In reality, we all rely on more than one form of truth validation. We may turn to science for medical help, to revelatory religion for moral advice, and to face-to-face or remote validating authorities on other issues. We shift among these criteria or use combination of them. Many companies, political parties, religious movements, government and other groups attempt to manipulate us by stressing one or another of the truth filters. Watch, for example, how TV commercials use real doctors to peddle pharmaceuticals, implying that the message is true because it is based on science. Other ads feature celebrities—Bob Dole for Viagra or Lance Armstrong for Bristol-Myers Squibb—as though they are relevant authorities. Dell Computer’s message is delivered by a casually dressed young man roughly the same age as the consumers Dell wishes to reach—suggesting to viewers that, by buying from Dell they would be joining the consensus of that age group. Products like Quaker oat or Betty Crocker cake mix—and the vast number whose names begin with “Old-Fashioned”—imply that being old makes the product good, just as Grandma believed. In these ways, the different truth criteria are themselves exploited commercially. The next step will come when marketing experts segment, then target consumers according to the specific truth filter most persuasive to each. However, it is not just individuals who make up their minds about what is or is not true. Whole cultures and societies have what might be called a “truth profile”—a characteristic preference for one or several truth criteria. Once society may be dominated by a reliance on authority and religious revelation—Iran, say, after the theocratic revolution of 1979. Another may emphasize science and its proxy, technology—Japan, from 1960 on. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

A society’s truth profile profoundly affects the amount and type of wealth it will produce. It will influence how much money it allocates to building mosques and churches as opposed to research and development or how much it basks in post-imperial nostalgia (as France and England have done). It affects the extent of its litigiousness, the nature of its justice system, the weight of tradition, its levels of resistance to change. Ultimately, its choice of truth filters speeds up or slows down the rate of what the late Czech economist Eugen Loebl called “gain”—the pace at which the human beings accumulate the additional knowledge needed to keep raising their living standards. The shape of tomorrow’s economies will be heavily based on which truth filters we use to validate knowledge. Once again, we are changing our relations to a deep fundamental of wealth without anticipating the consequences—and putting at risk one of the key sources of economic progress. The future of science is at stake. Imagine that like some kind of science fiction dictator you intended to rule the World. You would probably have pinned over your desk a list something like this: Eliminate personal knowledge. Make it hard for people to know about themselves, how they function, what a human being is, or how a human fits into wider, natura systems. This will make it impossible for the human to separate natural from artificial, real from unreal. You provide the answers to all questions. Eliminate points of comparison. Comparisons can be found in earlier societies, older language forms and cultural artifacts, including print media. Eliminate or museumize indigenous cultures, wilderness and nonhuman life forms. Re-created internal human experience—instincts, thoughts, and spontaneous, varied feelings—so that it will not evoke the past. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

Separate people from each other. Reduce interpersonal communication through life-styles that emphasize separateness. When people gather together, be sure it is for a prearranged experience that occupies all their attention at once. Spectator sports are excellent, so are circuses, elections, and any spectacles in which focus is outward and interpersonal exchange is subordinated to mass experience. Unify experience, especially encouraging mental experience at the expense of sensory experience. Separate people’s minds from their bodies, as in sense-deprivation experiments, thus clearing the mental channel for implantation. Idealize the mind. Sensory experience cannot be eliminated totally, so it should be driven into narrow areas. An emphasis on pleasures of the flesh as opposed to sese may be useful because it is powerful enough to pass for the whole thing and it has a placebo effect. Occupy the mind. Once people are isolated in their minds, fill the brain with prearranged experience and thought. Content is less important than the fact of the mind being filled. Free-roaming thought is to be discouraged at all costs, because it is difficult to control. Encourage drug use. Recognize that total repression is impossible and so expressions of revolt must be contained on the personal level. Drugs will fill in the cracks of dissatisfaction, making people unresponsive to organized expressions of resistance. Centralize knowledge and information. Having isolated people from each other and minds from bodies; eliminated points of comparison; discouraged sensory experience; and invented technologies to unify control experience, speak. At this point whatever comes from outside will enter directly into all brains at the same time with great power and believability. Redefine happiness and the meaning of life in terms of new and increasingly unrooted philosophy. Once you have established the prior seven conditions, this one is easy. Anything makes sense in a void. All channels are open, receptive and unquestioning. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

