Love is a decision, it is not a judgment, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever. A feeling comes and it may go. How can I judge that it will stay forever, when my act does not involve judgment and decision. The falsity of a judgement is not for us an objection to the judgment; this is perhaps where our new language will sound most foreign. The question is, To what extent is it life advancing, life preserving, species preserving, perhaps even species propagating? We are fundamentally inclined to assert that the falsest judgments (among them the synthetic judgment a priori) are for us the most indispensable, that without accepting the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the wholly invented World of the unconditional, self-identical, without a constant falsification of the World through number, man could not live—that to renounce false judgments would be to renounce life, to negate life. To acknowledge untruth as a condition of life: this surely means resisting customary value feelings in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that ventures such a thing, just by doing so, places itself beyond good and evil. On the question of peaceful methods in the fight for communism, the difference between the Russian and the Chinese is as strong as it is in the question of co-existence. The emancipation of the workers and peasant can come about only by the roar of revolution and certainly not by the roar of reformism. The Yugoslav leaders, for whom the ritualistic word “revisionists” is employed, are singled out as the arch enemy and the center of World revisionism. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

However, the revisionists often serve only as a foil for the real opponent, Mr. Khrushchev who of course cannot open by called a revisionist. Yet Mr. Khrushchev’s position becomes quite clear in the declaration of the 81 Communist Parties with its emphasis on peaceful, economic competition between the two system, as against revolutionary activities. Actually, the conflict between the Russians and the Chinese lines is by no means restricted to the problems of the industrial countries (where it is largely theoretical and unreal). It is very acute with regard to the policy toward various underdeveloped countries. It is quite likely that the sudden cessation of the Communist offensive in Iraq in the summer of 1959 was due to Mr. Khrushchev’s pressure and against the intentions of the Chinese; the more clear-cut case is that of Algeria. In his report to the Supreme Soviet, in October 1959, Mr. Khrushchev, reversing his previous stand against Mr. de Gaulle’s plans, suddenly came out in favour of a North American cease-fire plan, while the Chinese have continued to label Mr. de Gaulle’s plan as “nothing but a trick from A to Z.” Eventually, the Chinese-Russian conflict centers on the leadership withing the Communist movement. The Chinese leaders claim that their communes are a decisive step forward in the direction of true communism, and that Mao Tse-tung is the leading theoretician of the Communist camp, while the Russians naturally deny this claim. This conflict is by no means just a matter of personal jealousy. It touches upon the very important question of whether the Soviet Union or Communist China will eventually be the leader of all underdeveloped countries and, specially, of the Communist Parties within these countries. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

The difference between Russian and Chinese communism is a very real one. While Russia represents a conservative industrial managerialism, she has to support the colonial revolutions for the sake of her own World political position, always qualified by the concern for her own security and the possibility of an arrangement with the Western bloc. China, on the other hand, with ideas contrary to those of Mr. Marx’s socialism, has developed, thus far, an evangelical faith in an egalitarian type of mass society; this faith is based on a zealous expectation that the communes constitute a short-cut to the new form of society and a dee disbelief that capitalism can change its intention to destroy the Communist countries The Russian-Chinese antagonism is apparent not only in the conflicts regarding views on coexistence, on peaceful transition to socialism et cetera, but in many practical questions of foreign policy. In addition to the difference in attitude toward Mr. de Gaulle and, probably, to Iraq, it is well known that Mr. Khrushchev expressed his regrets at the aggressive attitude of the Chinese in the Chinese-Indian border conflict. There is also serious competition going on between Russian and China, not only in various Communist parties all over the World, but especially in such strategic places as the Congo, Algeria, and Cuba, where the Chinese are trying to win over the local leaders to their more aggressive policies while the Russians are in the position of having to exercise a moderate influence and at the same time talking sufficiently “tough” in order not to lose the battle for influence to the Chinese competition. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

More important, perhaps, is not the fact that the Russians did not want the Chinese to be equipped with atomic weapons, but there is a good deal evidence that the Chinese exerted a good deal of pressure on Russia to grant nuclear weapons to China, and there was a Russian reluctance to comply with this wish. There has been joint East German and Chinese pressure for atomic armament in cause the Western powers place thermonuclear weapons at the disposal of West Germany. Mr. Khrushchev, on the other hand, in an undated letter to the European Federation against Atomic Armament, made public by the Tass News Agency on March 18, 1959, stressed the “undesirability of expansion of the so-called atomic club,” and warned that action by the United States of America to supply nuclear weapons to her allies would set off “a kind of chain reaction n the dissemination of nuclear weapons all over the World.” Another fundamental importance for any consideration of the future of Chinese policy, is the problem of whether the aggressiveness of China’s political position at present indicates that China is bent on territorial expansion, and hence eventually on war. Considering her population pressures and the production of her agriculture not being at their peak, one might argue that for economic reasons China need to seek territorial expansion, and hence eventually war. Many people believe this is why China has been investing so heavily in the United States of America and why the Chinese-owned Fufeng Group, which describes itself as an “internationalized bio-fermentation products manufacturer, paid $2.3 million to purchase the 300 acres of land just 12 miles from Grand Forks Air Force base, home to top secret drone technology, which poses a national security threat. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

