days, she needs to wear layers to the point that she needs several minutes to pry off all of them when she is out of the cold, otherwise she will begin to overheat.
In addition to getting cold easily, she also has a rather weak immune system, even with Paradeisos medicine at her back, thus she can easily fall ill during cold weather, leading to her being bedridden or consigned to the medical wing for several days before her condition stabilizes.
As a result of this, she tends to avoid leaving the warmth of the Bureau, or even her room for that matter, during such weather unless her presence is requested by the Chief for some matter, though even then she will demand heavy reparations for her presence.
Typically, said reparations will involve the Chief pampering her while she recovers from whatever illness has come to plague her, even should she be given medication to treat it, she will still request that the Chief stay with her till she is fully recovered.
That is not to say she fairs any better during hot weather, as she has to wear sunscreen or carry an umbrella to avoid sun burns during the intense heat, with her trying to minimize her exposure to the intense sunlight as much as she can to avoid heat sickness.
It is safe to say that she enjoys the more mild weather of spring or the cool and yet not freezing weather of fall as opposed to winter or summer, with those being the months she is able to enjoy the sights of the city and the world before she is forced to flee into cover at the changing weather.
41. She once requested Enfer to make use of her ability to try and sculpt something that could elicit genuine fear from her, with the artist devoting a rather obscene amount of time and effort towards the matter, Shalom funding her ventures as the sculptor tried everything she could.
Eventually, Enfer managed to create something that managed to provoke a reaction from Shalom, the exact nature of the work that managed to provoke a feeling of unease and distress within Shalom such that she was visibly unnerved is unknown however, as Shalom had any visual images of the work removed as she took it to a secure and hidden space within her room.
None but the Hush and the Sculptor themselves have seen just what was made that day, and Enfer refuses to share any information on the matter, the Mistress of Fear herself feeling no small amount of unease whenever she recalls the work she made, and sheer distress it caused to flicker through the normally blank faced Shalom as she looked upon it.
No threat was needed, no promise of revenge or wrath, nor was a bribe needed, only a glance at Shalom and at the artwork she had made was needed to bid her tongue to stay silent on the matter.
An oddity is that after the piece was finished and hidden away, the pair tried to spend as much time with the Chief as possible, as though something compelled them to do so…perhaps…no, it is better that road be left unwalked.
42. She is a regular listener to Eleven’s radio show, and is exceptionally fond of the radio host herself, finding her show to be the perfect thing to listen to as she focuses on work that has either kept her up late, or has awoken her exceptionally early.
Eleven is more than a little wary of the Hush, especially given the rumors she has heard of the woman, particularly from the agents of the Garden and various others, though at the same time she cannot ignore the way Shalom has spoken so highly of her, and the several times she has called in to her show to speak with her whenever she needed to take a breather during her work.
That said, Eleven wishes that the next time Shalom asks to take her photo, she does not have the flash on, especially given that the mirror she was standing beside managed to reflect it and disorientate both of them for several minutes.
43. She very much enjoys sleeping in on the days she has nothing to do though not quite to the extent of Coquelic, who prefers to spend almost the entire day in bed when there is nothing for her to focus on, with her trying to catch up on any sleep she has been forced to miss as a result of her work.
Whenever someone attempts to awaken her from this slumber they will typically either be met by her Mark blazing in one of her eyes as she glares at them, or with her reaching out to pull them into bed with her, something that Rahu, Christina, Rosa, and the Chief have been the victims of before.
The problem is that once she has a grip on them, and has begun to fall asleep, she very much refuses to relinquish her grip on them, with her poor victims having to either wait for her to awaken, or for them to find some way to wake her up.
Such as carrying her to, and proceeding to drop her into a tub of either warm or cold water, something that Rahu had to resort to at one point when something came up and Shalom was needed on one of those days.
She proceeded to learn that while Shalom is frail, she is still capable of throwing surprisingly heavy objects with no small amount of force at someone, particularly when they have their back turned to her.
On an unrelated note, she had to see Iron and Anne for some aspirin to help with a headache she gained that day, where it came from she would not say, only that both the source of it, and the headache itself, were exceptionally annoying.
44. Shalom is not counted among the “Sane People Of The Bureau” as the group of Nightingale, Cinnabar, and recently Matilda is called within the Bureau by both staff and sinner, this is no small part due to her past as the Hush and her fixation on the Chief, along with the extremes she is willing to go to in order to achieve her goals.
That said, she is still numbered among the “Somewhat Sane People Of the Bureau,” along with the likes of Langley, Zoya, and so on. As while she may not be the most sane of individuals, with Shalom even confessing such a thing herself due to her skewed view on morals and how she was brought up by Paradeisos, she is still more sane than most of the staff and sinners alike and is thus a candidate for leadership and advice should any of the Sane People Of The Bureau be indisposed after something occurs to effect the Chief…or when the chief needs to be overruled and or forced to take a break.
45. She has a deep seated fascination with the Immortals (Dreya, Vanilla, and Mantis) due in no small part to their own contributions towards paving the way for Dis to be founded by Keylan during the expedition into the Perishing Star, along with the wisdom and knowledge they hold regarding not only the star, but also what they can recall of the world before Dis was founded.
This is one of the few point where she and Paradeisos are in agreement, the information the Immortals possess has already caused several breakthroughs in regards to how the Perishing Star is viewed, along with information regarding both Mania and the effect it has had on the environment of the land around the star.
As such, Shalom has been asked by Paradeisos to keep an eye on the Immortals and to help act as an intermediary to exchange information with them, especially in regards to the subjects of the Illusory Moon and it seeming intelligence, alongside of information of the old world that was lost during the years before the Expedition breached into the Star’s domain.
She tends to speak most with Dreya as opposed to Mantis and Vanilla, as she find the astronomer to be the easiest to converse with of the group as opposed to the survivalist and logistician, though she has orders to try and gather information from Vanilla due to her being a largely unknown part of the Keylan Expedition, alongside of her understanding of the temporal hellstorm that rages within the Star’s domain and her ability to help in reconstructing some of the ruined monitoring stations around 00.
46. Shalom was rather surprised when she learned that the Chief refuses financial backing and aid from her sinners, alongside of only taking Hella and Hecate with her on her missions, the latter annoying her much more than the former due to potential safety risks.
As a result of this, she is one of many that have brought up the idea of the Chief taking other sinners aside from just Hella and Hecate with her during missions as while she may have success so far with just the pair, she also has tendency to run into situations that heavier firepower would be greatly useful in contending with.
As a result of this, she and several others, including Langley, Eirene, Demon, and Rahu, have worked to put together a means of coercing the Chief to accept further aid on her missions from those who are capable of doing so, with the more contaminated and mania sensitive sinners having to be kept on the sidelines due to contamination and potential risk of going full maniac allowing for them to narrow the suspects down.
That they have even been able to sway Nightingale to their side is proof of their devotion to this cause, though so far they have had little luck in convincing the chief to accept further help…at least willingly as they have several times simply either pulled rank on her (Langley) or threatened her with withholding her coffee and snacks (Nightingale) if she did not take aid with her on some missions.
Shalom would go with the Chief on missions herself, if she did not feel that doing so would run the risk of allowing Paradeisos too much information on the Chief and potentially causing the both of them future headaches.
47. Despite her fragility, Shalom possesses rather impressive healing capabilities, though not to the extent of Hella, she is still capable of surviving many wounds that would have been fatal to others, with Schorl furthering her healing abilities with its own technology.
She cannot regrow limbs or digits, nor can she regenerate organs, or is she immune to illness, but she is still capable of taking a stab or bullet and surviving, at least assuming it is not directly to her heart or brain, something she considers one of the few useful modifications Paradeisos made to her after she became the Hush.
48. She has an odd relationship with subjects unknown to her, as she is both wary of, and yet also fascinated by, anything that she has know knowledge or comprehension of, something which is quite rare given her eidetic memory and the amount of information she was taught by Paradeisos and has learned on her own.
This leads to her starting ventures into unknown subjects cautiously at first as she tests the waters before she begins to dive into them in full, hungrily devouring anything and everything she can on the subject until she feels that she is satisfied with it.
This is not something born of scholarly desire, but rather out of a desire to know what she can use and what can be used against her, alongside of it being something that she has the ability to choose to indulge in without being ordered to do so, it is also something she does to further cultivate her seemingly all knowing image to instill both respect and unease in those around her.
Among the subjects she has studied are things such as tailoring, animal husbandry (Christina learned far too much regarding breeding habits of animals when she was researching it), entomology (She felt it wise to learn more about her arachnid foes), cooking, and cocktail making.
49. It is a standing rumor in the Bureau that Shalom’s coat is able to repair itself, as no matter what is done to it, be it burned or slashed, it is always in immaculate condition the next time anyone sees her wearing it.
The truth is much less fanciful though, as Shalom simply owns many copies of her coat that she can use when she is unable to fix one of them or have a tailor fix it for her, with her having allocated a rather large sum simply to replacing and repairing her coats when they get damaged.
She at one point had to have a whole new batch made for her as, despite not being contaminated when the Garden and Langley unleashed a hell of spiders into her room, she one day went to put on one of her coats and found a rather large tarantula inside of it.
How it got there, she had no idea, only knowing that it was the doing of someone in the Bureau, especially given she has spider-proofed her room to the best of her ability since the ‘prank’ pulled on her.
Needless to say, she promptly had Schorl burn each of her coats for safety reasons.
50. She is very well aware of the irony of her name's meaning and of her profession and the deeds she has committed, with her finding it to be somewhat humorous in a rather dark way, with her using it as a part of several rather dark jokes that she makes when free of Schorl’s gaze.
51. While Shalom claims to have something of a Black Thumb when it comes to gardening, few know just how bad her attempts at gardening have ended over the course of her attempts at it.
As not only has she managed to kill the vast majority of her own plants, including ones that should not be easily killable by any stretch of imagination, but she has also managed to, through means known to not even Paradeisos, cause plants that others are tending to on her behalf to die whenever she tries any attempt at caring for them.
She was particularly upset the day she managed to kill a rose that Rosa had given her, with the maid having to visit the Bureau to console her former employer over the matter, said maid would later confide to the Chief that the flower was artificial and it should not have been possible for it to die.
52. Shalom very much enjoys egging people on when the chance arises, utilizing her position as a Paradeisian and her own connections to put people who have managed to earn her ire in a position of wishing to strike at her, but being unable to do so.
In particular, she enjoys doing this to high ranking officials or such that try and interfere in her aiding the Chief, finding the expressions they make as they grit their teeth in silent and indignant fury at her to be amusing to no small extent.
She is confident that should anything occur, Rahu would protect her, though her bodyguard has told her many times to cease her antics or to at least reign in her antics so that she did not have to have her hands on her weapons everytime Shalom meets an official that annoyed her.
The only response she received from Shalom was an amused smile and the faintest hint of exasperation from Schorl as the Hush went to another meeting with a board of officials, said meeting nearly devolved into a full on brawl due to her pitting them against one another as she sat back and enjoyed the show.
It is safe to say that Rahu has come to dread seeing Shalom smile during meetings.
53. She has many times commissioned Cassia to make perfume for her, with her finding the perfumers products to be vastly superior to even the perfumes that she would find in luxury stores in Eastside.
A part of the deal she has with Cassia is an exchange of fragrances so to speak, as she will let the perfumer take samples of her hair to make into perfume in exchange for custom perfumes, though her donations to help Cassia built her own Atelier within the Bureau don't hurt either.
Cassia considers the perfume she has made from Shalom’s hair to be an oddity, not just due to it smelling of a form of flower she has not smelled before, her best guess being some form of lily, with a rather spicy undercurrent of something akin to cinnamon, but also the feeling of peace it seems to bring the one wearing it, though she claims the feeling of peace feels…unnatural to her.
The perfumer would work to refine the perfume made of Shalom’s hair for several months before she seemed to reach some form of breakthrough, though it did not seem to be a desirable one as she soon destroyed the product and went back to her earlier iteration of the scent.
Why she did so, she would never say, but the look of pity and unease in her eyes when she looks at Shalom since her experiment ended, tells a tale all of its own.
54. She finds Hella to be rather adorable, though she is admittedly somewhat envious of the sheer amount and depth of emotions the young Syndician can feel, along with the ease at which she is able to display and switch between them.
Nonetheless, she has come to be rather fond of the gremlin’s antics, with her considering it a pleasant interruption to her day whenever she sees the hellion causing chaos within the Bureau, with her having gone so far as to aid her in her escapes and antics for her own amusement.
She is also oddly protective over the Syndician, as she has come to the conclusion that Hella is a vital component to the Chief’s happiness, and a valuable means of keeping her safe, and as such she takes many steps to insure that the little hellion is safe during her outings.
Hella once confronted her on the matter, surprising Shalom with her awareness of her involvement, the pair speaking for a while on their thoughts on the matter, with the Rat Queen Of Syndicate surprising Shalom with her maturity and intelligence during their conversation.
In the end Hella agreed to endure her meddling and watch, in exchange for her monitoring and protecting Ninety-Nine as well, with the gremlin threatening Shalom with going to the Chief and ruining her image in the Chief’s eyes if anything happened to the Berserker.
Shalom had chuckled at the statement, an honest chuckle of amazed amusement at the girl's audacity, before she acquiesced to her demand with grace, smiling to herself as she re-evaluated her opinion on the girl who finished her tea before she left.
Before Hella had left the room, however, she had asked her how it was she deduced that it was her that was involved, something which made Hella pause before she turned to look at her over her shoulder and said-
“I had a hunch it was someone high up, didn't know who though, so I took a gamble on it being you and you confirmed it for me.”
Shalom had been incredulous for a moment before she began to chuckle once more, basking in both her surprise and the genuine emotion she felt as she watched the young woman leave, silently vowing to herself to see the full potential of the young girl one day.
55. And the final one, is that Shalom fully expects to never truly achieve her happy ending and to die before she can be fully free of the shadow of Paradeisos, to never be able to watch movies with the Chief, see Rahu freed from her hatred, watch as Christina and Thistle grow together, or witness Coquelic and her Garden claim their own pound of flesh from both the Underground and Paradeisos.
Because of this, everything she has done and continues to do is her rigging the board as much in favor of the Chief and those she feels deserve it as possible, all to insure that once she is gone they will still be safe and can reach their own happiness.
She knows that nothing she has done can make up for even a fraction of the sins she has committed, but at the very least she hopes that these sins can pave the way to heaven for her loved ones while she descends into hell where the Hush belongs.
She could burn with a smile on her face, so long as she knows they will be safe and happy.
And with any luck, she will drag Paradeisos down to the depths of hell with her, so that they can all burn along with the monster they created.
And that is it, everything we have for Shalom, and our longest post on this sub to date, we hope you all enjoy it and that you share your opinions and thoughts on what we have here, along with some of your own headcanons should you wish to do so.
Till next time, stay safe and take care.