Formal mind structuring is simple. Most important, avoid naturalistic philosophes, they lead to uncontrollable awareness. The least resistible philosophies are the most arbitrary ones, those that make sense only in terms of themselves. There is considerable evidence that the science fiction vision of arbitrary reality inevitably leading to autocracy has already begun to materialize. We can see it in action in the quasi-religious philosophies that are now sweeping the country, gathering in millions of devotees. The techniques used in gather adherents to these burgeoning movements are trying to get the convert to effectively submit to having their minds reconstructed along simpler, flat, narrow, but, most important, unrooted channels. This allows them to embrace arbitrary information as though it were grounded in concrete reality. In a World where alienation and confusion are common conditions, these new philosophies offer a comforting mental order that accepts and absorbs all contradictions. The danger is that once people’s minds are so simplified and receptive, they become vulnerable to any leader, guru or system of forces which understands the simplicity of the code and can speak the appropriate techno-speak. Like a mass of Manchurian candidates, the people whose minds have been retrained into passive channels by these technologically based processes are available at all times for imprinting. In this way they merge with and can accept advertising-mind, television-mind and other simplistic intrusions without the slightest blech of rejection. In America, almost all news shows begin with music, the tone of which suggests important events about to unfold. (Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony would be entirely appropriate.) The music is very important, for it equates the news with various forms of drama and ritual—the opera, for example, or a wedding procession—in which musical themes underscore the meaning of the event. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

Music takes us immediately into the realm of the symbolic, a World that is not to be taken literally. After all, when events unfold in the real World, they do so without musical accompaniment. More symbolism follows. The sound of teletype machines can be heard in the studio, not because it is impossible to screen this noise out, but because the sound is kind of a music in itself. It tells us that data are pouring in from all corners of the globe, a sensation reinforced by the World map in the background (or clocks noting the time on different continents). Already, then, before a single news item is introduced, a great deal has been communicated. We know that we are in the presence of a symbolic event, a form of theater in which the day’s events are to be dramatized. This theater takes the entire globe as its subject, although it may look at the World from the perspective of a single nation. A certain tension is present, like the atmosphere in a theater just before the curtain goes up. The tension is represented by the music, the staccato beat of the teletype machines, and the sight of news workers scurrying around typing reports and answering phones. As a technical matter, it would be no problem to build a set in which the newsroom staff remained off camera, invisible to the viewer, but an important theatrical effect would be lost. By being busy on camera, the workers help communicate urgency about the events at hand, which it is suggested are changing so rapidly that constant revision of the news is necessary. The staff in the background also helps signal the importance of the person in the center, the anchorman (or -woman) “in command” of both the staff and the news. The anchorman plays the role of host. He welcomes us to the newscast and welcomes us back from the different locations we visit during filmed reports. His voice, appearance, and manner establish  the mood of the broadcast. It would be unthinkable for the anchor to be unattractive, or a nervous sort who could not complete a sentence. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

Viewers must be able to believe in the anchor as a person of authority and skill, a person who would not panic in a crisis—someone to trust. This belief is based not on knowledge of the anchorman’s character or achievements as a journalist, but on one’s presentation of self while on the air. Does one look the part of a trusted human? Does one speak firmly and clearly? Does one have a warm smile? Does one project confidence without seeming arrogant? The value of the anchor must communicate above all else is control. One must be in control of oneself, one’s voice, one’s emotions. One must know what is coming next in the broadcast, and one must move smoothly and confidently from segment to segment. Again, it would be unthinkable for the anchor to break down and weep over a story, or laugh uncontrollably on camera, not matter how “human” these responses may be. Many other features of the newscast help the anchor to establish the impression of control. These are usually equated with professionalism in broadcasting. They include such things as graphics that tell the viewer what is being shown, or maps and charts that suddenly appear on the screen and disappear on cue, or the orderly progression from story to story, starting with the most important events first. They also include the absence of gaps or “deadtime” during the broadcast, even the simple fact that the news starts and ends at a certain hour. These common features are thought of as purely technical matters, which a professional crew handles as a matter of course. However, they are also symbols of dominant theme of television news: the imposition of an orderly World—called “the news”—upon the disorderly flow of events. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