Considering her population pressure and the subprime productivity of her agriculture, one might argue that for economic reasons China needs to seek territorial expansion Such expansion could take place either in the direction of the thinly population Outer Mongolia and Siberia, or in the direction of the heavily populated Southeast Asia with its fabulous resources of rice, oil, rubber, et cetera. While an increasingly aggressive China may one day take such a course of territorial expansion, there are many reasons why this is not the method which the Chinese leaders would prefer. Expansion toward Siberia would make Russia the enemy of China, and bring about an anti-Chinese, United States of America-Russia coalition, which would be a mortal danger for China. As to expansion toward the southeast, which could occur only with Russian implicit or explicit support, there is no real economic need for such expansion. It is true that China needs many of the raw materials obtainable in Southeast Asia, but the problem, for her, is not primarily that of owning the countries that have oil, land, rubber, et cetera, but of having free and unhindered trade with them at fair prices. The crucial point in China’s whole economic situation is the fact that China has almost no long-term credits, and is being forced to industrialize on a shoestring, that is to say, by forced saving at the expense of general consumption. As China embarks on her plan for World domination, it appears to be proceeding almost completely on a pay-as-you-go basis, and this may have been an important factor behind the radical changes in domestic policies which Peking introduced during 1957-1958. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The dramatic decisions to set up decentralized, large-scale, labour-intensive industries, to mobilize labour on a mass scale for irrigation and other projects requiring little capital investment, and to regiment China’s population and resources further by establishing the communes may all be related, in some respects at least, to the fact that by 1958 Communist China was carrying out its development programs without long-term foreign loans. In spite of their fervour in pursing their type of communism, their intense nationalism, their pride, and their aggressive language, there is no reason to assume that the present leaders of China are not realistic and rational men who prefer to see their efforts succeed peacefully, rather than to provoke a war, even though they are less anxious to avoid such a war than the Russians are. There are many reasons to believe, however, that in their broad strategy Peking’s leaders do not think primarily in terms either of Chinese territorial conquest abroad or of exporting revolution by overt Chinese aggression. World conquest in traditional military terms and World revolution in Communist terms are very different concepts. Yet, Peking does attach high priority to the building up of its military strength, and in many ways it can attempt to use pressure and force while still trying to avoid war. Even after the stand of the Chinese leaders against the American accusation of being a “currency manipulator,” the Chinese have really given up their aim of avoiding war and of competitive coexistence which they followed before. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

One cannot, of course, rule out completely the possibility that Peking has made a major decision to place an increased reliance on military force to achieve its goals. However, as of the early autumn of 2020, there is little to indicate that the Chinese Communists have, in fact, decided to pursue a general policy of large-scale military aggression. The new pressures they have been exerting on China’s neighbours have to date been limited pressures, and apparently Peking’s aims in regard to Taiwan and Hong Kong and the Senkaku Islands have been limited. In all of these situations, in fact, local factors rather than broad tactical considerations seem to provide the main explanation for Peking’s recent actions, and it appears likely that after attempting to make local gains, Peking will probably try once again to reemphasize the carrot rather than the stick in its relations with Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and South East Asia. And with conflict in the Middle East joining the war in Ukraine as strains on China’s foreign relations, Beijing might well be rethinking its alliance with Russian. When you look at the Russia-China relationship, the “no limits” partnership is started press its luck. Concerning the Israel-Gaza conflict and Russia’s war against Ukraine, China is a little nervous that the Russia idea of communism is clashing with their own idea. Indeed, China might be moving closer to the USA positions on the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East as it seeks to rein in “chaos” that could undermine Beijing’s interests. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Time may also be running out for Norther Korea’s strengthening relationship with Russia, owing to palpable discontent in Beijing with Moscow providing some types of technology to Pyongyang. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s growing reliance on Pyongyang to supply artillery shells and other basic armaments for his Ukraine campaign has left some Chinese officials uneasy. There is some palpable discontent in Beijing about this idea that Mr. Putin could be playing in their backyard. There are a lot of fears that support the North Korea with the types of technologies that are back flowing…in return for the weapons shipments could embolden the North Koreans next year. USA President Joe Biden and his administration have repeatedly called on Beijing to pressure its two neighbours, both to rein in Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and to constrain Pyongyang’s provocative actions. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un vowed support for Russia’s “just fight” during a summit with Mr. Putin in September 2023, a pledge that the USA warned could translate into a new source of ammunition for Moscow’s war in Ukraine. If one takes a sober view of the Chinese situation and is not blinded by passionate hatred of their kind of communism, one might arrive at this conclusion: the more difficult, economically, the Chinese position is, the more intolerant will the regime in China become, and the more aggressive its foreign policy. If the present policy of maximal economic isolation and of political humiliation of China continues, the aggressive tendencies within China will increase and help Mr. Putin’s enemies within Russia to gain victory. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