“Brah, I’m glad that shift was over. ‘Tang ina can’t believe we gotta head back in 12 hours. Can’t take anymore night shifts. It’s killing me.”
“Migs brah, relax. It’s hardly the night shift.”
“ ‘pre, it’s midnight.”
“Yo, be glad we get to go home. Marcy, Ting, Lim, those poor fucks just clocked in.” Anthony glanced over at the whiteboard with a handwritten menu:
Meal A
Bisteak and Rice
Meal B
Pansit Canton with hot dogs
Meal C
Menudo Rice + 1 Lumpia
Special
Beef Pares (Beef Stew)
“Yo, so what you having, my turn to buy.”
“Yah, it’s always your turn to buy when we end up at a cheap diner like this.”
“Ok, you get your own..”
“Joke lang ‘pre, relax. I’ll have the Special. Sorry, been a long shift.”
“Manong, dalawang Special ho.” two specials please.
The old man behind the carinderia finished ringing up the customer that was ahead of Miguel and Anthony. Another shift worker, a woman in scrubs heading home from a long shift at the hospital.
The old man walked over to the back wall, grabbed two plates two bowls and began filling in the order for two specials which consisted of a plate of white rice and a bowl of oily pares (beef stew, street vendor style).
Miguel and Anthony frequented Robinson’s almost every night shift. It was a bare bones type of carinderia with green tile walls andSan Miguel Beer poster ads. One wall had a large corner to corner mirror that made the place look bigger than what it actually was. The tables were cheap foldable picnic tables draped with thick see-through plastic. The front windows were ceiling to floor like most of the restaurants on the strip except for some reason, they were tinted. Food was also cheap but portions were big.
Taste was another story. To the pair of them, the food tasted alright. There were definitely other options in the vicinity. A lot of restaurants and diners in the area stayed open late to feed the influx of commuting shift workers in the neighborhood. Some even stayed open 24 hours to capitalize on the breakfast crowd coming in from a graveyard shift.
Miguel and Anthony certainly weren’t lacking in options, but something about the food kept them coming back. There was a certain flavour to the ulam which oddly enough, energized them a little bit. They had the feeling of life returning to their tired over worked bodies. Over the months, both of them had certainly tried checking out the other carinderias, but they never had the sense of satiety that they would get from Robinson’s. Satiety was the word they could best describe their end of meal feeling. It wasn’t a satisfying meal, but it did leave a particular taste at the end. The kind that makes you want more regardless of how full up you felt.
They couldn’t quite put their finger on what that flavour in the food was; that strange but tasty flavour. Some of the dishes that Manong served tasted plain, even bland but with a hint of that… something. It was strongest whenever Manong had a special for the day. His specials were random and there was no way of knowing when he’d have a special dish prepared. You just had to be there at the right time.
For tired shift workers like Miguel and Anthony, they never really put too much thought into why they liked the food. They just did, but at the same time they didn’t. And like most people in their situation, they just decided to brush it off as routine, habit, perhaps a familiarity of the homeland.
Manong, who served them was not Robinson. No one knew who Robinson was. Just like every other store on the strip named Aleng Rosa, Marites Bakery, Tita Lidia’s Panderia. Rosa, Marites, Lidia, Robinson, all could have just been names pulled out of a hat and whoever worked at the establishments didn’t think too much of the history of the store names or who they were. To everyone on the strip, work was work, and a business was a business.
Manong was just Manong. He was an old sinewy man with a lazy eye and white oily hair. Old as he looked he, moved like someone half his age. He would float between the front carinderia and the back kitchen like a silent wraith, often times carrying refills of food trays with ease.
“Brah, so did you hear about Marcia’s aunt. Tita Neng?” Miguel asked as they sat down at their table, positioned across from the television that played local Filipino news.
“Yah, dude, that’s rough,” Anthony replied as he drizzled spicy vinegar over his beef stew.
“Thank god their insured right?”
“Dude what’s wrong with you? That shit was fucked up! In broad daylight too. Like great they can afford the hospital, but she didn’t have to be in that situation you know? It’s not like she got hit by a car or nothing. Dude went savage on her, for no reason!”
“Yah…” Anthony reflected. “That was fucked up.”
“Things are getting bad. I mean used to be hard just getting around at night. Who know’s who you’ll run into. But tang ina man, these fuckers attacking us during the day now. And for what fucking reason?” Miguel began to chomp down on his food a little bit faster now.
“They hated us from before pare. But back then they ignored us. Shit talk here, shit talk there, but that’s all it was, shit talk. They left us alone. We kept to our side of the line. But now they full on hate us! They blaming us for takin jobs, bringing the fucking virus. Dude doesn’t matter if you’re Chinese, Viet, Filipino. We all look the same to them. Fuck this world bro.” Anthony felt himself getting worked up. He realized if he kept going like this, it would be hard for him to sleep later.
He decided to steer the conversation back to Tita Neng and Marcia. No point in getting worked up so late. “So how’s Marcia anyway? She ok?”
“Yah, she’s with Tita Neng. She’ll be there a while till Neng’s out. Probably be a few days to a week, seeing how that asshole got her.”
“Wow, a week, how’d she score a whole week off?”
“I dunno brah, but company told her take as much time as she needed to take care of her aunt. I never asked though if it was paid. Who knows. You know if this shit never made the news, they probably wouldn’t have given any time off at all you know. These fuckers won’t give a damn until all of the sudden there’s a camera on them.”
Anthony choked a little bit. “Fuck that’s true. They only care if people got eyes on them. Imagine, if this news didn’t go public, they probably would’ve wiped their hands and said not their problem.”
Miguel grabbed the vinegar from Anthony’s side of the table and started adding more to his broth. He was getting a little heated up as well but wasn’t sure if it was the topic of conversation or the food giving him a second wind.
“Brah, the pares is good today,” he mumbled.
Anthony nodded in agreement, “mmhmm.”
“There’s a donation going on if you wanna contribute. Again we don’t know if Marcia’s getting time off with pay, but everyone’s just assuming she isn’t. Hard to ask with her being in her state, taking care of Neng at the hospital. So we just gonna collect some stuff, food, cash, you know. Help with the rent and all.”
Anthony nodded as he looked up at the television. It was a repeat news story of Tita Neng’s encounter.
“…Melinda Torres, a 58 year old, Filipino shift worker who was assaulted while walking home in the morning is now recovering at St. Joseph’s hospital. Police have surveilled CCTV footage of the incident Police Investigators have identified the attacker as Anthony King, 42, who is now facing charges of a hate crime on top of assault and battery. Anthony King is still at large and police are urging anyone with information of his whereabouts to contact them or CRIMESTOPPERS…”
“Fucked up,” Miguel says as he turned over to yell at Manong, “be careful when you go out. You never know what these fucks will do these days. They’re just hating on all of us, but what’s worse is they hitting the old ones like you, and Tita Neng over there.”
Manong just stared at the tv, with the same blank look he had every night, and all day for all they knew. He stood there silently, stoically with his one lazy eye unblinking, unphased by either the news report or Miguel’s sudden attempt at conversing with him.
Miguel meanwhile, stared at him for a few seconds, then slowly turned back to his food. Anthony replied, “you’d think he’d be a bit concerned for himself eh. I mean, even though he’s got kababayan (countrymen)all around here, who knows who’s walking down these streets these days.”
“Brah, I don’t think he leaves this place,” Miguel chuckled.
“Yah I guess you’re right.”
“Ingatan mo ang saril nyo”. (watch out for yourelves)The both of them suddenly heard from behind the counter. The both of them turned to look back, but Manong just stood there in the same position as always. Sometimes he was watching TV, sometimes he was just sitting down staring at the wall, and sometimes, he was at the back, disappeared behind the kitchen, doing what the both of them thought people did behind the kitchen. Cook, chop, clean, or maybe in Manong’s case, just a whole lot more staring into nowhere.
“You know, I don’t think I ever heard him talk,” Anthony said.
“Nah, don’t think so brah.”
After a few seconds, he turned back around over to their food and began eating again.
“Yo Ton,” Miguel whispered, “we’ve been coming here for months now, I haven’t seen anyone else work here except old Manong over there.”
“Yah same, I think he run’s this place all on his own”.
“You mean he does the cooking, cleaning, cash, everything? Nah he’s gotta have some help.”
Anthony thought back and tried to recall how the other businesses in the area operated. There were typically two people at least at every store. Even if on a certain hour you’d see one person at cash, or one person at a desk, there would always be another one out back, or out somewhere doing errands. Running a business, no matter how small on the strip was never a solo operation.
It was possible Anthony thought but moving inventory, getting supplies, cleaning the shops, all required some help. And as tight knit as the community was, there was only ever so much favors one could pull from the neighbors before they start declining.
He thought back to when he came to Robinson’s during the day and tried to remember if there was anyone else running the shop or if there was help. Him and Miguel usually just came there after their night shifts, but he recalled swinging by a few days on the weekends on his own when he didn’t feel like cooking, or he felt he needed something quick and cheap to eat. He couldn’t remember at all if old Manong had a helper.
Miguel broke his chain of thought, “You know I heard he was an ex merc from the Marcos era. Body guard or some shit.”
“Where’d you hear that?” Anthony snickered. “You believe all the tsismis huh?”
“Nah man, well, yah sure, tsismis is tsismis, but you know how rumors go? If it’s the same story, it’s gotta be true. And everyone sayin’, Manong over there is an ex merc.
Anthony chuckled as he spooned the last bits of sabaw (sauce)over his rice, “Dude, your logic”
“Yo just look at him. Stiff as a board, always looking silent and deadly. You see the dude ever slouch or anything? My titos and shit were all in the army, and you know, posture, it stays with you.”
“Even an ex soldier can’t do things alone man, specially at his age.”
“Huh what?” Miguel retorted with a puzzled look. “Oh shit yah, ok hear me out. He’s probably like super strong and shit. Ex merc you know, probably seen stuff. Specially back in those days you know. Fucked up shit. Figures why he’d do things on his own. Probably can’t trust no body. Look at that lazy eye of his too. Probably got stabbed or shot. Tang ina’s astig (badass)bro.”
“Dude, you even know what you’re talking about? Like Marcos era? You know how long ago that was? Manong over there’s probably gotta be over a 100 years old to survive the Marcos era.”
“Well”, Miguel shouted, but suddenly remembered where he was and who he was talking about, and where that person was, “Well,” he hushed down “he probably is a 100. Look at him.”
“Migs, I am looking at him, and there’s no way. No way pare. I mean yah, he looks old, but dude moves like he’s 20. He can’t be that old.”
The door of Robinson’s suddenly opened and the two of them stopped their conversation to have a glance. Normally there’s always the quick glance and stare when someone walks through, especially at that time of the night. It would be a mix of curiosity and hopefulness. Curious to see who would be walking in so late at night, and hopeful to see if it was someone they knew so they could start a late night gossip session. But at this particular moment, the stares gave way to a rapid hint of caution which triggered the two of them to immediately look away and back down on their food.
He was a tall, hefty man with big arms, thick thighs, and a big thick belly. He was wide and just plain big. Not the slow and soft kind of big, but the sort of big that can do damage, like a truck or a wild boar. He even grunted a bit as he surveyed the restaurant, eyes meandering Robinson’s with a cynical gaze.
“I thought I smelled something off,” the stranger snorted as he slowly walked, more like staggered, to the counter of Robinson’s. It wasn’t the drunk or high kind of staggering but more so of a bravado step with an air of arrogance behind the walk leaving behind a strange cloud of hate.
“Wha d’you gotta eat in this kinda place pops? I smell fish heads, you fryin’ fish back there?”
Anthony and Miguel gave each other a cautionary glance. They both knew Manong never served seafood, and they both knew what the stranger meant when he referred to the smell of fish heads.
Manong glanced at the customer, with his usual look; unchanging, stoic, emotionless. He took both of his hands and fanned them outward towards the counter of food laid out: the beef stew, fried noodles, and beef steaks.
“God damn old man. Food inspector come by and check your place out yet? What is this shit? You leave this out in the open like this? Probably not even warm?”
He stared at Manong as he mouthed the word warm, and while doing so he took his index finger and dipped it into the pan of beef stew, stirred it around for
1…2…3… seconds, lifted it off and stuck his finger in his mouth.
“It’s warm I’ll give you that much, but it’s fuckin disgusting. What the hell is this pig slop” He spat out onto the floor. Manong just continued to stare.
Miguel turned around when he heard the stranger spit on the floor. Something started to boil up inside of him. Anthony sensed this and grabbed him by the forearm, “psst, huy, relax lang pare”
Miguel turned slowly back to his place, torn and feeling helpless. He knew the stranger with the arrogant walk was up to no good. Miguel just kept getting flashbacks in his head about the news report and his conversations with Marcia about Tita Neng in the hospital. What panicked him most among all the ideas and scenarios running through his head was, this was not Anthony King, the suspect that had attacked Tita Neng in the streets. This was someone else completely. The feeling of being trapped and helpless choked him.
In a hushed tone, as if he could read his thoughts, Anthony whispered, “I know brah, but let’s wait. Relax lang. Maybe he’ll leave. Maybe he’s just all talk. Relax, chill”
The stranger sensed movement behind him, looked back with a smirk, then turned his gaze back at Manong. With the same finger that he just licked the stew from, he went and poked at the fried noodles, and began to stir just like he did with the beef stew.
Anthony was still holding on to Miguel’s forearm and as he watched the stranger stir at the noodles, his grip got harder, and sweat started to pour down his forehead.
“Y’all come here, serve this shit,” the stranger talked as he continued to stir the noodles with his finger. “And don’t even have the decency to greet your customers. Where’s the service old man?” His finger pushed deeper into the pan of fried noodles, submerging his knuckles, his palms, then his whole fist.
“You just gonna stare at me old guy? Or you gonna serve me? Or do I gotta serve myself?”
Manong broke his stare, calmly turned around, and grabbed a plate from the back counter, hardly un-phased by the stranger’s words and actions. He turned back around with the plate, grabbed a serving spoon and began to spoon the plate with fried noodles.
The stranger laughed, the arrogance and the cloud of hate that trailed behind began to rise, and fill the room with it’s invisible aura. He looked left, right, looked back at Miguel and Anthony sitting at the table. At this point Miguel had turned around to watch the stranger again so the two of them were now transfixed at the scene.
The stranger smile turned sharply into a grimace. He spun back to face Manong, lifted his hand out of the plate of noodles, and flicked them at Manong’s face. “FUCK. You can’t get the hint can you? I don’t know how you got into this country. But you know what old man?”
The stranger turns around to face Anthony and Miguel, “And this goes for you two pricks as well”
The stranger turns back to face Manong, “stop serving this slop and go back to your fucking country, you mother, fuckin…”.
And with that last word the stranger grabbed hold of another fist full of noodles and smeared them over Manong’s face. 1 second…. 2 second… 3 seconds… 4… seconds… he continued to smear. He pulled back his hand, turned around gave a grim smile to Anthony and Miguel, who were now standing up. Faces full of shock, anger, fear, desperation, anxiety, sadness, a mixture of emotions that kept them frozen in place. Fight or flight, both actions were being cancelled out with too many thoughts, too many countering emotions, too many what if scenarios floating in their heads.
The stranger glared at Anthony and Miguel, “This is what we do to your kind. You’re not welcome here no more,”
The stranger turns around and begins to punch Manong in the face with the same noodle smeared hands.
That was all Miguel could handle. Anthony stood there still in shock, but Miguel rushed over to the stranger and tried to wrestle his punching arm back to stop the barrage of fists landing on Manong’s face.
“Get the fuck off him you prick. Why you gotta go and hit an old man for you fucking piece of shit!”
The stranger had size over Miguel, though Miguel was able to hold back his punches, his other arm was free and strong enough to elbow Miguel hard in the ribs which made Miguel immediately let go.
“You all are everywhere, like god damn roaches”, he spat at Miguel.
Miguel furious took a deep breath and launched himself at the stranger. With no real experience in fighting, all he could do was grab hold of the stranger with a bear hug to the waist, which was unfortunate for Miguel as with the stranger’s reach, he was able to pummel him with both arms. Elbows to the back. Punches to the ribs.
Miguel held on tighter, frustrated, in pain, tears rolling down his face while the stranger continued his barrage of elbows, punches, and insults. Anthony stood frozen mouth gaped, shock and fear rooting him in place.
“You fucking pieces of shit, take every god damn street and store in our country, take every fuckin’ business, and all you do is ruin things for everyone.” The stranger continued to beat down, Miguel’s strength fading, his grip on the stranger loosening as he took multiple punches to the ribs and back.
“You come here with your shit food, your shit way of life, ruining MY country. First you bring drugs, then you bring the fucking virus, then you take all our fuckin money living off our welfare system. I should call immigration on the lot of you. You got papers boy?”
Miguel dropped to his knees. Hurt both physically from barrage of punches and elbows and hurt emotionally from the insults and the slurs that were flung with every hit.
“If you won’t go back to where you came from, I’ll kick you out myself” the stranger smiled. Be balled his hand into one giant fist and raised it high over his head, while his other hand grabbed hold of Miguel’s hair, holding him steady for the final blow.
Both Miguel and Anthony saw the fist raised. They both knew what was coming, but neither could stop it. Miguel was too weak from the beating and Anthony was still too frozen with fear to move. They both thought of Tita Neng in the hospital. Miguel was next. He’ll be in the hospital at St. Josephs with her, that is if he survives the final blow.
At this point, Miguel began to experience what most would describe as the slow motion of the last moments of life. Or at least what he thought would be his last moments. They were filled with dread and fear. He could feel the hatred pouring out of the stranger. How could anyone have so much anger and hatred towards anybody?
The aura of hate filled the room and engulfed him entirely. He felt as if his entire being was becoming smothered and about to be wiped out. He could feel all that hateful energy wrap him like a thick heavy net and the anger collecting into a single point in the stranger’s fist. All that hate bottled up in one fist would be crashing down on him soon. Miguel passed out from exhaustion. Anthony fainted from shock.
And then a darker energy entered the room. Originally it was just the stranger and his anger filling up the space. But then, something else emerged. It was darker than black. It was primal. It was old. And It, was hungry.
…
Miguel and Anthony woke up both groggy un aware of what was going on. It took a few seconds for them to regain their senses. They both assumed they had blacked out, but how?
They sit back. Miguel’s ribs and body ached. Luckily the stranger had only been hitting him in the back and ribs, and not the face.
Wait a minute he thought. The stranger must have hit him in the head, otherwise why would he have blacked out?
But then it occurred to him that his head wasn’t hurting. He did have a headache, but not from a punch to the head. More of a groggy, hung over feeling headache, the type one gets from sleeping in a strange position and getting a stiff neck.
Anthony opens his eyes, how did I black out he thought? Did the stranger go after me after finishing off Miguel? He felt no pain in his body, nothing hurt but his head, but it was the same groggy stiff necked pain that Miguel was experiencing.
“Bro, what the fuck happend” Miguel asked
“Pare I don’t know, pare. Fuck. My head hurts.”
“All I remember was I thought I was done for. I remember thinking that I was either going to see Tita Neng in the hospital or see my dad up in heaven.”
“Bro, I’m sorry I couldn’t step in, I tried, I mean, I wanted to, fuck I dont know I’m so sorry bro”
“It’s alright pare. Ok lang, we’re both ok, somewhat. I dunno. Dude where are we?”
They both looked around. There were green tiled walls with posters of San Miguel Beer, one wall with corner to corner mirror to make the place look bigger, foldable picnic tables draped with thick clear plastic, a TV playing local community news, this time playing the morning weather and traffic report. Hazy sunlight was shining through the tinted glass windows of the front of the restaurant. They were at Robinson’s.
Manong was in front of the kitchen counter with a mop and bucket cleaning the floor. His face, blank, stoic, emotionless. He swished the mop with strong, wide strokes, and when he rung the mop into the bucket, his sinewy arms tightened into coils of hard leather. For an old man, he moved like a teenager, albeit slow and methodical.
“Manong,” Miguel asked
“Ok lang kayo? Anong nangyari ka gabe? Where did that asshole go”
Silence.
Manong did one last swish of the mop into the bucket and wheeled them both back behind the counter and into the kitchen. Miguel and Anthony just looked at each other, confused, baffled, and stiff.
“Dude” Anthony grimaced “Like what the hell happened last night?”
“I don’t know, but I feel like shit right now. Do you think we should go to the police?”
Anthony sat in silence not knowing what to say or do. As he became more and more awake, the memories of the night before became more and more clear, but the gap between now and the moment the stranger was about to hit Miguel in the face was a huge black hole.
“Dude, what time is it?” Miguel asked.
Anthony looked at his phone, “6am”
“Alright, ok so we got 6 hours before clocking in to figure out what we’re going to do”
“Or figure out what happened last night bro”
The kitchen door swung open and Manong walked out with a big tray of food for the carinderia counter. Face emotionless as ever, not even showing signs of strain as he lifted the tray into the heating spot of the counter. After placing the tray in it’s slot, he turned around to the white board menu above the kitchen counter and began wiping the old menu out and replacing it with the days and evenings options.
Meal A
Bisteak and rice + 1 lumpia
Meal B
Pansit canton with beef slices
Meal C
Pork adobo and rice
Special
Lechon Kawali
Glossary of terms:
‘tang ina: short for putang ina. Mother Fucker.
‘pre: short for Pare. Colloquial term for Bro.
Brah: another term for Bro. Evolved from the word Brad.(Br-AH-d) or Brother.
Manong: A term reserved for an older male person. Typically males, family or strangers would be referred to as uncle or Tito. Manong is an older Tito.