While the form of a new broadcast emphasizes tidiness and control, its content can be best described as chaotic. Because time is so precious on television, because the nature of the medium favors dynamic visual images, and because the pressures of a commercial structure require the news to hold its audience above all else, there is rarely any attempt to explain issues in depth or place events in their proper context. The news moves nervously from a warehouse fire to a court decision, from a guerrilla war to a World Cup match, the quality of the film often determining the length of the story. Certain stories show up only because they offer dramatic picture. Bleachers collapse in South America: hundreds of people are crushed—a perfect television news story, for the cameras can record the face of disaster in all its anguish. Back in Washington, a new budget is approved for Congress. Here there is nothing to photograph because a budget is not a physical event; it is a document full of language and numbers. So the producers of the news will show a photo of the document itself, focusing on the cover where it says: “Budget of the United States of America.” Or sometimes they will send a camera crew to the government printing plant where copies of the budget are produced. That evening, while the contents of the budget are summarized by a voice-over, the viewer sees stacks of documents being loaded into boxes at the government printing plant. Then a few of the budget’s more important provisions will be flashed on the screen in written form, but this is such a time-consuming process—using television as a printed page—that the producers keep it to a minimum. In short, the budget is not televisable, and for that reason its time on the news must be brief. The bleacher collapse will get more minutes that evening. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

With priorities of this sort, it is almost impossible for the news to offer an adequate account of important events. Indeed, it is the trivial event that is often best suited for television coverage. This is such a commonplace that no one even bothers to challenge it. Walter Cronkite was a revered figure in television and anchorman of the CBS Evening News for many years, he acknowledged several times that television cannot be relied on to inform the citizens of a democratic nation. Unless they also read the newspaper, magazines, and read reference books, television viewers are helpless to understand their World, Cronkite has said. No one at CBS has ever disagree with his conclusion, other than to say, “We care.” And what of the book itself? Of all popular media, it is probably the one that has been most resistant to the Net’s influence. Book publishers have suffered some losses of business as reading has shifted from the printed page to the screen, but the form of the book itself has not changed much. A long sequence of printed pages assembled between a pair of stiff covers has proven to be a remarkably robust technology, remaining useful and popular for more than half a millennium. It is not hard to see why books have been slow to make the leap into the digital age. There is not a whole lot of difference between a computer monitor and a television screen, and the sounds coming from speakers hits your ears in pretty much the same way whether they are being transmitted through a computer or a radio. However, as a device for reading, the book retains some compelling advantages over the computer. One can take a book to the beach without worrying about a dead battery or about sand getting its works. One can take it to bed without being nervous about it falling on the floor as one nods off. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

One can even spill coffee on a book. One can sit on it. One can put it down on a table, open to the page one is reading, and when one picks it up a few days later it, will still be exactly as one left it. One never has to be concerned about plugging a book into an outlet or having its battery die. The experience of reading tends to be better with a books too. Words stamped on a page in black ink are easier to read than words formed of pixels on a backlit screen. One can read a dozen or a hundred printed pages without suffering the eye fatigue that often results from even a brief stretch of online reading. Navigating a book is simpler and, as software programmers say, more intuitive. One can flip through real pages much more quickly and flexibly than one can through virtual pages. And one can write notes in a book’s margins or highlight passages that move or inspire one. One can even get a book’s author to sign its title page. When one is finished with a book, one can use it to fill an empty space on one’s bookshelf—or lend it to a friend. Despite years of hype about electronic books, most people have not shown much interest in them. Investing a few hundred dollars in a specialized digital reader has seemed silly, given the ease and pleasure of buying and reading old-fashioned books. However, books will not remain exempt from the digital media revolution. The economic advantages of digital production and distribution—no big purchases of ink and paper, no printer bills, no loading of heavy boxes onto trucks, no returns of unsold copies—are every bit as compelling for book publishers and distributors as for other media companies. And the lower costs translate into lower prices. It is not unusual for e-books to be sold for half the price of print editions (thriftbooks.com is a great place to find books at a discount), thanks in part to subsidies from device manufacturers. The sharp discounts provide a strong incentive for people go make the switch from paper to pixels. However, people with weak eyes can get reading glasses which will make reading books much easier. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