This course is likely to lead to the increase of thermonuclear arming of China, hence of Germany, and eventually to the brink of war. If, on the other hand, the Peking government is given credits and the possibility of free trade, and if the fulfillment of the country’s economic needs is not threated by hostile governments in America, Russia and South East Asia, there is a very reasonable chance that China will revert to its earlier policy of competitive coexistence. There is little doubt that the proposal for a unilateral disarmament—in the broad sense of the unconditional dismantling of a country’s military establishment—will be acceptable neither to the United States of America nor to Russian in the immediate future. This is why many are concerned with practical suggestions for arms control, it proposes another and very limited concept of unilateral disarmament, one which has been called by Charles Osgood “graduated unilateral action (or disengagement)” or which might be called unilateral initiative in taking practical steps toward disarmament. The basic idea underlying this concept is that of a radical change of our method of negotiating multilateral disarmament. This change implies that we give up the present method of bargaining in which every concession we make is dependent on a corresponding and guaranteed concession on the part of the Russians; that, instead, we take, unilaterally, gradual steps toward disarmament in the expectation that the Russians will reciprocate and that, thus, the present deadlock in the negotiations of universal disarmament can be broken through. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

However, in the back of the minds of many, any kind of disarmament sounds insane because not everyone will agree. Furthermore, up and coming nations who do not currently have thermonuclear weapons will build them and everyone will be in danger. Or one nation may keep their weapons and take over the World. Nonetheless, as to the specific steps which should be taken in this fashion, it would require a great deal of further thought, aided by competent specialists. However, in order t give at least an idea of the concrete steps this policy would envisage, it would be necessary to sharing scientific information; stop atomic tests; troop reductions; evacuation of one or more military bases; discontinuation of German rearmament; et cetera. The expectation is that the Russians are as willing as we are to avoid World War III, hence they will begin to reciprocate and that once the course of mutual suspicion has been reversed, bigger steps can be taken which may lead to complete bilateral disarmament. Furthermore, disarmament negations should be paralleled by political negotiations, which aim essentially at mutual noninterference on the basis of the recognition of the status quo. Here, too (and again in essential agreement with Mr. Osgood’s position), unilateral steps such as the recognition of the Oder-Neisse line would be taken in the expectation of reciprocation by the Russians (id est, curbing of Chinee aggression, noninterference in the Middle and far East.) However, if one looks at the mindset and history of Russia, no one really believes that they will agree to any kind of disarmament. They would let the entire World burn before giving up any weapons. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

However, many believe the rest of the World is in the same yacht. Total unilateral disarmament is unlikely because the present method of negotiations does not seem to lead to the goal of bilateral disarmament because of the deeply ingrained mutual suspicions and fears; without achieving complete disarmament, the armament race will continue and lead to the destruction of our civilization as well as that of the Russians or, even without the outbreak of another war, will slowly undermine and eventually destroy the values in defense of which we are risking our physical existence; while unilateral steps constitute a definite risk (and must be so by the very nature of the idea), the risk at every step is not a crippling one and is infinitely smaller than the danger we run by the continuation of the arms race. Even though the broader concept of complete—rather than graduated—unilateral disarmament is, as stated before, not a practical possibility in the near future, many people like to discuss it because a small minority of people believe that the risks in the continuation of the armament race are far greater than the very serious risks of unilateral disarmament. Yet the arguments in support of unilateral disarmament, even though they are practical, they are considered unacceptable, but the position contributes to breaking through the thought barrier which prevents us now from getting out of the dangerous circle of seeking peace by means of threat and counterthreat. However, more people would be fearful of attacking Russia or China than the United States of America because they know the Russians and the Chinese will strike back, but the Americans are acting like schoolboys who pay the bully during lunch time not to steal their lunch. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