(most important note in the end, dont miss it )
Note.1.😊😊👇👇👇👇
This is totally depends on how long have been you doing this..
Understand this first.
Now if you doing from past 10 or 15 years it take time to recover your body tissues.
I understand you feeling low but it's never late if you realise your mistake now follow this steps if you doing this from long time..
• As you know you are doing this from long time so you first need to do that do not fap yes you heard it right do not fap at any cost it will completely make your life hell.
• Due to long time problem may be you find night fall problems but relax don't be serious it happens in starting just calm down no matter what happens don't use your hand at any cost believe in yourself.
• Avoid sugar drink more water do exercise when you urge to do the same thing busy yourself take a good diet for 100 days
• After 100 days you will feel more energetic and on your face you can see yourself more confidently in mirror all the best.
Now for Those who doing this from short period of time like 1 years or 3 years.
Just follow this simple steps.
• Do not fap for 30 days yes you heard it right just do this and you will feel more confident
• You will realise your worth
• Take a good diet Avoid junk food all the best.
1.End 🤗🤗🤗🤗
2 👇👇
Masturbation is much more harmful then Alcohol, cigarette smoking, or other drugs. It makes u addicted to dopamine. When u r watching porn, enjoying masturbation ur dopamine lvls rise to 200-300%. Now ur brain thinks it as a new normal value of dopamine. If u try to stop masturbation ur brain is already addicted to dopamine’s high lvls… so brain doesn't allow… u get bad mood, no motivation to work, no social life…until u return to masturnation again. Also a lot of mitochondria are released from body having a lot of energy in the form of fructose.When u r masturbating twice or thrice a week ur brain considers reaching climax faster to ease the stress as a result premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction occurs.U also get dark circles under eyes. Most of the ppl on internet say there is no scientific evidence of harms of masturbation…ask them what is it then.U can masturbate but not daily.If u say masturbation is safe ppl do it 3–5 times a day that is really very dangerous.
U should think urself if u had to masturbate and wet ur clothes daily then why there are girls on earth.There is time for evwrything.Ur body will deplete of fluid if u masturbate daily. Also u will be unable to satisfy ur partner. So, I will say u need more then 1–2months to recover from fluid deficiency and vital minerals. U will aso had to take gud diet. If u do not masturbate the energy and minerals of extra semen will be utilized to regenerate dead cells of ur skin and repair brain cells. U will feel more attractive to Girls.
Body has natural mechanism of restabilization. If u leave masturbation, extra receptors for high dopamine will degenerate themselves.U will discover sharp memory, more motivation, faster then ever, more energy, more testosterone(during first week). Finally ur interest will change to females instead of masturbation and watching porn. It will take 3 months. U should go for no fap or ask ur frndz for keeping an eye on u.
My experience:
I have been practicing semen retention for two years.I feel motivated, more focused,on my daily tasks, more energetic, Sharp memory. I have made habit of sleeping at 10 daily so that I won't indulge in such habits of porn and masturbation… as a person is alone sometimes at night and have urges that time…..
2 end 🤗🤗🤗🤗 ( copied from internet (quora) ( there is some typing mistakes but you will understand )
🔥🔥🔥 part 3 🔥🔥🔥
Can pornography be a healthy thing?
Blue films and porn movies are fake/false. Nothing is true in them. It is not sex at all. It is acting only with lots of technology effects. Today so many technology is available like editing, good quality of many cameras in different angles and at different distance, animation, illusion technology which is generally used in fiction movies. Then female expressions are totally fake. In movies it look like that they are enjoying but actually they are in lots of pain. They are exploited in movies. They use plastic surgery, breast implant (upto 500 cc silicon implant per breast), other make up for female and Viagra, drugs, sometimes fat injection into penis for male. Lots of lubricating agents for both male and female. By editing, 30 second movie are made upto 10-15 minutes. Each clip/movie made after shootings for many months. Performers are drug addicts, mentally unfit persons, very poor and many of them do not do it by their will, they do to get some money to survive. In these movies corn starch, pina colada mix, some protein mix used which looks like sperm/semen only. In movie many times they pour this mix on female organs and viewers are not able to recognise that is it from penis or not, because of editing. Female orgasm is totally fake. These movies are not sex at all. Whatever you are watching in these movies, hardly 10 % are true. These movies are addiction even more than alcohol, drugs. They are made like that only so that they can make money only. They are not for sex education. Do not fall down in trap of them. Better to watch romantic movies. These blue movies can destroy your mental, physical health, sometimes your life also. These are anti-social, anti-natural, anti-religion, anti-morality, anti-ethics and anti-humanity.
Real life sex include hug and kiss at female forehead, lip, eye, chick, neck, and breast. You can use your hand gently not harshly on female body parts. Then ejaculation (intercourse) in vagina and this ejaculation takes 1-2 minutes only. Not like porn movie for 30 minutes. No man can last more than 1-5 minutes. Women breast do not have any special feeling and its main function is for feeding to child only. Many women do not feel anything many times during intercourse so they can use pillow below their hip. Do not copy different positions from any porn movie. They all are the effect of camera at various angles. Try whatever both partner feel comfortable. Try to make love with your partner. Female is not for sex only. Treat them as a human being and make more love then sex. Respect your female partner. Enjoy with her. You can use condom for intercourse. Do not do excessive sex also, not good for man physical health. Try lots of kissing and hug. Try to spend quality time with your partner. Rarely any girl watch blue/porn movies and it is their best quality. You can enjoy more, if do not watch these illogical, mis-guiding, mis-leading, fake, fiction movies. These movies creat biasness. Use your brain. Do not follow anything blindly. Mainly sex is for making child, family and only sometimes with precaution to enjoy.
Porn is not a real sex. They are fake. Pornography is not made to educate, but to sell. It's a big business that makes a lot of money and doesn't care how. They'll show you whatever they think will make you come back and buy more. So, pornography will tell whatever lies attract and hold the audience. Porn thrives on lies -- lies about sex, women, marriage and a lot of other things. It is misleading, unrealistic and more than 90 % of clips, shots, poses or expression are fake medically means scientifically men’s penis tip has special nerve ending and inside of female vaginal opening has special nerve endings which causes sensation/pleasure/enjoyment while having intercourse. This enjoyment can be feel by intercourse or penis in vagina only. Rest of the body parts of female for eg. Breast do not have any special nerve ending/sensation and except genital part female will not feel anything special in other parts. You should not reenact/follow that which you see in porn! For health reasons! For reasons of respect for your sex partner ! Make Love Not Porn”. Female orgasm (moment of most intense pleasure) is totally fake it is not real. It is a money making shot for them.” The moviemakers know their viewers want to see the moment of orgasm, and they usually want to see it all over the woman’s body like back, butt, chest etc. and believe it is 100% fake/false/lie. It's fiction. Why is it that people lose their brains when the subject of pornography comes up? She’s faking it, dude. Well, first off, the woman you saw doing that thing is a professional. And she is an actress. She is paid to do those things/pretend to do those things/pretend to enjoy doing those things. Because the folks who do that/pretend to do that/pretend to enjoy doing that are actors. Beside this it is finally made after lots of editing, lots of camera shots in different angles, lots of use of computer software (technology) so that it looks true. Many things used are artificial which looks like real for eg. Men ejaculation sometimes not true instead of true they use some corn mix with some chemical which looks same as semen. Female breast are not natural. Most of them go for some artificial incorporation inside breast. Porn is known to often cause problems in relationships. Even apart from the issue of pornography addiction, which is a phenomenon that can absolutely destroy a relationship, heterosexual men who consume porn tend to report experiencing less satisfaction with the woman they have sex with. A problem without a purpose. So porn is a touchy subject. And we’re not even talking about violent porn here. But even the more vanilla forms of it are based on fictions and falsehoods. But even though porn is fake, the problems it can cause are all too real. But you can tell someone something over and over and over again. Porn is not real. Porn is not real. Porn is not real. Porn pollute viewer’s mind. One of the most vital parts of mental environment is a healthy idea of who we are sexually. If these ideas are polluted, a critical part of who we are becomes twisted. The problem with porn's shallow perspective is that relationships are not built on sex, but on commitment, caring and mutual trust. Being with someone who loves and accepts you, someone who is committed to you for your whole lives together, someone you can give yourself completely to, that is what makes sex really great. Let's look at some of lies/fake/false of porn and see just how badly they can mess up your life and attitudes. • Lie #1 - Women are less than human Porn often refers to women as animals, playthings, toy, pets or body parts. Some pornography shows only the body or the genitals and doesn't show the face at all. The idea that women are real human beings with thoughts and emotions is played down. • Lie #2 - Women are property Porn displays women like merchandise in a catalog, exposing them as openly as possible for the customer to look at. It's not surprising that many young men think that if they have spent some money taking a girl out, they have a right to have sex with her. Porn tells us that women can be bought. • Lie #3 - A woman's value depends on the attractiveness of her body Less attractive women are ridiculed in porn. They are called dogs, whales, pigs or worse, simply because they don't fit into porn's criteria of the "perfect" woman. Porn doesn't care about a woman's mind or personality, only her body. • Lie #4 - Women like rape "When she says no, she means yes" is a typical porn scenario. Women are shown being raped, fighting and kicking at first, and then starting to like it. Porn teaches men to enjoying hurting and abusing women for entertainment. • Lie #5 - Women should be degraded Porn is often full of hate speech against women. Women are shown being tortured and humiliated in hundreds of sick ways and begging for more. Does this kind of treatment show any respect for women? Any love? Or is it hatred and contempt that porn is promoting toward women? • Lie #6 - Illegal sex is fun Porn often has illegal or dangerous elements thrown in to make sex more "interesting." It suggests that you can't enjoy sex if it isn't weird, illegal or dangerous. • Lie #7 - Prostitution is glamorous Porn paints an exciting picture of prostitution. In reality, many of the women portrayed in pornographic material are runaway girls trapped in a life of slavery. Many having been sexually abused. Some of them are infected with incurable sexually transmitted diseases that are highly contagious and often die very young. Many are addicted to drugs and alcohol just to cope. Pornography makes a profit from the ruined lives of young women and entraps men who will spend lots of time AND money succumbing to their product. We might think that the things we see and hear don't affect us. Yet we all admit that good music, good movies and good books add a lot to our lives. They can relax us, educate us, move us or inspire us. Just as uplifting media can benefit us, pornographic images can negatively affect us. Images are not always neutral. They can persuade us. Businesses know that if they can get a persuasive image of their product in front of you during a highly emotional moment, it will sink into your subconscious mind. Pornography entraps you with lies.
What are the effects of pornography? What kinds of ideas is porn putting into our heads? If the wrong things keep getting dumped in, your mental environment can get so polluted that your life is going to have problems. One of the most vital parts of mental environment is a healthy idea of who we are sexually. If these ideas are polluted, a critical part of who we are becomes twisted. Porn Addiction: The Pull of Pornography Not everyone who sees porn will become addicted. Some will just come away with toxic ideas about men, women, sex, marriage, and children. However, some will have some kind of emotional opening that allows the addiction to really grab hold. The porn companies don't mind at all if you become completely addicted to their product. It's great for business. Dr. Victor Cline has divided the progress of addiction into several stages; addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out. For porn addicts, I've found that there is another stage that comes first -- early exposure. Let's look at these stages: EARLY EXPOSURE Most who get addicted to porn start early. They see porn when they are very young and it gets its foot in the door. PORN ADDICTION You keep coming back to porn. It becomes a regular part of your life. You're hooked and can't quit. ESCALATION You start to look for more graphic pornography. You start using porn that disgusted you earlier. Now, it excites you. DESENSITIZATION You start to become numb to the images you see. Even the most graphic porn doesn't excite you any more. You become desperate to feel the same thrill again, but you can't find it. ACTING OUT SEXUALLY This is the point where men make a crucial jump and start acting out the images they have seen. Some move from the paper and plastic images of porn into the real world, with real people, in destructive ways.
Blue films are not real. They are edited to show extraordinary sex. Ultimately, pornography is bad for sex. Offensive to women. But many person don’t understand that porn is fantasy. Demerits of watching it is to such an extent that, Overnight a Billionaire becomes pauper, elite conservative studious boy lands in jail., teenagers become drug addicts, experiments to get AIDs too. Otherwise peaceful Society turns to be under siege of a terrorist group, and the list is much more to disclose in these columns.
To brief specifically, films are Only Stories. Films get produced after many takes, rehearsals etc., over many days, to months and gets be edited to portray the story and events of over many decades too, in less than a couple of hours Only. Same is applicable to Blue Films too, misunderstood by over 80% of it's viewers. Trying to imitate those scenes by them leads to all problems, as mentioned in short already. In High school level, knowledge in sex education is a must, but shall not be thro Blue films, to bring up a healthy new generation. Also the Blue films can destroy marital harmony.
As Addendum: I would like to state that, films marked or advertised as X or XX or XXX shall be illegal, in our set up & cultural background for at least a Century more.
There are no merits of watching blue films. In fact, there are many demerits of it.
(1) Weakening of body """""""""""""""""""""""""" Watching a blue film causes stimulations in the sexual organs of the body of the person. These stimulations weaken and loosen the muscles of these organs which adversely affects sexual capacity.
(2) Provocation of masturbation """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Watching a blue film also provokes the person to masturbate. Masturbation is an activity very harmful to health because many hormones and fluids vital to the body are rapidly lost during masturbation. These hormones and fluids are responsible for energy, tolerance, fearlessness, and self-confidence.
(3) Provocation of criminal activities """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""... Watching blue films causes considerable changes in the attitude of the person towards other people. He begins to fantasize people indecently. For example, he fantasizes their nude appearances and doing sex with them. This may provoke the person to indulge in criminal activities like molestation, rapes, and gang-rapes
( copied from internet / quora ) ( there is some typing mistakes but you will understand )
part 3 End 🔥🔥
part 4...🔥🔥👇👇 very important 👇👇🔥🔥
" Lord Buddha on how to control sexual urge '
Buddha emphasized mindfulness and awareness as key tools for understanding and overcoming cravings and desires, including sexual urges. His teachings suggest observing these urges without judgment or attachment. Here's how you might apply his teachings to dealing with the urge to masturbate:

Awareness: Start by becoming aware of the sensations and thoughts associated with the urge to masturbate. Notice how it arises in the body and mind without trying to suppress or indulge it.
Observation: Observe the urge with a sense of curiosity and detachment. Instead of reacting impulsively, take a step back and simply observe the urge as it comes and goes, recognizing it as a passing phenomenon.
Understanding: Reflect on the impermanent nature of the urge. Recognize that it is not a permanent aspect of who you are, but rather a transient experience that arises and fades away.
Non-Identification: Avoid identifying yourself with the urge. Just because the urge arises does not mean you are defined by it. Cultivate a sense of separation between the urge and your true self.
Acceptance: Practice accepting the urge without resistance or aversion. Acknowledge that it is a natural part of human experience and that it's okay to feel these sensations without acting on them.
Redirecting Energy: Instead of acting on the urge, channel the energy it generates into more constructive activities, such as mindfulness meditation, exercise, creative pursuits, or engaging in meaningful relationships.
Compassion: Be kind to yourself throughout this process. Recognize that overcoming ingrained habits takes time and effort, and treat yourself with patience and understanding.