Many students are seeking to learn and have a balanced view. Regardless of if they are reading e-book or traditional book, reading books is more likely to open them up to realistic and balanced information and one can always check out more than one book on the same subject. Students in their egalitarianism—whatever their politics, they believe that all men and women are created equal and have equal rights. It is more than a belief, it is an instinct, felt in their bones. Whenever they meet anyone, considerations of gender, culture, color, religion, family, money, nationality, play no role in their reactions. The very understanding that such considerations once really counted for something has departed it belongs to mythology. This may seem surprising inasmuch as there is such interest in roots, ethnicity and the scared—the things that once separated humans. However, it is precisely because they are no longer real that they fascinate. A real Italian immigrant in 1920 did not worry about ethnicity. He had it, and although he was an America, his life was by necessity and choice Italian, and he lived with Italians. His grandson at Harvard today might wish to recover Italianness—the social disadvantages of which his father struggled to shake off—but his friends will be the individual he likes, willy-nilly, not because of his Italian origin but as a result of the common features of America life. His attractions that deal with intimate passions, and hence his marriage, will not be influenced by his national origin or even by his traditional Catholicism. And this will not be because he is attracted by opposites or is trying to join the establishment. It is simply because such things do not really count now, even if there is a conscious effort to make them count. There is no society out there that will banish him for marrying out of order, or even parents who will object very strenuously. He is not in any important way looked on as an Italian by his peers. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

Even if students have gone to parochial schools, where they were religiously and in effect ethnically segregated, the general culture usually prevails, and when they enter the university they almost immediately find themselves associating primarily with those who were formerly outside to them. They simply drop their cultural baggage. There is none of the solemnity of the interfaith or interethnic get-togethers I knew as a child, where people who felt themselves to be very different and who were quite often both prejudiced and victims of prejudice, pointed piously to the brotherhood of man. These kids just do not have prejudices against anyone. Whether this is because man has been reduced to an unclothed animal without any trappings of civilization that differentiate him, or because we have recognized our essential humankindness, is a matter of interpretation. However, if not very individual, the fact is that everyone is an individual—in our major universities. They are all just persons. Being human is enough for what is important. It does not occur to students to think that any of the things that classically divided people, even in egalitarian America, should keep them away from anyone else. Thus Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are not what they used to be—the last resorts of aristocratic sentiment within the democracy. The differentiations based on old family or old wealth have vanished. The old wounds that used to be inflicted by the clubbable on the unclubbable, in our muted version of the English class system, have healed because the clubs are not anything to be care about seriously. All this began after World War II, with the GI Bill. College was for everyone. And the top universities gradually abandoned preference for the children of their alumni and the exclusion of outsiders. Academic records and tests became the criterion for selection. New kinds of preference replaced the old ones, which were class preserving, whereas some thing the new regulations are class destroying. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

Now the student bodies of all the major universities are pretty much alike, drawn from the best applicants, with “good” meaning good at the academic disciplines. There is hardly a Harvard man or Yale man any more. No longer do any universities have the vocation of producing gentlemen as well as scholars. Elitism of the old sort is dead. Of course students are, no matter what they say, proud to be at one of these select universities. They are distinguished by it. However, they believed, and they probably are right, that they are there not because of anything other than natural talent and hard work at their earlier studies. To the extent that their parents’ wealth may have contributed to their excelling in high school whereas less affluent children were disadvantaged, they believe this to be a social injustice. However, they are not very much bothered, at least not so far as the affluent are concerned, for the country that is largely middle class now, and scholarship aid is easily available for those who earned it or qualified for it. They see around them students who come from all kinds of families. Very few feel themselves culturally deprived, outsiders looking resentfully in at the privileged whose society is closed to them. Nor are there social climbers, for there is no vision of a high society into which to climb. Similarly, there are no longer schools of thought, as there always used to be, that despise democracy and equality. Again, World War II finished all that. All the students are egalitarian meritocrats, who believe each individual should be allowed to develop one’s special—and unequal—talents without reference to their race, gender, religion, family, wealth or national origin. This is the only form of justice they know, and they cannot even imagine that there could be any substantial argument in favor of aristocracy or monarchy. These were inexplicable follies of the past. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

Again, although the difference between girls and body still have a living meaning—unlike the difference between Wiccan and Catholic, Irish and German, only family and new family, which are mere memories of their parents’ day and do not constitute differences in present way of life—students take women’s equality in education, their legitimate pursuit of exactly the same careers as men and their equal  and often superior performance in them, completely in stride. There are no jokes, no self-consciousness, in short, no awareness that this state of affairs is any less normal in human history than is breathing. None of their beliefs result from principle, a project, and effort. They are pure feeling, a way of life, the actualization of the democratic dream of each human taken as human, the essential, abstracted from everything else. Except no abstraction is taking place. Contrary to fashionable opinion, universities are melting pots, no matter what maybe true of the rest of society. Ethnicity is no more important a fact than tall or short, black-haired or blonde. What these young people have in common infinitely outweighs what separates them. The quest for traditions and rituals both proves my point and many teach something about the pride for this homogenization. The lack of prejudice is a result of students’ failing to see differences and of the gradual eradication of differences. When students talk about one another, one almost never hears them saying things that divide others into groups or kinds. They always speak about the individual. The sensitivity to national character, sometimes known as stereotyping, has disappeared. As ordinarily used, the term “juvenile delinquency” is thoroughly confused. First, as we have said, we must distinguish forbidden-and-defiant-acts from behavior-to-get-caught. Then, among the socially forbidden acts we must obviously distinguish those that any lad of sense and spirit will perform if he has to and whenever he can, from those that are indeed harmful to others or disruptive of good society. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

And again, as many authorities have pointed out, with respect to any of these acts there is an immense discrepancy in their adjudication and out information: delinquent acts of middle- and upper-class boys almost never get to courts or social agencies; affluent boys are dismissed or put on probation whereas less affluent boys are put away (that is why there is currently such a backlash against those of the upper-class and those who earned money from working and followed the law). It is not surprising, then, if many statistics and analyses of delinquency disagree. Apart from the one factor of getting caught, there is no real concept of delinquency. Yet obviously this factor is not sufficient by itself, for getting caught does have some essential relation to forbidden acts. Let us therefore take a different tack. Instead of looking for a concept of delinquency, let us expand the subject matter as a series of possible punishable relations obtaining between the boy struggling for life and trying to grow up, and the society that he cannot accept and that lacks objective opportunities for him. Roughly, we can name six importantly distinct stages in the series: Acts not antisocial is society had more sense. Acts that are innocent but destructive in their consequences and therefore need control. Acts antisocial in purpose. Behavior aimed at getting caught and punished. Gang fighting that is not delinquency yet must be controlled. Delinquency secondarily created by society itself by treating as delinquents those who were not delinquency, and by social attempts at prevention and reform. There is a certain simplicity to the idea of hacking off offending appendages—the hands of thieves, for example. By the same token, why not the private parts of deviants who take advantage of others in an nonconsensual intimate way? Or the genetically offensive, who might otherwise produce similarly disabled offspring? #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

Also added to the list could be those who practice “self-love,” or those who have partners of the same gender, who challenge the standards of decency and risk their healthy? Throughout the ages, the logic of such proposals satisfied many of the authorities responsible for enforcing the law. And so off with their—well, whatever would eradicate the problem. Mutilating private areas is a time-honored practice/ As medieval punishment for nonconsensual pleasures of the flesh or adultery the jus talionis, an eye for an eye. In Europe, from 1906, it was a common sentence for offenders of the pleasures of the flesh. In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton coined the term eugenics to describe the systematic upgrading of the human gene pool by selecting “better” people to reproduce. Sterilization was the obvious way to prevent “inferior” people from doing so. An example may be seen in the 1997 film “Gattaca.” In 1931 the British parliament roundly defeated eugenics legislation, but elsewhere in Europe it was enthusiastically embraced. Hundreds of thousands of unfortunates were sterilized, both to “improve the nation” and, more usually, to save it money. Physical castration—removing the testes—is the same process that was used on castrati to arrest development of their laryngeal structures. In adults, it inhibits desires for pleasure of the flesh and also activity involving intimate passions, which made it an attractive option for treating people who have violated the temples of others. It has also been used for eugenics. In the United States of America, castration of eugenic reasons continued from 1899 until the 1930s, and in several Southern states was the punishment of choice for certain males who convicted or even suspected of a crime involving pleasures of the flesh. In Europe, Germany enthusiastically embraced eugenics, and its 1933 Eugenic Sterilization Act made sterilization obligatory for everyone suffering from hereditary disabilities. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute assisted, by instructing physicians in the niceties of “race science” and training them to carry out their related duties. Nazi “justice,” too, often involved genital mutilation. During the Third Reich, four hundred thousand people judged unfit to reproduce were sterilized, many by castration. One of the first groups earmarked were the “Rhineland Bastards,” mixed-race children of German mothers and African American post-World War I occupation troops. Others were those afflicted with blindness, deafness, physical disabilities, feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, and manic-depression. With suitable semantics, vagrants and alcoholics, too, could be classified as feebleminded and thus desexed. Deviancy involving pleasures of the flesh was particularly targeted, and homosexuals were hounded down. The Reich Ministry of Justice decreed that every homosexual act between adults was almost certainly the consequence of an instinct derived from poor heredity. One prison doctor performed so many castration that he streamlined this technique and speed to the point that he could whip off each patient in eight minutes flat, using only local anesthesia. By 1929, twenty-four American states, notably California and Virginia, had enacted sterilization laws to prevent future genetic defects. By 1958, 60,926 people had been neutered, with police hunting down escapees and forcing them back to undergo the procedure. In Canada, only the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta passed eugenics laws. British Columbia sterilized at most a few hundred. Between 1928 and 1971, Alberta’s Board of Eugenics ordered 2,822 citizens neutered. About 700 survivors are currently suing for compensation. Castration for offenses involving nonconsensual pleasures of the flesh often produced eunuchs, and the older the castrate, the more likely the surgery would render him impotent. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