By applying these principles of mindfulness and awareness, you can gradually weaken the grip of the urge to masturbate and cultivate a greater sense of inner peace and freedom.
End🔥🔥
Remember , if you not understand yourself first . Then motivations not gonna help. i mean you will start again after few days. So first understand yourself how to fight against urge. how urge looks like . You will win this fight after you understand it yourself . Just think about life and reality . Good luck 🔥🔥 ( if you feel tired , hungry , sleepy , less motivate to work... now your fu##ed up brain try to urge you to watch porn or masturbation . So first understand that thing. Stay safe ,healthy and stronger . ❤❤

(most important note in the end, dont miss it )
Note.1.😊😊👇👇👇👇
This is totally depends on how long have been you doing this..
Understand this first.
Now if you doing from past 10 or 15 years it take time to recover your body tissues.
I understand you feeling low but it's never late if you realise your mistake now follow this steps if you doing this from long time..
• As you know you are doing this from long time so you first need to do that do not fap yes you heard it right do not fap at any cost it will completely make your life hell.
• Due to long time problem may be you find night fall problems but relax don't be serious it happens in starting just calm down no matter what happens don't use your hand at any cost believe in yourself.
• Avoid sugar drink more water do exercise when you urge to do the same thing busy yourself take a good diet for 100 days
• After 100 days you will feel more energetic and on your face you can see yourself more confidently in mirror all the best.
Now for Those who doing this from short period of time like 1 years or 3 years.
Just follow this simple steps.
• Do not fap for 30 days yes you heard it right just do this and you will feel more confident
• You will realise your worth
• Take a good diet Avoid junk food all the best.
1.End 🤗🤗🤗🤗
2 👇👇
Masturbation is much more harmful then Alcohol, cigarette smoking, or other drugs. It makes u addicted to dopamine. When u r watching porn, enjoying masturbation ur dopamine lvls rise to 200-300%. Now ur brain thinks it as a new normal value of dopamine. If u try to stop masturbation ur brain is already addicted to dopamine’s high lvls… so brain doesn't allow… u get bad mood, no motivation to work, no social life…until u return to masturnation again. Also a lot of mitochondria are released from body having a lot of energy in the form of fructose.When u r masturbating twice or thrice a week ur brain considers reaching climax faster to ease the stress as a result premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction occurs.U also get dark circles under eyes. Most of the ppl on internet say there is no scientific evidence of harms of masturbation…ask them what is it then.U can masturbate but not daily.If u say masturbation is safe ppl do it 3–5 times a day that is really very dangerous.
U should think urself if u had to masturbate and wet ur clothes daily then why there are girls on earth.There is time for evwrything.Ur body will deplete of fluid if u masturbate daily. Also u will be unable to satisfy ur partner. So, I will say u need more then 1–2months to recover from fluid deficiency and vital minerals. U will aso had to take gud diet. If u do not masturbate the energy and minerals of extra semen will be utilized to regenerate dead cells of ur skin and repair brain cells. U will feel more attractive to Girls.
Body has natural mechanism of restabilization. If u leave masturbation, extra receptors for high dopamine will degenerate themselves.U will discover sharp memory, more motivation, faster then ever, more energy, more testosterone(during first week). Finally ur interest will change to females instead of masturbation and watching porn. It will take 3 months. U should go for no fap or ask ur frndz for keeping an eye on u.
My experience:
I have been practicing semen retention for two years.I feel motivated, more focused,on my daily tasks, more energetic, Sharp memory. I have made habit of sleeping at 10 daily so that I won't indulge in such habits of porn and masturbation… as a person is alone sometimes at night and have urges that time…..
2 end 🤗🤗🤗🤗 ( copied from internet (quora) ( there is some typing mistakes but you will understand )
🔥🔥🔥 part 3 🔥🔥🔥
Can pornography be a healthy thing?
Blue films and porn movies are fake/false. Nothing is true in them. It is not sex at all. It is acting only with lots of technology effects. Today so many technology is available like editing, good quality of many cameras in different angles and at different distance, animation, illusion technology which is generally used in fiction movies. Then female expressions are totally fake. In movies it look like that they are enjoying but actually they are in lots of pain. They are exploited in movies. They use plastic surgery, breast implant (upto 500 cc silicon implant per breast), other make up for female and Viagra, drugs, sometimes fat injection into penis for male. Lots of lubricating agents for both male and female. By editing, 30 second movie are made upto 10-15 minutes. Each clip/movie made after shootings for many months. Performers are drug addicts, mentally unfit persons, very poor and many of them do not do it by their will, they do to get some money to survive. In these movies corn starch, pina colada mix, some protein mix used which looks like sperm/semen only. In movie many times they pour this mix on female organs and viewers are not able to recognise that is it from penis or not, because of editing. Female orgasm is totally fake. These movies are not sex at all. Whatever you are watching in these movies, hardly 10 % are true. These movies are addiction even more than alcohol, drugs. They are made like that only so that they can make money only. They are not for sex education. Do not fall down in trap of them. Better to watch romantic movies. These blue movies can destroy your mental, physical health, sometimes your life also. These are anti-social, anti-natural, anti-religion, anti-morality, anti-ethics and anti-humanity.
Real life sex include hug and kiss at female forehead, lip, eye, chick, neck, and breast. You can use your hand gently not harshly on female body parts. Then ejaculation (intercourse) in vagina and this ejaculation takes 1-2 minutes only. Not like porn movie for 30 minutes. No man can last more than 1-5 minutes. Women breast do not have any special feeling and its main function is for feeding to child only. Many women do not feel anything many times during intercourse so they can use pillow below their hip. Do not copy different positions from any porn movie. They all are the effect of camera at various angles. Try whatever both partner feel comfortable. Try to make love with your partner. Female is not for sex only. Treat them as a human being and make more love then sex. Respect your female partner. Enjoy with her. You can use condom for intercourse. Do not do excessive sex also, not good for man physical health. Try lots of kissing and hug. Try to spend quality time with your partner. Rarely any girl watch blue/porn movies and it is their best quality. You can enjoy more, if do not watch these illogical, mis-guiding, mis-leading, fake, fiction movies. These movies creat biasness. Use your brain. Do not follow anything blindly. Mainly sex is for making child, family and only sometimes with precaution to enjoy.
Porn is not a real sex. They are fake. Pornography is not made to educate, but to sell. It's a big business that makes a lot of money and doesn't care how. They'll show you whatever they think will make you come back and buy more. So, pornography will tell whatever lies attract and hold the audience. Porn thrives on lies -- lies about sex, women, marriage and a lot of other things. It is misleading, unrealistic and more than 90 % of clips, shots, poses or expression are fake medically means scientifically men’s penis tip has special nerve ending and inside of female vaginal opening has special nerve endings which causes sensation/pleasure/enjoyment while having intercourse. This enjoyment can be feel by intercourse or penis in vagina only. Rest of the body parts of female for eg. Breast do not have any special nerve ending/sensation and except genital part female will not feel anything special in other parts. You should not reenact/follow that which you see in porn! For health reasons! For reasons of respect for your sex partner ! Make Love Not Porn”. Female orgasm (moment of most intense pleasure) is totally fake it is not real. It is a money making shot for them.” The moviemakers know their viewers want to see the moment of orgasm, and they usually want to see it all over the woman’s body like back, butt, chest etc. and believe it is 100% fake/false/lie. It's fiction. Why is it that people lose their brains when the subject of pornography comes up? She’s faking it, dude. Well, first off, the woman you saw doing that thing is a professional. And she is an actress. She is paid to do those things/pretend to do those things/pretend to enjoy doing those things. Because the folks who do that/pretend to do that/pretend to enjoy doing that are actors. Beside this it is finally made after lots of editing, lots of camera shots in different angles, lots of use of computer software (technology) so that it looks true. Many things used are artificial which looks like real for eg. Men ejaculation sometimes not true instead of true they use some corn mix with some chemical which looks same as semen. Female breast are not natural. Most of them go for some artificial incorporation inside breast. Porn is known to often cause problems in relationships. Even apart from the issue of pornography addiction, which is a phenomenon that can absolutely destroy a relationship, heterosexual men who consume porn tend to report experiencing less satisfaction with the woman they have sex with. A problem without a purpose. So porn is a touchy subject. And we’re not even talking about violent porn here. But even the more vanilla forms of it are based on fictions and falsehoods. But even though porn is fake, the problems it can cause are all too real. But you can tell someone something over and over and over again. Porn is not real. Porn is not real. Porn is not real. Porn pollute viewer’s mind. One of the most vital parts of mental environment is a healthy idea of who we are sexually. If these ideas are polluted, a critical part of who we are becomes twisted. The problem with porn's shallow perspective is that relationships are not built on sex, but on commitment, caring and mutual trust. Being with someone who loves and accepts you, someone who is committed to you for your whole lives together, someone you can give yourself completely to, that is what makes sex really great. Let's look at some of lies/fake/false of porn and see just how badly they can mess up your life and attitudes. • Lie #1 - Women are less than human Porn often refers to women as animals, playthings, toy, pets or body parts. Some pornography shows only the body or the genitals and doesn't show the face at all. The idea that women are real human beings with thoughts and emotions is played down. • Lie #2 - Women are property Porn displays women like merchandise in a catalog, exposing them as openly as possible for the customer to look at. It's not surprising that many young men think that if they have spent some money taking a girl out, they have a right to have sex with her. Porn tells us that women can be bought. • Lie #3 - A woman's value depends on the attractiveness of her body Less attractive women are ridiculed in porn. They are called dogs, whales, pigs or worse, simply because they don't fit into porn's criteria of the "perfect" woman. Porn doesn't care about a woman's mind or personality, only her body. • Lie #4 - Women like rape "When she says no, she means yes" is a typical porn scenario. Women are shown being raped, fighting and kicking at first, and then starting to like it. Porn teaches men to enjoying hurting and abusing women for entertainment. • Lie #5 - Women should be degraded Porn is often full of hate speech against women. Women are shown being tortured and humiliated in hundreds of sick ways and begging for more. Does this kind of treatment show any respect for women? Any love? Or is it hatred and contempt that porn is promoting toward women? • Lie #6 - Illegal sex is fun Porn often has illegal or dangerous elements thrown in to make sex more "interesting." It suggests that you can't enjoy sex if it isn't weird, illegal or dangerous. • Lie #7 - Prostitution is glamorous Porn paints an exciting picture of prostitution. In reality, many of the women portrayed in pornographic material are runaway girls trapped in a life of slavery. Many having been sexually abused. Some of them are infected with incurable sexually transmitted diseases that are highly contagious and often die very young. Many are addicted to drugs and alcohol just to cope. Pornography makes a profit from the ruined lives of young women and entraps men who will spend lots of time AND money succumbing to their product. We might think that the things we see and hear don't affect us. Yet we all admit that good music, good movies and good books add a lot to our lives. They can relax us, educate us, move us or inspire us. Just as uplifting media can benefit us, pornographic images can negatively affect us. Images are not always neutral. They can persuade us. Businesses know that if they can get a persuasive image of their product in front of you during a highly emotional moment, it will sink into your subconscious mind. Pornography entraps you with lies.
What are the effects of pornography? What kinds of ideas is porn putting into our heads? If the wrong things keep getting dumped in, your mental environment can get so polluted that your life is going to have problems. One of the most vital parts of mental environment is a healthy idea of who we are sexually. If these ideas are polluted, a critical part of who we are becomes twisted. Porn Addiction: The Pull of Pornography Not everyone who sees porn will become addicted. Some will just come away with toxic ideas about men, women, sex, marriage, and children. However, some will have some kind of emotional opening that allows the addiction to really grab hold. The porn companies don't mind at all if you become completely addicted to their product. It's great for business. Dr. Victor Cline has divided the progress of addiction into several stages; addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out. For porn addicts, I've found that there is another stage that comes first -- early exposure. Let's look at these stages: EARLY EXPOSURE Most who get addicted to porn start early. They see porn when they are very young and it gets its foot in the door. PORN ADDICTION You keep coming back to porn. It becomes a regular part of your life. You're hooked and can't quit. ESCALATION You start to look for more graphic pornography. You start using porn that disgusted you earlier. Now, it excites you. DESENSITIZATION You start to become numb to the images you see. Even the most graphic porn doesn't excite you any more. You become desperate to feel the same thrill again, but you can't find it. ACTING OUT SEXUALLY This is the point where men make a crucial jump and start acting out the images they have seen. Some move from the paper and plastic images of porn into the real world, with real people, in destructive ways.
Blue films are not real. They are edited to show extraordinary sex. Ultimately, pornography is bad for sex. Offensive to women. But many person don’t understand that porn is fantasy. Demerits of watching it is to such an extent that, Overnight a Billionaire becomes pauper, elite conservative studious boy lands in jail., teenagers become drug addicts, experiments to get AIDs too. Otherwise peaceful Society turns to be under siege of a terrorist group, and the list is much more to disclose in these columns.
To brief specifically, films are Only Stories. Films get produced after many takes, rehearsals etc., over many days, to months and gets be edited to portray the story and events of over many decades too, in less than a couple of hours Only. Same is applicable to Blue Films too, misunderstood by over 80% of it's viewers. Trying to imitate those scenes by them leads to all problems, as mentioned in short already. In High school level, knowledge in sex education is a must, but shall not be thro Blue films, to bring up a healthy new generation. Also the Blue films can destroy marital harmony.
As Addendum: I would like to state that, films marked or advertised as X or XX or XXX shall be illegal, in our set up & cultural background for at least a Century more.
There are no merits of watching blue films. In fact, there are many demerits of it.
(1) Weakening of body """""""""""""""""""""""""" Watching a blue film causes stimulations in the sexual organs of the body of the person. These stimulations weaken and loosen the muscles of these organs which adversely affects sexual capacity.
(2) Provocation of masturbation """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Watching a blue film also provokes the person to masturbate. Masturbation is an activity very harmful to health because many hormones and fluids vital to the body are rapidly lost during masturbation. These hormones and fluids are responsible for energy, tolerance, fearlessness, and self-confidence.
(3) Provocation of criminal activities """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""... Watching blue films causes considerable changes in the attitude of the person towards other people. He begins to fantasize people indecently. For example, he fantasizes their nude appearances and doing sex with them. This may provoke the person to indulge in criminal activities like molestation, rapes, and gang-rapes
( copied from internet / quora ) ( there is some typing mistakes but you will understand )
part 3 End 🔥🔥
part 4...🔥🔥👇👇 very important 👇👇🔥🔥
" Lord Buddha on how to control sexual urge '
Buddha emphasized mindfulness and awareness as key tools for understanding and overcoming cravings and desires, including sexual urges. His teachings suggest observing these urges without judgment or attachment. Here's how you might apply his teachings to dealing with the urge to masturbate:

Awareness: Start by becoming aware of the sensations and thoughts associated with the urge to masturbate. Notice how it arises in the body and mind without trying to suppress or indulge it.
Observation: Observe the urge with a sense of curiosity and detachment. Instead of reacting impulsively, take a step back and simply observe the urge as it comes and goes, recognizing it as a passing phenomenon.
Understanding: Reflect on the impermanent nature of the urge. Recognize that it is not a permanent aspect of who you are, but rather a transient experience that arises and fades away.
Non-Identification: Avoid identifying yourself with the urge. Just because the urge arises does not mean you are defined by it. Cultivate a sense of separation between the urge and your true self.
Acceptance: Practice accepting the urge without resistance or aversion. Acknowledge that it is a natural part of human experience and that it's okay to feel these sensations without acting on them.
Redirecting Energy: Instead of acting on the urge, channel the energy it generates into more constructive activities, such as mindfulness meditation, exercise, creative pursuits, or engaging in meaningful relationships.
Compassion: Be kind to yourself throughout this process. Recognize that overcoming ingrained habits takes time and effort, and treat yourself with patience and understanding.