Studies of these castrates have concluded that immediately after surgery, at least 60 percent lost their drive for intimate passions and potency, and with time, so did another 20 percent. Other side effects—hot flashes, decrease in beards and body hair, and the development of fatty tissue, softer, slacker, and flabbier skin, the so-called puckered and lightly wrinkled castrate face—were common. Castration also caused the recidivism rate of those aggressors of nonconsensual pleasures of the flesh to plunge from 84 percent prior to their surgery to about 2.2 percent afterwards. Today, asexualization of those aggressors of nonconsensual pleasure of the flesh is now achieved through chemical rather than physical castration. The former is seen as less drastic and is also reversible. Hormones or other medications are injected, reducing the drive for intimate passions and thereby improving the subject’s ability to respond to various sorts of psychotherapy and behavior modification. Chemical castration is used in the United States of America, and Europe, though it produces more recidivists—about 6 percent in one study—than surgical castration. Currently, overpopulated China’s new Eugenics and Health Protection Law attempts to prevent “inferior births” through a mixture of mandatory castration, sterilization, terminating a pregnancy, and celibacy. It is aimed at people with hereditary, venereal, or contagious diseases—for instance, hepatitis B—or sever psychoses. In Thailand, an amateur form of unofficial but radical castration is on the rise. Over one hundred vengeful women have drugged unfaithful husbands, then hacked off their male organ. Authorities consider the problem so serious they have form a special patrol. This patrol is summoned whenever another victim awakens to discover his genital region bloody and minus its most crucial member. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

Like a search party, they look in nearby fields for the butchered male organ, racing against time to rush it to the hospital for reattachment. Often they locate it, but one enraged wife fooled them by attaching her husband’s male organ to a helium balloon to ensure he would never get it back. One consequence of this wave of male organ amputations is that Thai surgeons reconnected thirty-one male organs to their original owners. Another is that Buddhist monasteries are gently swelling, as some of the new castrates reconcile themselves to their desexed state and seek spiritual solace in religion as monks. The amputators, women unwilling to tolerate their spouses’ philandering and mistresses, are escalating their illicit but effective campaign. If found guilty of the crime, they face ten years’ imprisonment, but the cutting edge of this story is that they are prepared to serve their time as long as they make their point by nipping their husbands’ infidelities in the bud. “If you will seek God diligently and make your supplication to the Almighty, then, if you are pure and upright, surely He will bestir Himself for you and make your righteous dwelling prosperous again,” reports Job 8.5-6. May the Lord God take your heaviness away, as the rains pour from Heaven. The garden is rich with diversity with plants of a hundred families in the space between the trees with all the colours and fragrances. May our God remember us in the sacred grove of eternity and we smell and remember the ancient forests of Earth. We have survived because we are inveterate optimists. No obstacle stopped us, no crisis dismayed us, no catastrophe crushed us. We swallowed the bitterness of life and pursued the sweet thereof. We survived because of the Holy Bible. We love life and our actualized Christians know that life needs direction, norms, discipline. We have denied ourselves that we might live. We have the strength to chain the fury of passion, and the wisdom to escae quietism and negation. We placed ourselves under the yoke of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and rejoiced that we have God’s grace. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

Cresleigh Homes

Once you see the full floorplan, you won’t believe how expansive the space at #CresleighRanch Brighton Station Residence 3 is! 😍 https://cresleigh.com/brighton-station/residence-3/

We love imagining all the memories about to be made in this space – we’re picturing Thanksgiving turkeys, birthday cakes, and midnight snacks on that giant island. Home is where your heart is!

#CresleighHomes