By applying these principles of mindfulness and awareness, you can gradually weaken the grip of the urge to masturbate and cultivate a greater sense of inner peace and freedom.
End🔥🔥
Remember , if you not understand yourself first . Then motivations not gonna help. i mean you will start again after few days. So first understand yourself how to fight against urge. how urge looks like . You will win this fight after you understand it yourself . Just think about life and reality . Good luck 🔥🔥 ( if you feel tired , hungry , sleepy , less motivate to work... now your fu##ed up brain try to urge you to watch porn or masturbation . So first understand that thing. Stay safe ,healthy and stronger . ❤❤

anyone who uses reddit knows that it is a very low quality platform that makes it difficult for users to find and organize posts and comments.
now as you already know, toptrool has made numerous posts and comments defending the unborn's right to life, undercutting the bodily rights arguments, clearing up conceptual confusions, and fighting back against disinformation campaigns run by the abortion industry. unfortunately, these posts and comments are all over the place, which makes them difficult to find. since it would be in the interest of everyone to have some of toptrool's most important posts and comments be easily accessible, this topic will serve as a central repository where you can find links much of that content, along with brief descriptions of said topics.
keep this particular page bookmarked on your browser and/or saved to your reddit account. i will be adding to this as time goes on.
someday soon, i'll make a website with all these arguments put together and include even more content. one of the benefits of a standalone website would include no longer being reliant on the reddit platform to preserve these posts and comments. but until then, this will suffice as a temporary repository.

nothing but the truth

the experts all agree! it's a baby in the womb! the experts include physicians groups, numerous best-selling authors of pregnancy books, and as well as the authors of the standard textbooks on embryology, obstetrics, and gynecology. even women who shout their abortions use the word baby, and so do abortionists. just because abortion advocates don't think it's a baby, that simply does not make it true. if an abortion advocate has a penchant for being pedantic and refuses to acknowledge colloquial and everyday language, that's a personal problem for them to sort out by themselves.
abortion advocates don't often believe the science, but do they believe abortionists? the fact that abortion kills a baby is something that not even abortionists deny! so where do low information debaters get the idea that abortion doesn't kill anyone from?
on low information debaters and kill pills. one reason as to why abortion advocates might claim that abortion doesn't kill a baby is because they believe that the kill pills do not directly harm the unborn baby. but the science says this is false. the kill pills first and foremost deprive the child of oxygen and nourishment. moreover, if it's a "direct attack" that abortion advocates are seeking, then the kill pills directly attack the unborn child in more ways than one. studies show that traces of the kill pills are found within the body of the unborn child as early as 30 minutes of the woman ingesting them. the first of the kill pills inhibits the placenta, a fetal organ, from producing the essential hormones that are necessary for survival. the second of the kill pills directly damage the vasculature of the unborn child through uterine contractions.
science confirms that an unborn baby's heart begins to beat within three weeks of conception. the abortion industry is working in tandem with the mainstream media to execute their disinformation campaigns against the "heartbeat" laws that protect life after the detection of cardiac activity. they claim that it's not really a heartbeat, but rather "electrical activity." and that it's not really a heart, but something that will become a heart. but are you going to believe the abortion industry over your own eyes and ears?
pictures and videos of real babies in early development can help bring to light the humanity of the unborn.
pictures of victims of abortion can also help bring to light the atrocities that are currently ongoing.
here is a list of fetal pain reviews to keep in handy to use against low information debaters. researchers on both sides of the abortion debate agree that the baby can probably feel pain as early as 12 weeks gestation.
abortion advocates claim that most later abortions are done for tragic reasons such as the mother's health being in danger or the unborn child has severe defects. but this is a lie. don't let abortion advocates get away with a lie. the truth is that most later abortions are done for the same selfish, convenience reasons as earlier abortions.

arguments against abortion

the moral basis for rights: our rational nature. who said it, an 18th century slaver or a modern day abortion advocate?: "not all human beings are persons deserving of rights." i just threw up in my mouth writing that. the most powerful pro-life argument is the argument from equality: all human beings are persons deserving of rights. either we treat all human beings with equal respect, or we don't. any criteria that excludes a class of human beings from equal protections contradicts any notion of human equality. but the question as to why we value human beings is important. human beings have a rational nature, from which flow their capacities. human beings have a natural capacity for rationality and this entails a flourishing unlike any other animal. the equal opportunity to flourish is also the moral basis of equal rights. the topic also includes a takedown of the sophist's consciousness argument.
but suppose for a moment the abortion advocate rejects the notion of human equality altogether. we can still show that unborn child has a right to life and abortion is immoral by utilizing the deprivation of a "future like ours" argument, which was made by don marquis. this argument sidesteps the question of personhood altogether. marquis correctly points out that killing us wrong isn't because of nonsensical reasons such as death being a painful experience, or because we'd suffer, or that our interests or desires would be thwarted, or because of the impact our deaths would have on others and society. instead, killing us is wrong because we are deprived of our valuable future experiences. these experiences include friendships, pursuit of various goals, aesthetic experiences, pleasures, etc. essentially, our future experiences include the things that make life worth living. so when we die or are killed, we are deprived of these opportunities and experiences. marquis' argument against abortion is quite simple and intuitive: killing you and me is immoral because we are deprived of our valuable future experiences. for the same reason, killing the baby is also immoral because he is also deprived of a valuable future like ours. hence, abortion is immoral. this topic also includes arguments against the scientific illiterate belief that we were once sperm or ova, that masturbation kills little humans, or that the use contraception would be immoral under this argument.

abortion advocates often present us with a trolley problem: do we save 10 frozen embryos or one newborn? if we choose the newborn, then, the abortion advocate reasons, we do not really see the embryos as equal to the newborn. but that is non-sequitur. just because you may choose to save one group over the other doesn't mean that the other group never were persons deserving of rights to begin with. for what reasons might someone save the single newborn over 10 frozen embryos? there are many reasons. in typical triage cases, we direct resources to the patients that have the most likelihood of survival. as it turns out, in this regard, the newborn and the embryos are not comparable at all. for this argument to work, we would have to stipulate that, like the embryos, a) the newborn would have to be unconscious and frozen in a container, b) he would have to have poor chances of survival after being thawed (ivf failure rates), c) he would then need to be attached to the body of his mother for nine months (the embryos would need to be gestated), and d) even then there's no guarantee the toddler would survive (the survival rate should be similar to the high rates of miscarriage). only under those equal conditions would it make sense to choose the embryos over the newborn. given the generally poor survival rates of embryos overall, it makes sense to choose the newborn.
dehumanization: then and now. sometimes, it's good to hold a mirror up to the face of an abortion advocate. the same dehumanization language used by bigots of the past is now being used by abortion advocates.
the sophist's consciousness argument often rests on metaphysical confusions. isn't it odd that abortion advocates claim to value consciousness, but not the being that is conscious? as it turns out, many of them don't believe that the unborn child is the one and the same entity that later becomes conscious. for example, they'll claim that they are a "mind" and not an organism (e.g., a human being), and that abortion isn't actually killing "someone," but rather it's just killing a clump of cells that will later become inhabited by "someone," i.e., that the body is simply a "vessel" for the person that later emerges. similarly, they argue that impairing a fetus is wrong only because it affects a future being, which they identify as the person. but these are just fairy tale beliefs that abortion advocates hold. there is no actual evidence of another being emerging at the onset of consciousness. it should not lost on us that abortion advocates want to impose their fairy tale beliefs on the unborn. nonetheless, if we are to persuade people to stop killing innocent babies, we need to clear up the conceptual confusions in matters related to personal identity. this topic also includes a debunking of the "brain death symmetry" argument in which abortion advocates try to find a symmetry between the end of life (brain death) and beginning of life, which they wrong believe happens when the brain becomes "active."
the sophist's consciousness argument also often rests on scientific illiteracy. abortion advocates will often cite studies that purport to show that the unborn child isn't conscious at least until the late second trimester, or around 24-28 weeks gestation, when the thalamocortical connections in the brain develop. but these studies are not based on any tested conclusions, but rather unproven assumptions that a developed cerebral cortex is necessary for consciousness. we know from multiple studies of decorticate children (i.e., children born without their cerebra) that they are still conscious, albeit at a rudimentary level, and that they can feel love, pain, joy, bond with others, and have desires. the cerebrum is not the seat of consciousness, but the brainstem likely seems to be. the brainstem develops much earlier than the cerebral cortex, which has profound implications on the abortion debate.

bodily rights

abortion advocates often shout slogans such as "my body's my choice!" but sloganeering can only get you so far. judith thomson's violinist argument attempts to ground the pregnant woman's right to her body, which abortion advocates believe justifies abortion. but there are numerous problems with the violinist analogy. a pro-lifer could easily refute the argument in three different ways by showing that the unborn child has a right to his mother's body or deny the exercise of that right if it involves killing an innocent person:

the truth is that "my body, my choice" is a child neglect argument. low information debaters claim that pregnancy is akin to forced organ donations, but this is inaccurate. there are no organ/blood/bone marrow transplants involved in pregnancy. saying pregnancy involves organ donations is no different than saying breastfeeding involves mammary gland transplants. pregnancy is the ordinary means of providing nourishment and a healthy living environment to the unborn child. this something parents are required to provide for all of their children. denying your child adequate nourishment and a healthy living environment is a form of child neglect. the unborn child has a right to be in his mother's womb given the obligations parents have towards their children. we know from several child neglect cases that women have been prosecuted for starving their children when they could have instead breastfed them. should a woman who is capable of breastfeeding be allowed to let her newborn starve if there are no other alternative sources of food? answer: no.
on what grounds can we say we have a right to our bodies? none of us are responsible for the fact that our bodies are ours. we did not do anything to acquire our bodies in the first place. we did not choose our bodies, nor did our mothers choose our bodies or choose their own bodies. whatever gives a pregnant woman any claim to her body—a relationship to her body that she acquired through unbidden and contingent means—also gives the unborn child the same right to his mother's body since his relationship with his mother's body was also acquired through the same unbidden and contingent means. think of conjoined twins that share multiple organs—which twin has a right to what? both acquired their "bodies" through the same unbidden and contingent means, and thus neither can claim an exclusive right to the shared bodies and organs. if we have any right to our own bodies—biological equipment that a) is necessary for our flourishing and b) was only acquired through contingency and necessity—then the unborn child has a right to his mother's body for the same reason.
lastly, even if there is a right to bodily autonomy, we can deny the exercise of that right since it would involve killing an innocent unborn child. there are no situations where one is allowed to exercise any of their rights to kill an innocent human being. if i have a right to bear arms, i cannot exercise that right to kill an innocent human being. if i have a right to property, i cannot exercise that right and expel an innocent human being off my private yacht in the middle of the ocean. if i have a right of way on the road, i cannot run over a pedestrian who might be in the way. if i have a right to religious liberty, i cannot kill an innocent human being to make a ritual sacrifice. can abortion advocates name any other scenario in which one is allowed to exercise a right if it involves the killing of an innocent human being? no. what they really want is special rights for the woman, namely the right to kill her unborn child.

for thomson's argument to succeed, abortion advocates would have to show that all three of the arguments above are wrong.
related:

who said it, a deadbeat dad or an abortion advocate? "i consented to the sex, i ain't consent to a child or obligations! abortion advocates often act shocked when pro-lifers tell women to take responsibility for their actions. they claim that pro-lifers want to punish women for having sex, and they want to inflict pain and suffering on women for suggesting that they be forced to care for their children. but for some reason, abortion advocates have no issues with punishing men for the same act that led to the child. they want to inflict pain and suffering on men by forcing them to support a child they did not consent to. forced labor—forcing one to work for another's benefit—is a textbook violation of bodily autonomy. worse yet, men who refuse to support their children are sent to jail—a serious violation of their liberties. and yet abortion advocates have no qualms with these violations of fundamental rights. why can't the man say "my wallet, my choice"? why does the man have responsibilities to a child he did not consent to but a pregnant woman doesn't have responsibilities to the same child because she does not consent? or consider the cases of women who abandon their newborns in the woods or in the bathrooms of hotels. they obviously do not consent to their newborns, so then why do they get charged and tried for child neglect and child abandonment? where did these responsibilities come from? parental obligations aren't based on consent (why would they be obligations?). low information debaters claim that there parental obligations are optional because you could put the child up for adoption or drop him off at a safe haven box. but this is a confused account. the fact you can transfer the obligations and responsibilities of a child to another party doesn't mean you never had obligations to that child to begin with. for how you can give up something you never had? nonetheless, this is a red herring. you can't kill the child at any point before transferring the legal obligations to the child. moreover, whether or not the unborn child is unwanted or isn't consented to is irrelevant if he has a right to be in his mother's womb.

miscellanea

how to discuss rape cases, both for and against.
david oderberg's argument against euthanasia. if i'm a drug addict and i ask you to shoot heroin into my arms so that i can numb my pain, would you do it? if not, why would you allow me inflict an even greater harm to myself through euthanasia?
the next great legal battle over abortion will be on whether the unborn are persons deserving of equal protection under the 14th amendment. recently, some esteemed legal scholars have answered that question in the affirmative. the term "person" was and still is used interchangeably with "human being."
abortion advocates are right when they say that corpses have more rights than some living human beings. they're just wrong about which human beings. destructive embryonic stem cell research involves killing nascent human beings and harvesting their body parts without their consent!
there is no international right to an abortion, but there certainly is international recognition of the unborn child.

memes

sometimes, memes get the messages across far more effectively than long text posts. here are some of toptrool's most popular memes:
ronald reagan meme
murder meme
pregnant woman meme
martin luther king jr. meme
slaver meme

you can never lose now!

Black Sheep Family
Interlude 9
Date Night: Valentines
The Evening of the 17th of February, 2079
Agatha Quain sat at the back of The Divine Comedy Club , a cheap laugh restaurant that prided itself on having “discovered” a few good comedians. Currently Agatha was debating whether she was gonna toss an illusionary tomato at the racist piece of shit on the stage or at her boyfriend for not checking the schedule. Jack was just staring at the stage like the man had signed his own death warrant, not because of Agatha, but because the man was hellishly ripping into the Rana at the front of the stage. He was about to stand up and go get a manager when a short, wide man stepped on the stage, both teens knew he was Dominic Carcelli, a member of the Carcelli crime family, and a man whose family made heavy donations RHED, or the Rana-Human Education and Defense funds.
Carcelli made a swift grab for the microphone and nodded to a man off to the side. “Hey sorry about that folks, lets say we get some actual fuckin’ talent up here, yeah?” He covered the microphone and shouted off stage, “Who else we got back there that ain’t stupid enough to provoke half the damn city.”
A timid voice called out.
Carcelli rolled his eyes. “On behalf of management, as an apology, I’ll be covering mozz sticks for everyone, sound good?”
Agatha followed the mobster’s gaze to a taller, more severe looking man with salt and pepper hair and a groomed goatee. He also had a top hat at his side and a pocket watch clearly sitting in his breast pocket.
“Thanks for your patience folks.” Carcelli waited for the new comedian to come on stage. “Hey, what’s your name buddy?”
“Tommy Kallewski.” The young man said.
“What’d you think of that palooka before you?” Carcelli asked as he handed the comedian the microphone.
“You mean the guy who couldn’t grow up past the seventh grade?” Tommy snorted. “I’ve never heard worse jokes, and my material is fart jokes mostly.”
Agatha snorted and almost lost her drink through her nose. Jack barked and slapped the table. Most of the audience burst into laughter. The old man in the back grinned and sipped his drink as Carcelli joined him.
“So.” Jack snorted as the comedian’s jokes started to take off. “Sorry I didn’t check the schedule.”
“Anyone with a last name of ‘Dick’ that’s that old shouldn’t be labeled a comedian. Especially with that material.” Agatha rolled her eyes and leaned over and kissed Jack on his forehead. “You’re forgiven.”
“Thank you.” Jack smiled and took her hand.
They watched, laughed and listened for a few minutes. Jack was obviously enjoying the potty humor that Tommy was dolling out faster than most people could process. Then the free mozzarella sticks came and the two teens smiled as they tried to share a single stick between them. They laughed and dropped it as they failed.
“So, does your family need anything done while you’re out?” Jack asked.
Agatha sighed, “Yeah. Saw that coming. I think we’re good. Could use someone to look after the gardens.”
Jack nodded, “Not the cat.” He said.
Agatha snorted, “No gramps has the cat.”
“I can help with the gardens.” Jack nodded, “Dad’s upset he’s being put on a desk.”
“He’s the best leader dad has until we get back.” Agatha shrugged. “Even if he doesn't think so.”
Jack nodded. He smiled at her and held up another mozzarella stick.
“You’re doin’ it wrong.” Carcelli’s slight scarred face stared at them. “You’re breaking it early, you gotta have them in your mouth and then pull.”
“Thanks...” Agatha looked the man over.
“Hey, I know who your pops is and I don’t start shit. I run legit businesses and ain't no law says I have to call the cops on my customers. In fact Dross city has Neutral Ground laws.” Carcellie smiled, “Relax, we ain’t enemies.” He flicked the ashes of a half smoked cigar into his hand.
“Fair.” Agatha nodded, “Dross does have no smoking laws for restaurants though.”
“She’s right,Dominic.” The tall man said as he walked over. “Pleasure to make your acquaintance, I am Dwayne O’Donnelly.” The man’s heavy Irish accent was crisp and reminded both teens of older actors from the past. “Please enjoy the show and the food.”
“You own this place?” Agatha asked as she turned to look at the man as he stood directly behind Jack.
Jack was frozen and locked into place as he scratched his nose.
“I do.” Dwayne smiled, “One of my many investments in the city.” He turned to Carcelli, “I must go, please enjoy your meal as well.”
Dominic nodded and walked back to his table and put his cigar out in a half filled glass of water.
Dwayne smiled, “You’ll have to forgive the young Carcelli, he sometimes forgets I prefer a more laid back setting for my places.”
Agatha stared at the man, trying to see past his form and to something of less physical substance. She hadn’t been training with Illidae as he Master for long, but he had taught her how to activate her Soul Sight. What it showed her shocked her into just nodding silently. The man nodded and smiled before he left.
“That man smelled of danger.” Jack let out a breath. “Like metal and molten glass.” He noticed Agatha staring in shock and reached over to touch her hand.
“We need to follow him!” Agatha shot up to run, but Jack grabbed her, making sure not to tear her lace gothic dress..
“What did you see?” Jack hissed, “We can’t just chase a guy like O’Donnelly.”
“It was darkness, pride, hatred and rage.” Agatha said. “He’s one of them. He’s a Revenant.”
Jack paused then nodded, “Man, we need to plan for date night interruptions.”
Jack quickly got the bill and paid for their meal which they hadn’t even gotten to eat, he did ask for it to be packed as they would return for it. When they got outside they hopped onto Jack’s motorcycle and were off.
---B)(S)(F---
Danny sat nervously at the Pizza Hat. He had just finished a movie, The Terrible Trio Strikes Again!!! The third Strike!, with Heith and both were sitting nervously at the both. Both teens were clearly unsure how to behave and both knew Danny likely had other thoughts he was focused on.
“I hope the movie wasn’t a terrible idea.” Heith sighed, “I know the shit with Cassandra is bad, I just know I’d want someone to distract me if Sofie were in a similar situation.”
Danny looked up in worry, “No it was a good movie, and I appreciate the break. I just can’t stop thinking about how I could have stopped him for sure and now...” He put his head in his hands. “I think he’s not dead. I think Salem’s right.”
“The nosferatu guy?” Heith clarified, “The one who fought vamp-bitch?”
Danny chuckled, “Well for once an accurate statement if worded for a poor reason.”
Heith snorted, “I’ve met the woman, that’s personal bias.”
Danny smiled as a pizza and a large shake with two straws was put in front of them.
“Did we order that?” Heith blinked as she looked at the super-tall shake that had a mountain of whipped cream and two cherries on top.
“On the house.” The server winked. “You two have a fun date night!” He rolled backwards on his shoes and danced away.
“Man...” Danny sighed, “Dross City, we got’em all.”
Heith nodded and blinked, “Well it is chocolate.”
Danny nodded, “I’m fine with sharing.”
“Good.” Heith smiled as she put a piece of their pizza on a plate. “I never understood why...” She paused, “Is dad appropriate anymore?”
Danny shrugged, “I mean in some twisted way he cared, right?”
“Not about us.” Heith sighed, “Not how your family cares for each other, it was more possessive.”
Danny nodded, “Well then what is to you?”
“The Lab doctor who grew us.” Heith snorted in a laugh that signaled a sense of relief. “But I never understood why we couldn’t get pizza. This stuff is better especially when it’s not school based.”
“My dad would call that blasphemy.” Danny laughed. “How is Sofie doing?”
“She’s dealing better than I am.” Heith nodded, “I still have nightmares with him ripping off his face and that robot’s face.” Heith sighed, “He did give her an amazingly realistic snobby attitude.”
“I don’t know how people get attracted to that.” Danny sighed, “Has to be purely physical.”
“Or they’re the same.” Heith sighed. “Am I doing better?”
Danny tilted his head a little. “Heith, I’m the son of a rich as shit family. Both of my parents are independently wealthy and the only reason I had my job was boredom.” He laughed, “I’m not sure I can judge spoiled and bratty and stuff like that accurately.”
“Fair, but am I less bitchy?” Heith asked, “I don’t know. Forget I asked.”
“In terms of what I’ve seen, yeah, you’ve improved. You’ve learned and even though you still call me devil-boy, you’re not pissing Agatha off with it so I guess it’s okay?” Danny shrugged.
“Well she calls Jack ‘puppy’.” Heith said flatly.
“She’s called him puppy since we were four.” Danny explained, “She’s the only one he lets call him that.”
Heith paused, “Noted and remembered.”
Danny nodded, “And it’s not like she won’t sometimes get on his nerves with it.”
“Fair.” Heith nodded and sipped on their shake, then made a face. “That’s bad.”
Danny sipped on it as well. “Yeah I don’t think it was mixed right, too much chocolate mixed in.”
“Oh well, it’s free.” Heith smiled, “But don’t worry about Burlin or Gravitas or whoever the fuck he was or is. We won the day, now you focus on your sister.”
Danny nodded and sighed, “Thanks. I don’t know why but I feel like I messed up there.”
“I feel like I messed up my whole life with him.” Heith said with a grimace, “You’d think you’d see something that would scream ‘supervillain’!”
“To be fair, GLOBAL is classified as a villain organization.” Danny said, “We don’t know their endgame so unless it’s global domination, I doubt it’ll be classified as Super.”
Heith blinked. “That’s the difference?”
Danny shrugged. “Classifications are based on motivations and power levels mainly. Criminals want survival and the stuff that helps with that; cash, gear, et cetera.” He pulled out a napkin and drew up a small diagram. “Villains have some ideal or goal, they feel they have a purpose or society is the one in the wrong. Super-Villains want power, to rule and to run things. It’s why guys like the MechAnimals and the psychotic Animals are both considered criminals, but Pharaoh is a Super-Villain despite mostly being a crime boss. We know he wants the world under his control and crime is his means to an end.”
“And The Fog is a criminal because they just sell their services. Man-Tick is a villain because, why?” Heith asked as she took another piece of pizza.
“Fun fact about Man-Tick, he funds his research into breaking his curse via mercenary actions, but his goal isn’t complete reversal, it’s to make more like those animal-hybrid people GLOBAL made.” Danny explained, “My best guess is they stole his work, because that man would not be quiet about being successful.”
“And that makes Jet Fission a Super-Villain.” Heith nodded, “What about the Nazi Zombies?”
“Armageddon Level Threat.” Danny nodded, “Isn’t this first year stuff? Dad taught us this when he came back, Anna already knew it.”
“You’d think, but it’s a Senior class.” Heith gave a huff, “How many Armageddon Level Threats are there?”
“Bleak and his Crew is currently the only one, but Fission can slide into that as well.” Danny took his first piece of pizza. “I keep forgetting how greasy this isn’t.” He sighed.
Heith snorted and shook her head. “Well thank you for the lesson. If you need someone to talk to until then, I’m just a chat or call away.”
Danny nodded, “Thanks.”
“So why’d your dad let you take the van, isn’t it like your only car since that fancy one of his got stolen and wrecked.”
Danny chuckled. “He got it replaced pretty fast. Scared the shit out of those car thieves though. Spent an hour crying about the best metal baby.”
Heith stared at Danny in confusion.
“It was his first car, one of the only things he’s had any material love for. Mom says I’ll understand when I get my first car.” Danny explained with a light sigh of contentment.
“But you can fly.” Heith said.
“I can, but sometimes you gotta move someone else. Also I don’t go that fast, just above the average running speed.” Danny shrugged.
“We need a re-match.” Heith sighed, taking deep of their shared shake.
“Have you suddenly developed the ability to hit incorporeal things?” Danny shot back, “Because I can still do that.”
“I’ll find a way. Found a way to block Guire’s stupid shocks.” Heith said with a slight tinge of annoyance.
“Ah, give Guire a break, kid’s in just as bad a situation as you were, only he can’t run and the best guy to help him is a bit distracted helping my sister right now.” Danny sighed.
“What do you mean?” Heith asked.
“Guire’s dad is a former cop. Currently head of Security at Sun-Tech. Dad got him fired for beating his wife, but he’s got too many friends still on the force. Dad can’t make any moves to help Greg, Bubbles is trying now.” Danny took another slice and a deep sip. “It’s really fucked up.”
“I can break his face.” Heith said, “No one could mad at me after what I’ve been through.”
Danny almost choked, “God, no. Please. Just don’t give him so much shit.”
Heith crossed her arms but nodded in understanding. “I’m kinda full.”
“Me too, too much popcorn.” Danny laughed. “Want to take it home to Sofie?”
Heith nodded and they waved to the server who promptly trolled back over to them.
“Take home for the rest please.” Danny said, “And hey, where’d you get the shoes?”
“Customs on myshoedrip.net.” He smiled, “Used to be popular in the early millennium, called Heelies. I’ll get you a box and cup for the shake.”
“You take the shake.” Heith said as she stood up to pay.
“I got this.” Danny smiled.
“I got it, I kinda put you in the asking position.” Heith smiled.
“Half then.” Danny offered.
“You pay for the shake.” Heith smiled.
Danny nodded, then remembered it had been a free shake. “Hey...”
“Too late you agreed.” Heith smiled and went to the counter to pay.
As the two stepped outside he couldn’t help but notice a motorcycle speeding by with a very elegant gothic dress on the rear end.
“Aggie?” Danny paused and stared.
“She wears dresses?!” Heith’s jaw dropped.
---B)(S)(F---
Alan and Endara were at one of the most expensive restaurants in the city, a professed neutral ground where criminals could come to safely dine so long as violence was not reported. It was a Carcelli restaurant, but Alan wasn’t going to hold that against them tonight.
“So...” Endara looked at the menu. “Should we be here?”
Alan looked at her and sighed, “I made the reservations, Cassie told us too.” He threw his arms up in defeat, “I just can’t help but feel like a shit-heel here.”
“Same...” Endara sighed. “Maybe order a dessert and take it home?”
Alan smiled, “Okay, but we have to eat a meal or Anna will get Stephen on both of us.”
“She does do that easily.” Endara smiled, “Her mother’s care in her.”
Alan nodded, “So my lovely fire engine of brute force...”
Endara broke into laughter, then collected herself. “Thank you, you know just what to say. My lovely dumbass.”
“I do try.” Alan smiled, “Oh. Manicotti.”
“You hate anyone else’s manicotti.” Endara gave an accusatory glare.
“That’s not true, just people who don’t know how to make it. This is an Italian place, if they can’t make it I’m going to be upset.” Alan smiled. “You just stay out of their kitchen.”
Endara snorted and looked the menu over. “Oh, they make big meatballs here.”
“Good evening.” A man said as he approached, “My name is Trevor and I will be your server tonight.”
“Well Trevor, ever had the Manicotti?” Alan asked.
“Yes, my favorite short of the chef’s favorite ravioli.” Trevor smiled.
“I’ll take that.” Alan smiled, “House’s best red wine, for the holiday past.”
Trevor nodded, “And you Mrs. Quain.”
“I’ll have the spaghetti and meatballs, can I ask for just three extra large ones?” Endara asked.
Trevor nodded, “We can do that.” He then took their menus and bowed before leaving.
“Well, let’s enjoy the night.” Endara smiled, but paused as she noticed Alan looking up and past her.
Endara turned to see the massive frame of Polar Bear grinning down at her. He raised his hands in a peaceful gesture.
“No harm meant.” He said as Mud Dauber stood by his side.
“I always thought you two made an odd couple.” Alan tried to laugh. “We good?”
“Yes.” Polar Bear nodded, “I wanted to thank you for your kindness last we met.” He bowed his head. “It is rare when we have a hero remember we are human too, mostly.”
Alan did a brief scan of the man’s surface thoughts and nodded to Endara. Endara then relaxed.
“And I have no interest in taking on you and your wife. Even with Freya’s help, we would lose.” Polar Bear laughed.
“You would lose, I would flee.” Freya snorted.
Polar Bear looked slightly wounded as he stared at his partner, then he nodded in the affirmative and agreed with her.
“Well, you’re welcome, but right now we’re on our Valentine’s date.” Alan smiled, hoping to dissuade any further conversation.
“Da? So are we!” Polar Bear laughed, “But we will leave you to yours.”
Freya pulled on his scarf and Polar Bear bent down to listen as she whispered in his ear.
Polar Bear winced, “I know this is probably a bad time, we have heard of the attack on the school and that you have an injured child; but our leader has a proposition.”
Alan felt his jaw drop as he felt the idea pass from Polar Bear’s screaming and nervous mind.
“Too loud Isaak.” Freya hissed, “Remember he is a telepath.”
“Right. Sorry.” He pulled an envelope from his very carefully crafted vest and handed it to Alan. “It isn’t much as of now, but we have hopes.” Polar Bear smiled as he once again bowed and led Freya to their table.
“Well...” Endara watched the two MechAnimals sit at their own table, “At least you can tell they’re in love.”
Alan nodded as he put the envelope away. “We might have to step up Anna’s therapy.”
Endara blinked, “What?” Then she realized the implication. “They’re that desperate?”
“Pharaoh may have cut off other sources.” Alan sighed, “Or the Animals really messed them up.”
Endara nodded, “What about the psycho?”
“Let’s worry about that after we save our daughter.” Alan sighed. “And part of that is eating a meal to bring home a huge chocolate mousse.”
“I was thinking, instead, what about stopping for ice cream?” Endara smiled.
“Anna will want what she always wants.” Alan sighed and telekinetically lifted his phone from his pocket and sent out a message to the family. Then he got a reply that made him pause and stand up.
“Agatha or Danny?” Endara asked with a sigh.
“Take a guess.” Alan sighed as he went to a non-emergency exit. Then he dialed Agatha’s number, when she didn’t answer he sent another text and waited.
The door opened and Mud Dauber came out and lit a cigarette, then noticed Alan. He felt genuine shock from her, but didn’t let her distract him. Finally he got a response and sent a quick demand for her and Jack to get home. Then he leaned against the opposite wall and sighed, partially sinking down.
“Are you all right?” Freya asked, “That’s a stupid question. I’m sorry.” She walked over and offered her hand.
Alan paused and took it, using her to help himself stand.
“Eldest decided to do something ridiculously stupid.” Alan sighed, “Thank you.”
Freya nodded and Alan went to go back in, but paused.
“If he’s serious, tell him to hold out as long as he can. We’ll be out of the country for a bit.” Alan explained.
Freya nodded, “You know I met your newest. She’s a sweet kid, I hope it's not her that’s hurt.”
Alan paused and let a bitter laugh echo in the night. “Hurt is an understatement. That bastard started to tear her apart from the inside, and something else decided to continue it.” He growled.
Freya nodded, and watched the door close, but Alan remained outside.
“You have kids?” He asked.
“I wish I could. Early childhood cancer.” Freya smiled, “And Isaak’s DNA may not carry over.”
Alan nodded, “If you and he are serious and you all really mean this, hold on. Then maybe consider adoption.”
Freya nodded. “We’ll try.”
Alan cleared his throat. “You have a nice Valentine’s dinner.”
“You too.” Freya smiled.
Alan joined his wife once more.
“Was she a problem?” Endara asked.
“Nah, just a smoke break.” Alan nodded.
Endara leaned in, “So what broke you?”
Alan went to argue but smiled, just as he could make her laugh, he could never lie to her.
“Agatha tried to chase a guy she thought was a revenant.” Alan smirked with a slightly mad glare.
“Why is our daughter blessed with both of our impatient and impetuous natures?” Endara laughed and brushed her hair back.
“Luck.” Alan smiled.
Then their meals were brought out and Alan immediately went to dig into his manicotti. He just as quickly frowned.
“Bad?” Endara asked as she cut up her meatballs.
“I think I’ve been ruined.” Alan smiled, “Best damn manicotti I’ve had.” He looked at Trevor. “Compliments to the chef.”
Trevor smiled, “I shall inform him.”
Endara nodded as Trevor poured their wine for the night.
“Trevor, how big is the biggest mousse you’ve got?” Alan asked.
Trevor paused briefly, almost concerning Endara as she watched him quickly stop pouring. “Pretty darn big, but that's for catering. We have a twelve ounce one for take home.”
“Dang that won’t satisfy a house full of teens.” Alan sighed.
“We can put it on a cake or a pie.” Trevor suggested.
“Ohhh.” Endara smiled, “Can we get one to go?”
Trevor nodded and looked at Alan.
“If you would.” Alan said, “And anything else she wants.”
Trevor nodded and stepped away.
Endar smiled at her husband as she remembered a specific order she had put in with a private call. Alan found it moments later as he split open a manicotti to find a jewelry box that he telekinetically plucked out. He stared for a moment then looked at Endara.
“You would.” He sighed and opened it.
Inside was an infinity loop with Endara’s birthstone in the center and the stones of the entire Quain family, including Daniel, Jazz and Alan and Stephen’s original adoptive parents.
Alan smiled and sat it down.
“Surprise.” Endara smiled.
Alan nodded, “They cooked it in the manicotti.”
“What?” Endara blinked.
Alan laughed, “Thankfully it only messed up one.” He scraped the offending manicotti to the side. “Someone’s gonna get in trouble for that.”
“Well, hopefully they can learn.” Endara sighed and slowly laughed at the scenario.
Soon both Quain parents were laughing and making jokes about pasta jewelry.
/////
The First Story
[Previous Interlude]() //// [Next Interlude!]()
Arc 1 - Black Sheep Family - Arc 1, First Chapter
Arc 2 - Paradigm Shift - Arc 2, First Chapter
Arc 3 - Gravitas Rising Arc 3, First Chapter
Arc 4 - The Director’s Chair Arc 4, First Chapter
Arc 5- The School War Arc 5, First Chapter
Spotify
/////
Credit where Credit is due:
Kyton & Cassandra Adams are © u/TwistedMind596
Obsidian is © u/Ultimalice
Ixton the Blade of the Wielder is © My friend Forged of Souls who does not use reddit
Furnace is © my friend Matt who does not use reddit
Cedric Stein Meissner aka Tesseract is © my friend James, who does not use reddit.
All other characters and Dross City are © u/TheSmogMonsterZX
////
Perfection: Kinda heavy for an interlude inn’t?
Wraith: Well interludes are the parts that can't fit into the normal stories. He never said they wouldn’t contain any important details.
Smoggy: I believe I said I would try, and honestly I just couldn’t get Alan and Endara’s dinner anywhere at the end of Arc 5 or at the start of Arc 6. So it goes here and if I need to refer back to it, we treat it like a comic book and link to the story at the end.
Deadpool: I’m BACK and I brought boxes for all!
Smoggy: Glad to have you DP.
DM: What?
Smoggy: I’d like to send you some place nice, warm year ‘round and plenty of hot ladies to flirt with.
Deadpool: ...Really.
Wraith: (taps Scythe against the floor) He means hell.
Smoggy: I mean Hell.
DM: Ahhhh...
Deadpool: How about, like some place I can help teen heroes fight bad guys?
Wraith: We’ve already tried that with another version of you.
Smoggy: He still sends them Christmas Cards. So hell, or leave us alone.
Deadpool: You know I think it’s been fun here, but I miss home.
Perfection: (leaning over Deadpool’s shoulders) Smart choice. (vanishes with Deadpool)
Wraith: Why can’t they all be that reasonable.
Smoggy: Luck, insanity? I dunno. Time to focus. I got some SpellJammer stuff to make!
DM: Stinger!
Smoggy: Wha-
---B)(S)(F---
The Evening of the 16th of February, 2079
Jazz pulled her motorcycle up to the curb of the well maintained SkyView Apartments. She was almost up to the door when she heard voices out back laughing and shouting, so she went around to see what was going on. She found the person she was looking for with two of his friends, one of which was a personal hero of hers.
“Holy shit!” Jazz quickly saluted Samantha Canning.
“I’m retired and from what I understand, so are you.” Samantha smirked, then gave a quick salute.
“Jazz, what’s up?” Salem asked without looking up from the fire on the grill.
“They’re giving that poor little girl some bad news and I didn’t want to hear it.” Jazz sighed, “Figured I’d make you have some fun.”
“Some fun?” Sawyer looked at his friend, “You got a Super Nintendo?”
“Nah, figured we’d go beat up some thugs or something.” Jazz smiled. “Salem invite only though.”
“That’s fair. He needs more friends.” Samantha smiled.
“What’s that supposed to mean?” Salem looked up with a glare.
“That you’re an old curmudgeon with few friends and most are kids.” Sawyer smirked.
“Pot, meet the kettle.” Samantha smirked.
“I got friends.” Sawyer laughed, “Just no one else likes’em.”
Salem rolled his eyes and downed the rest of his whiskey mixed with blood. Then he stood straight and stretched before staring directly at Jazz.
“I got a strict curfew of twenty minutes before dawn.” He set an alarm on his phone. “Won’t crash or anything, just don’t want to dust.”
“Man, have you ever crashed?” Sawyer snorted in annoyance.
“Nah.” Salem nodded, “Can’t let the sun win at everything.” He grinned. “All right Artigan show me what you consider fun!”
“Get your helmet, you ain’t ridin’ with me without one.” Jazz smiled.
“I am not a seat warmer.” Salem glared.
Jazz crossed her arms. “My bike.”
Salem snarled, but stomped off and returned, but with his own bike and a leather helmet.
“You just...” Jazz laughed, “Can that thing keep up?”
Salem’s head tilted.
“Oh, now she’s done it.” Samantha laughed.
“They’re going to be mangled in a mess on the news.” Sawyer laughed, “Anna will kill them both. Then maybe Cassie.”
Samantha laughed and picked up her whiskey.
“Take my couch Canning, cops won’t care who you are if they smell that shit. Doesn’t matter that you’re not drunk.” Salem said as he continued to glare at Jazz.
Jazz continued to smirk, “Well come on old timer. We got some red to paint.”
Salem let a low growl escape his lips.

Here's how to fix the Netherlands:

illegalize extreme BDSM (first),
legalize prostitution (already legal)
especial unhackable cameras for sex-workers,
the punishment for beating a woman be life sentence,

Extreme bdsm, as in, face-slapping, punching, anything that causes traumatic-brain-injury, concussions, (which can be detected in MRI tests for court trials), and any other permanent bodily injury.
That would make it the only place in the world where women be safe and free. The only place where:

domestic violence is illegal (for real, not just on paper)
sex-work is legal,
abortion is legal.

To further limit domestic violence in households (not brothels), some optional things that can be implemented (which I highly advice) are:

every registered home be laiden with unhackable ring-sig/multi-sig encrypted cameras with microphones sensitive to grid-line emf for timestampping,
no court fees for women filing for domestic-violence cases (or any),
no repercussions for falsely filing a case against your man (to reduce the fear of filing a case; the most that could go wrong is a mere No-Contact restrain order),
if verifiably proven (as in, camera recordings, etc), suspect gets life sentence and forced labour with which the prison gets funded and the victim gets compensated,
if not proven for certain, at least a restrain/no-contact order whereby the suspect cannot enter the towns/microstates the accuser happens to be in.
suspicion-until-proven-not-guilty; the onus to prove one's innocence be upon the accused, the male, so men have every incentive to carry body cameras etc, to defend against false rape charges.
everyone's past, past suspicions, trials, all such data, be on a website. If you can make a society safe for women, the good men would follow in like bees. Thus, catering to women's defence needs is very (Misesian) entrepreneurially advantageous. Afterall, the primary purpose of a society is DATING; keeping women safe in such dating/matchmaking game be your highest priority. There's many an evolutionarily evolved trait that keep children safe anyway, but fewer for women, especially in a non-tribal society with hookup culture wherein a psychopath has every incentive to harm/kill his date and run away. It's a surprise that that isn't more prevalent... Societies are playing with fire; they have no clue how deep in trouble they are. Reform or lose the game to psychopaths; much like the evol sexual-stretegy simulation studies on rat societies lol.

+++
Your current law code is lame and hypocritical; as per the current laws on racism, to highlight IQ differences between races, to emphasize empathy/psychopathy prevalence differences between racial groups, is racist! And yet, the very notion of a-law-against-racism rests on the belief that races do exist, that there's skin-coloskull-shape/genetic differences between so called "races" they aim to protect; how could the state accept that there be such differences but illegalize for such differences to be discussed and admitted? Utterly ridiculous!
Your current judicial framework is a joke. A client could beat the hell out of a prostitute (just short of killing her) and he has more-or-less legal impunity! A wife-beater gets a mere month is prison! What sense does that make? To believe that, somehow, in a closed cell, locked in for a few months, playing GTA, banging pussies (sex-therapy with prostitutes, for sex offenders; as dumb as it sounds; wouldn't be surprised if UN says the right to sex is every human's basic fundamental human right lol), free food in the prison, somehow makes a psychopath a sunflower, is beyond my comprehension. One would have to be utterly braindead to believe so. Another hypothesis: the dutch politicians and justices are NOT braindead, they're just a little too psychopathic themselves, and being so, concerned for themselves and their own future wife-beating sons. Facts.
Your king is too empathetic and naive, very like the many white people all over the globe who believe in humanity, who believe that every human is deep down a fluffy furry, and to prove so to the world (or themselves), who venture into dangerous territory in the Africas or Arabian towns, only to be lynched by the mobs (many such cases in the news)...
The dutch people who want diversity can go live in Africa or the UAE; in the name of diversity, to advocate that others be put in danger for one's own naivety, is not just foolish, but downright wrong.
The dutch people who have big hearts, who wish to help the desperate immigrants, go do so with your own money. To advocate that others' money be stolen to be donated to one group, is no philanthropy. Theft in the name of charity is just that: THEFT.
+++
To fix the Netherlands in the long run:

do away with the laws on racism; keep only the laws against physical harm; words are words; one should only be prosecuted for actions, not threat by words, not threat to act, only action itself. At best, you could exile those deemed threatening (in the short run), but not imprison.
do away with the laws against discrimination in the private sector; an entrepreneur who doesn't hire an equally talented woman/newcomeimmigrant/black for a job, would lose his revenue to the one who does; in the free market, wrong biases just aren't solvent, just aren't efficient and profitable. Such feminist equal-pay laws do more harm to women then good; no one wants to hire women anymore, especially for technical roles... Only misogynists pass such laws. Facts.

END WELFARE SOCIALISM:

no free healthcare for nobody,
no free housing for nobody,
no state-funded pension for nobody,
no child-care subsidies for nobody,
etc.

+++
PRIVATIZE THE STATE:

with defence (international and internal) as the only service of the state of Netherlands, privatize such an entity; privatize the Dutch Defence Agency.
every citizen gets one (or ten, or thousand; whatever denomination) equal shares of the private entity Dutch Defence Agency.
inhabitants of the netherlands be required to pay a head-tax, a fixed tax/payment per person, for the services of international defence (radars, nukes, anti-nukes, iron dome, etc).
people be free to sell their shares in the open market. And no, it doesn't make you susceptible to foreign interference/meddling in dutch statehood, on the contrary: state-privatization flips-the-table overnight, making all one's enemies into one's extended friends. Not only is the amount of money needed to become the majority shareholder quite high, but, upon putting so much money in, (an amount of money only sensible people get to have), any sensible actor is incentivized to not mess up and keep peace in one's stock, not hijack one's earnings, and just reap the dividents. Very like the Bitcoin/Monero POW incentives for major-miner.
no trade tarrifs. Trump thinks an equal trade-tax for countries which charge a trade-tax with the US, is based. It's not, but it's better than most's beliefs, so okay. But, if one is to be serious, then no, Austrian Economists would never support such a scheme, for the simplest of reasons: selfishness. If Trump (and any country) is to be selfish enough, they should realize that zero-trade-tarrifs for all countries is the thing that makes one prosper, regardless of how much they be taxing us. Mises has said it a million times: war begins when trade ends. So no trade tarrifs whatsoever. Physical/existential security be the only service and concern of a state. Leave it to the dutch people (and private source-auditing firms) to not buy goods from products sourced from child-labouRussians/whatever. The scandenavian madness of One-Family, with the president as the country's daddy, is ludicrous! People are grown ups; they can make their own decisions.
replace the ill notion of democracy with shareholder democracy.
the CEO/president, in power only as long as they stay popular with the state's shareholders.

+++
PRIVATIZE THE TOWNS:

every town becomes a gated-community (with or without actual physical gates).
every home-owner of such a town gets an equal number of shares in that community-stock (Citystate of Amsterdam, for example).
dressing code (public nudity allowance), pollution/negative-externality laws (some with very strict noice-pollution laws, some lenient and affordable ones), traffic rules (bicycle exceptions, lanes, etc), architecture code and rules, all be the liberties of the city-state to decide upon.
the only punishment a city-state be able to give people be: monetary fine, deducted from the prepaid lock-in fund, or, when it gets empty, eviction/exile from the city-state, free to move in to some cheaper lenient one in the Netherlands or elsewhere.
no city-state could "imprison" people. A city-state which forbids abortion, cages pregnant women, preventing them from access to healthcare, would be thus unconstitutional.
every city-state-resident be required to pay a policing-tax/fee; more protected towns have higher fees. Towns with more immigrants, requiring a well-funded police, for a bigger police force, to keep the people safe, would thus be more expensive, more inefficient, and it would thus only be a matter of time that the low-risk-tolerance Dutch populace segregate and buy up the city-stocks and even buy up the properties of the selling-immigrants-in-need-of-money-to-pay-their-state-tax-or-get-exiled, and vote to exile the immigrant population from their towns. All entrepreneurial. Mises knew it all in advance; he knew that the supreme notion of private-property was complete and enough, that it needed no exceptions for such immigration problems. Leftist liberals who are blindly pro-immigration shouldn't call themselves liberals; they're merely leftists, and they're wrong. In the liberal framework of private property, immigration is NEVER a problem that even needs addressing! Hail Von Mises. Ultimately, it all boils down to the entrepreneurial utilitarian benefits of lower policing costs and at a much higher safety-level that come from barring violent races from one's towns, benifits that ultimately pale the compromises in cheap-labour (that the immigrants provide) or the slightly higher shipping costs of buying such products of cheap-labour from a thousand miles afar. The idiots in the dutch parliament and the businessmen who pretend like without all this cheap labour their economy would collapse and they'd be in losses, are misguiding. Shipping costs are already low enough; the inefficiencies of slavery over willful employment and low shipping costs is what defunded slavery; you would be better off buying goods from Africa than having Africans in your own country making those goods at your doorstep. Instead, free trade cross-borders should be encouraged and cherished.

As for oppression and foreign wars, if you can't help a people defend their lives and territory by military and financial aid (funded from private charities), don't pretend to help by taking in refugees either, most of whom are, by the very definition of how things work, often the worst of the stock; the average good empathetic african/muslim/indian doesn't want to loot away someone's prosperous country. The good ones never even cry for help to begin with, and most of them are within your borders already: the native Dutch too afraid to express their fear of immigrants; heed to their cries and help them first instead.
+++
REFURNISH DOMESTIC SPACES:

cameras in every registered home; totally very economical, heck, a billionaire could fund it all out of his own pocket. Mass survillience isn't a concern because it's not impossible to design a black-box encryption protocol with multi-signature encryptions which can only be decoded if all the parties (you, your wife, and the state) provide their keys to decode the video feed. Zero-knowledge-sharing sorcerry whereby keys don't get disclosed to any party either.
the right to discriminate. It's the home-owner's right to dictate who gets to visit inside and who doesn't, whether he/she discriminates on the basis of skin colour or hair colour. In fact, the right to discriminate is as important as the right to free speech, and mutually dependent on each other. One has every right to discriminate who one marries based purely on their race! One has every right to befriend people based on their race. And so does an employer when hiring. To say otherwise and pass anti-discrimination laws is no less discriminatory; just discriminatory in a certain cunning state-sponsered way, for a select few's advantage. An argument can be made that, given how many white women only date big black guys, such anti-discrimination laws would hurt them so-called minorities as much, if not more.
corporal punishment of children (or women/men) be illegal.
no-caging law. One cannot cage someone in one's house without their consent. So, husband denying wife her freedom to abort be first degree violence, no different from switching the button on an electric chair, or pulling the trigger of a gun.
gun laws up to the private property's owner. No home owner would wany guests to carry guns inside, prolly. As for city-state's rules on gun-ownership inside households, that's a purely entrepreneurial matter:

fines for owning a gun, disincentivizing gun ownership, has built-in unenforcability; criminal always carries a gun (which can even be 3d printed at home these days), but overall, fewer guns in the public, so fewer rage fights becoming lethal, less money needed to manage the populace for the police, so lower tax/fee,
vs
legal to own a gun in wild spaces, illegal in private spaces (like malls, homes, schools) as per private wish, with metal checks; more guns, higher tax to manage, but ability to defend oneself from criminals carrying guns.
The latter is better imo. Those who think the former is better, can opt in and live in such city-states. What there cannot be is: a sentence for just owning a gun. Only monetary fine or eviction from the city-state; a sentence would be unconstitutional as per the theory of actions-ultimate-judgement, not words, not threats, not gun ownership, not genes, not mental disorders, only actions. There's no better simulation substitute than the real world; all else predictions are merely probabilistic, and when people get imprisoned for mere threats, such predictions are doomed to become ultimately baseless and divorced from reality.
+++
REFORM YOUR CONSTITUTION:

Make Ludwig Von Mises your constitution's founding-grandpa. Base the code to rule by, on his magnum opus Human Action.
Besides the theoretical basings, short readable constitution that's basically a consent-form that every citizen consents to; consent to be rescued when drowning, consent to be operated on by doctor when unconscious, consent to be arrested for suspicion and inquiry (?), consent to be punched when resisting arrest (which no one would sign to, so no punching people EVER, especially in the name of law enforcement).

The idea is, it's a matter of selecting between explicit consent (consent denied unless explicitly granted) vs implicit consent (consent granted unless explicitly revoked); the former allows for illegalizing sex with drunk/unconscious people, and even the slaughter of animals (which, though probably an unpopular take even in the Netherlands, is ultimately the right thing to do, but boy oh boy do people hate vegans, and you'd get more support for illegalizing domestic violence (from women and half the men) than you would for illegalizing slaughter, but hey, when was the popular thing ever the right thing to do lol). Even for abortion, explicit-consent-theory (consent-denied-unless-granted) supports abortion in a legal constitutional sense in that the fetus' right-to-exist is denied by default, so the host mother be free to deny its existence and act upon it by aborting.
Much like, the theoretical basing of the judiciary on illegalizing suicide/euthanasia illegalizes extreme bdsm (brain damage) too, and, extrepreneurially speaking, saves many a woman from abuse; legalized lovemaking-in-exchange-for-money but illegalized-extreme-bdsm won't move the abuse underground either, or so my judgement says, for, the poor unfortunate untalented women would have plenty of monetary opportunity in the white sex market, and no such woman would want to go to the underground black market to make money off of her own possible murder; what use is such money if one's dead or braindead; upon a concussion, one's never the same again, one stops enjoying the things one once enjoyed, so the money earned thusly would be a waste too. Then again, I'm guessing you aren't interested in the theoretical philosophical and risk-assessment ideas behind this all, so won't bother with that.
+++
REFORM THE JUDICIARY:

base the law code away from the fraudulent brain-dead notion of justice; 'cause, there really is no such thing as justice, as putting someone in their victim's shoes, tit for tat; a psycho could never know how it feels to have his tits cut off, for he doesn't have any to begin with! Even within the same gender, people are different, their ages are different. The earth is always moving through space, never in the same place twice; we're moving through time. It's just impossible to simulate being in another's shoes here on Earth (ignoring the NDE life-reviews in the afterlife lol); it's physically impossible.
base the law code away from the fraudulent notion of punishment. Being in a prison, getting free food, is no punishment. Some loners might even enjoy it. Heck, Israeli women released from prison choose to commit petty crimes (like breaking the window of the police vehicle) just to get back in the prison. Prison is often far safer a place, and many feel comfy down there. Heck, even the Singaporean judicial caning is some people's most craved fantasy. Heck, extreme masochists would, rather than finding a psycho, paying them to chop their hands off, then making sure the other person doesn't get prosecuted, find it more effortless, cheaper, more realistic, to rob a bank then get their hands chopped off by the Sharia law enforcers! So really, there's no such thing as a just punishment, cause there's no such thing as a punishment to begin with!
base the law code on the two pillars of PREVENTION and COMPENSATION;
life sentence for violent people (be it, slapping/punching/stabbing/murdering), to PREVENT it from happening again, to PREVENT the society from such actors;
compensation for the victim, proportional to the harm caused, funded by the victimizer's money and forced labour in the prison. Come up with an entrepreneurial figure, 50%, ish, portion of the inmate's income (remote working from the prison), which goes to the victim for compensation. Too high that portion and the inmate might lose the drive to work/be-productive. Psychopathy atrophies over generations when its evolutionarily advantageous opportunities cease to be. Rightful compensation tilts the trade-offs in good people's favour.
Proportional compensation. When a man slaps a woman, the damage is a hundread times worse than when a woman slaps a man, and ten times worse than when the same gender slaps the same gender. Not only are men's hands bigger and arms more muscular, but also women's skulls are thinner and more susceptible to concussing. So such laws are not sexist; they're just. This notion called equality has been a menace for women, second only to neo-feminism that advocates fiddling with the free market.
Inside prison, with their own earned money, inmates be free to buy TV, stereo, air-conditioning, king-size bed, whatever.
ONLY for violent crimes does one be sent to prison, and once sent, to never return.
for financial crimes, one be made an economic slave; losing one's 50% income to the victims of one's fraud/whatever. Economic slaves, which, most europeans paying 50% in taxes (and getting back close to nothing in return, thanks to states, by nature, being so inefficient with money), kinda already are, lol.

+++
REFORM THE CAPITAL MARKET:

Do away with Limited-Liability. The idiots who call themselves climate activists who think capitalism is the enemy, are just that: idiots. The Koala escaping from wildfire gets comfort in the air-conditioned room that every household today can afford; none of this would be there if it weren't for capitalism. People get to feed and care for millions of stray animals; none of this would be possible without capitalism. Morality, especially charity, is a luxury commodity; something socialists don't get to enjoy. But the fact is, these so called climate activists don't care about animals, don't care about trees, all they care about is this molecule called Carbon Dioxide, because they're stupid, or wose, tesla-fanatics.
Replace Limited-Liability with Full-Liability. If Nestle poisons a village or sells lead-laiden food products, or commits a murder, the ones responsible for the violent actions first-hand be convicted of first-degree physical harm, and the shareholders be convicted of third-degree harm, and be made to compensate the victims, whether that requires seizing all their assets (and those of the company) or making them economic slaves for the rest of their lives. Fact is, it is the duty and moral obligation of a shareholder to watch for the actions of the company; negligence, inaction, their primary sin. Buying is supporting; Bill Gates is a moron for being an investor in Monsanto.

There be basically, degrees of freedom:

freest citizens
economic slaves (losing half their income to victim-compensation),
prison inmates (who have compensated fully, now buying luxury goods and mansions in the prison island),
prison slaves (losing half their income to victim-compensation),
tied prison slaves (who have anger issues, so be somewhat elbow-restrained to prevent them from being violent toward other inmates),
solitary-confinement prison slaves (zero reason to do so, yet, Japan does it all the time). Prisoners should be free to socialize, bond together, share a cell together, and these things don't increase the risks of prison-escape either.

Ultimately, life's purpose is to just live, make experiences, form memories, and learn some lessons. Death penalty is just wrong; so is solitary confinement when so many mechanisms exist to prevent violence among inmates via boxing-gloves-handcuffs, teeth-covers, and elbow and knee restrains.
+++
REFORM THE POLICE:

No impunity for cops. Cops be help liable for their actions, liable to the law. In fact, more liable.
Learn from Prince Machiavelli lol; embrace some Game Theory. Legalize and grant moral impunity to cops who shoot down fellow cops abusing people wrongfully.

Those who think police reforms will never work are stupid; one lone man could make his men commit the organized genocide of 6 million, against the empathetic impulses of the men themselves, and they're saying, well-behaved police is impossible to have? What nonsense! Truth is, the powers that be are utterly inept or themselves psychopathic and fap to the videos of police officers punching women in the face for cursing them. Because the matter of fact is, one needs neither the right kind of people, nor the majority power, to commit acts of good or evil; just a good grip on whatever little power one has. Such a shame that literally no ruler alive knows how to rule.

Cops be free to arrest fellow cops for misconduct.
Cops (and others) be free to report such psychopathic cops.
Samaritan protection laws. It be legal for strangers to beat a wife-beater beating his wife in public, or even, to shoot at a cop abusing someone when making arrest. Maybe even rewarding, in that, when imprisoned and compensated, the victim is free to pass on some share of her compensations to her savious who risked their well-being to save her.

In fact, no sociologist worth his salt would deny that women were safer and more protected from psychopaths and better off ten thousand years ago than in today's anonomyous mega societies; something even Ted Bundy alluded to. Sex as payments in ancient times lol, and David Friedman even hypothesizes that that's how and why women evolved concealed ovulation lol.

for crimes like traffic law violation, no arresting and car-chases; the said person be sent a notice to appear in a court all by themself instead.
city-state's domestic-law-enforcing cops be split into two teams:
benign cops should not carry guns, instead, be wearing funny-looking non-intimidating bulletproof body suit and helmet and be carrying mancatchers, handcuffs, legcuffs; autistic people or psychopathic people never be hired, only those with very sharp social skills, and be trained to read social cues, to be funny, to crack jokes, make people laugh, break fights peacefully, or, as a last resort, arrest, but with dignity, never insulting the arrested, never judging, and be carrying those arrested on a bed instead of making them walk with their hands cuffed, which could be dangerous for drunk drivers, old people with arm pain, etc.
gun-violence-control cops carry guns, but should only be deployed for gun-violence, wherein they might have to shoot (tranquilizers or bullets) to neutralize a gun-weilding madman.

Giving people unrestricted licence to kill is dangerous. No cops are better than bad cops. Just like no laws are better than bad laws whereby the average woman acting in self-defence gets sentenced to 20 years for killing her man, while a (drunk) man killing his wife gets 2 years. And that's a fact; women get five times longer sentences for homocide than men, in the US. And the average sentence for proven domestic violence cases is: a few weeks behind bars, with the possibility of parole and bail. Talk about feminism running rampant.
Some entrepreneurial suggessions:

half the cops' income be locked in a conditional account, sorta a pension fund, which they lose entirely if they commit a crime on duty. Afterall, cops are petty puppet people too, who can be controlled by money just as neatly as any other.
of the remaining half, half be conditional on the basis of being useful. Lazy cops who do nothing don't get that, and his employer be loosing more (from his allowance package; the more savings, the more his/her bonus) by design too, by hiring more useless cops without as much of a need in a neighbourhood. For making false arrests, arresting innocent people without reason, the cop be fined and the fine be handed to the person arrested wrongfully.
like in Georgia, for misconduct (groping women, etc) or for taking bribes, the whole batch and the batch-leader (employer; sergent; whatever) be fired. Thus, sergents have every incentive to check for psychopathy (MRI tests, whatever), past history, beforehand, when hiring a cop.

+++
EDUCATE CHILDREN:

corporal punishment be illegal,
children who can pass language/literature test be full acting citizens, free to buy shares and vote in shareholder meetings,
exploiting the power of the default to fiddle in the free-market of dating, for women's advantage. Why? Entrepreneurial: good laws that make women feel safe attract a surplus of rich happy attractive women who attract rich nice men (which need less police to manage), which means more population, lower expenses, higher dividents for the shareholders of the state!
by default, for impregnating someone, whether they go through labour pain or lesser abortion pain, the guy be liable for a payment of 100k to her. [Vasectomies incentivized over pills, traumatic IUDs, fallopian-tying, all of which are unhealthy.]. Regarding science, though paternity tests and gene-sequencings are a blessing, IVF is a curse, and a woman could use a guy's skin dust for gametogenesis via stem-cell technology and impregnate herself with such artificial cum and the jury wouldn't know... Big gray zone.
the mother gets the custody of the baby, always. Up to her to give up the custody to him or someone else if she feels so.
artificial wombs be fully legal. It's utter pure hypocracy to advocate against external human-fetus-growth in labs past 7 days, in a world where slaughtering full grown animals, hunting them for fun, killing even SUPERIOR animals like Orcas, their entire families, baiting their mothers with their baby-whale tied in a fishing-net, is all legal. Artificial wombs are already fully viable, there's no scientific hurdle preventing them from being deployed, only legal. Regardless, for logistical reasons, I can bet many countries would be more than happy to adopt such technology in a decade. Only a matter of time.
though every child deserves a female mother for none can love one like a woman does, it's something for culture to enforce and normalize, and for self-conscience to make gay couples consider a nanny/3rd-partner, not legal interventions.
baby becomes an acting individual upon 3 years old, or whenever he can speak/read/write fluently and pass language tests, and has to read and sign the constitution or face eviction lol. Prodigies thus at an advantage in the money game 'cus they can start investing early on, unlike the current one which renders races which sexually mature before or at the legal age of 18 at an advantage over those who mature much later. Lol nevermind.
up until the baby becomes an actor, animal-protection laws (or more specifically, pet-protection) laws should apply on the baby: no violence, no murder, unless in self-defence (i.e., almost never), no medical negligence, no abandoning the baby. For medical negligence or abandoning the baby, no sentencing, only blacklisting the said caretaker from future reproductive baby-care, so not allowed in kindergartens, schools, baby-spaces, and genetically blacklisted.
criminals in prison should get genetically blacklisted. Eugenics is not a bad idea; it's the state that should stay out of it, except for the clensing of criminal genes. A criminal's entire descending-tree shuld get blacklisted; said violent criminal's children either get sterilized or promise to not procreate or get evicted. Gene banks be legal; culture should normalize borrowing the genes of (jewish/dutch) geniuses and raising their babies via IVF.

The selfish man doesn't have sex; he clones.
Why mix your genes with someone so different, of the opposite sex, despite being better than oneself. The fact that people have sex and choose good pretty intelligent partners unrelated to themselves, when compounded, is the same as adopting pure Jewish babies. Even Jews are distant cousins to all anyway. Heck, adopt orcas. Either black or white; clones or orcas; ignoring clone mutations (7 mutations per generation, I think), the latter, survival of the group over oneself, is a better strategy and thus more selfish a strategy, whereas the former is doomed to fail, at least for humans, and is only seen in ants which can afford a thousand kids and an epic one-in-a-thousand style selection pressures. Even if that's how superior alien societies operate, even in the latter case, most (worker ants) be raising the royal princes/princesses anyway; raising the babies of mathematical geniuses is not that different. Gene banking (positive eugenics) would speed evolution exponenetially!

child-care payments. By default, the guy be liable to maternal-care payments to the mother.
state-ensured child-care and pregnancy-payments to the mother. Even if the guy defaults/can't-pay, the state pays the mother and the state extorts the due from the guy in private/court. Mother always gets paid. Guy thus has no grudges against the mother, only the state. Such an arrangement reduces the chances of domestic or hate/revenge violence against the mother.
prenups can be used to sway away from this defaults and arrange for custom scenarios.
full liability for the baby/pet's actions. If your pet/baby hurts someone seriously, you be liable for full monetary compensation and economic slavery; you also lose your pet/baby-keeping licence.
no impunity for acting children (post 3 years of age who have passed the tests) for commiting crimes. Schools should only accept acting-children, not babies. If your child punches another child on the head in school, he gets tried as an adult acting actor. Incentivizes parents to inculcate values of conviction to non-violence in their kids, if they wish to send them to schools and public places. If your babies are violent, postpone the language-comprehension test and constitution-signing and keep them at home; don't put other's kids at risk. American schools are a hellscape. Not only is segregation in schools outlawed, kids have legal impunity, so of course, (black) psycho bullies roam free and abound.
full head-tax per baby. From day 1.

+++
DO AWAY WITH SOCIAL SECURITY:

Instead, private insurance companies can replace most of the services of social-security.
An insurance package of 100k, insurance against homeless, whereby, once deposited, the company invests it in long term assets, compounds it with every passing day, and should one become bankrupt, one should be able to use such a Social-Security-Number to buy rent of up to 20$/day, food up to 10$/meal, three meals a day, for as long as one lives. Or pooled insurance based on average bankrupcy risk statistics, for much lower premium.
Likewise, health insurance, bough from private insurance companies.
For babies, an insurance package of orphan-insurance, so, should the parents die in a car crash or whatever, the insurance company pays its head-tax, pays for its orphanage fee, its schooling and medical expenses, etc.
No, none, zero, nil whatsoever, restrictions/laws/rules on insurance companies. Hans Herman Hoppe is right on how messy and ridiculous the laws have made the insurance market into. Of course, if an insurance company defaults on its promises, it, like with all Full Liability Companies, should get scavenged along with its shareholders. But other than that, no forcing inclusion of fringe groups in insurance pools over such insurance companies.

+++
TRANS-CONTINENTAL COLONY

bribe some local leader and arrange for a colony in Africa whereupon to dump those unable to pay the taxes (the poor immigrants, for the most part; the dutch poor can be saved by private charities funding their head-tax) and those barred from dutch city-states (non-dutch).
in the long run, deport them to whichever country they be willing to go, whichever be willing to accept them.

+++
That's it. And just like that, you'd have fixed the Netherlands, and, the world being a mere copycat mirror-complex of stupid politicians (except Wilders) unable to think for themselves, only learning from other's experiences, very like the trickling down of monarchies after the French Revolution like a domino falls, just like that, you'd possibly have fixed the whole world! If the world sees from the Dutch exemplary example of privatization of statehood and follows suit, that would singlehandedly save humanity from poverty (socialism), war (tradelessness), and immorality (dictatorships like in Iran where morality police kills girls who don't wear proper dresses). The Dutch were the example of free-trade and privatization once before, they can do it again too.
Geert Wilders is the only hope.
Milei, being so totally anti-abortion, is an utter disgrace in the name of an Austrian Liberal; should have been aborted before he was even born.
Mises was, is, and forever will be, PRO-CHOICE.
That's right, I just said it. And any liberals who are pro-life are fake liberals who pretend to be liberals but are at the core, braindead or worse, psychopaths.
Nicholas Sarwark doesn't talk about abortion (to stay nice to both groups, when actually, that just makes him an idiot who'd get votes from neither unless he takes a stance; classic demogogue),
Ron Paul is very very against abortion too, his whole lineage sucks,
Justin Amash outright opposes it,
it's so funny, cause, Mises, Ludwig Von Mises, the guy he so likes to quote, himself was very pro-choice, and said the process of becoming sentient, becoming a consenting individual of the society, is "gradual", doesn't happen overnight, that a fetus is not the same as an adult, and above all, was a UTILITARIAN who believed in family-planning at the family-level as per the family's economic potential and incentives and time-preference, who vouched against state-sponsered eugenics and child-subsidies as population control measures, who believed in women being more of an acting being, was the champion of economic freedom for women, who in his own personal life recognized the entrepreneurial value bargain in prefering these talented undervalued women, who was the biggest feminist and women's liberator in the history of manking (equal contestent with Morgentaler, another Jew)! Amash's (and others') preaching Mises wholly, saying that their views are practically indistinguishable from Mises's, then opposing abortion, is like killing people "in the name of God the creator"; it's pure blasphemy, heck, worse than that, for Mises is above God, and these false preachers shall be judged harshly by Mises' immortal spirit. *inhales lol.
Not all races are equal. Sexual and survival stretegies dictate the differences. The muslims have been murdering the intelligent (dissident/scientific) and beautiful (emo boys/girls) among themselves for more than a millenia; no wonder they've gotten so retarded. The Chinese are apathetic people, bred to obey, war, and kill, without remorse; free-thinking pricipled dissidents all but extinct among them. Evolutionary psychologists who think that war is good for the genes are idiots; sure, war is good for genes, but peace is better. Heck, EVERYTHING is good for the genes. The genes are set on a track to evolve forwards, and they'd only do so, and abominations like Islam are mere incidental dips in a more or less upward-rising curve. The least-warring greeks were the most feminist, the highest longevity-people, the most nicest, until war struck Europe too.
The Dutch are one of the best races in the world, second only to the Jews who have significantly higher IQ, higher empathy, the lowest domestic violence and physical violence rates, and the cleanest past history (never practiced witchhunts, and despite brutal punishments legal in Judiasm, never practiced them; it's like, despite judiasm, the Jews never gave in to barbarianism; such noble genes; never committed genocides), way better than the forever stained dutch history of the witchhunts which took the lives of some 300 innocent women... Still, the Dutch are better than the rest, by a huge margin. Not to mention the Dutch are the most good-looking tall handsome honest people in the whole world. Unpopular opinion but, me thinks Geert Wilders is the most handsome man ever; boy would I pay to suck his cock lol. Even an imaginary anime character better looking than Wilders is too wild an idea to be plausible lol. Lol I literaly saw him in my dream yesterday on the second day of discovering him and binge-watching his videos, lol.
The Dutch people need saving. You're already very few in numbers; intermarriage is the Dutch's biggest existential threat; extinction by dissolution. A Dutch State is the only possible saviour; people mostly only fall in love with someone within a mile from them; a state wherein most (if not all) are Dutch, would thus preserve the dutch genes.
A free-market championing privatization-proposing Geert Wilders wouldn't need to resort to Islam to achieve the end result all Dutch people desire: a safe and prosperous Netherlands for the Dutch.
Thanks.
-- Mises's no. 1 cocksucker.

How does sperm survive after donating

TechSupport