However, people who believe in unilateral disarmament are united by their critical attitude toward the irrational aspects of international politics and by their deep reverence for life. They share the conviction of the oneness of the human race and faith in the spiritual and intellectual potentialities of man. They follow the dictates of their conscience in refusing to have any “part in making billions of women and children and noncombatants hostages for the behaviour of their own governments.” Whether they think in theistic terms or in those of nontheistic humanism (in the sense of the philosophic continuum from Stoic to eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophy), they all are rooted in the same spiritual tradition and are unwilling to compromise with its principles. They are united by their uncompromising opposition to any kind of idolatry, including the idolatry of state. While their opposition to the Soviet system is rooted precisely in this attitude against idolatry, they are critical of idolatry whenever is appears in the Western World whether it is in the name of God or od democracy. While there is no proponent of unilateral disarmament who does not believe that the individual must be willing to give one’s life for the sake of one’s supreme values, if such an ultimate necessity arises, they are all equally convinced that to risk the life of the human race, or even the results of its best efforts in the last five thousand years, is immoral and irresponsible. However, many people believe that if the Sun does not destroy the World, then a war will. It is what many people expect. As warfare becomes at once more senseless and more devastating, the convergence between religious pacifist, humanist, and pragmatic opponents to nuclear armament grows. I supposed that is better than being a nihilist. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

From the standpoint of the proponents of unilateral disarmament, to continue the armament race is catastrophic, whether the deterrent works or not. In the first place, they have little faith that the deterrent will prevent the outbreak of a thermonuclear war. They believethat the results of a thermonuclear war would be such that in the very “best” case they completely belie the idea that we ought to fight such a war in order to save our democratic way of life. There is no need to enter the guessing game as to whether one-third or two-thirds of the population of the two opponents and what proportion of the neutral World (depending on how the wind blows) will be destroyed. This is a guessing game that verges on madness; for to consider the possibility of the destruction of 30 percent, 60 percent, or 90 percent of one’s own and the enemy’s population as an acceptable (although, of course, most undesirable) result of one’s policy is indeed approaching pathology. The increasing split between intellect and affect, which is so characteristic of or Western development in the last centuries, has reached its dangerous, schizoid peak in the calm and allegedly rational way in which we can discuss possible world destruction as a result of our own action. It does not take much imagination to visualize that sudden destruction and the threat of slow death to a large part of the American population, or the Russian population, or large parts of the World, will create such a panic, fury, and despair as could only be compared with mass psychosis resulting from the Black Death in the Middle Ages. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

The traumatic effects of such a catastrophe would lead to a new form of primitive barbarism, to the resurgence of the most archaic elements, which are still potentialities in every man and of which we have had ample evidence in the terror systems of Mr. Hitler, Mr. Stalin, and Mr. Obama. It would sound most unlikely to many students of human nature and psychopathology that human beings could cherish freedom, respect for life or love after having witnessed and participated in the unlimited cruelty of man against man which thermonuclear war would mean. It is a psychological fact that acts of brutality have a brutalizing effect on the participants and lead to more brutality. However, it is believed that when the World reached a population of 5 billion that it was over populated. We are nearly 2.4 billion people past that number, and there are so who would actually like to see a large section of the human population disappear from the planet to reduce the risk of threat, reduce traffic and housing prices, and reduce the strain that people are putting on the World and give it time to heal. For perpetual victory, therefore, the believer must unceasingly be on guard against the Tempter and one’s agents, praying that all hidden temptations will be revealed as such. The degree to which one understands the workings of the ultimate negative will be determined by the degree of victory experienced, for in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

For the believer to have victory over every aspect of a tempter’s working, it especially requires discrimination between what I temptation from a seducer working upon the uncrucified “old man,” temptation through the things of the World. In temptation, the crucial point is for the tempted one to know whether the tempting is the work of an evil spirit of from the evil nature. This can be discerned only by the experiential knowledge of Romans 6 as the basis of one’s life. Temptation from the fallen nature should be delt with on the foundation of “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus” reports Romans 6.11., and practical obedience to the resulting command, “Let not sin reign in your mortal body.” In the hour of temptation to sin—to visible, known sin—the believer should take his stand on Romans 6.6 as his deliberate position of faith, and in obedience to Romans 6.11 declare his undeviating choice and attitude as “death to sin, in death-union with Christ.” If this choice is the expression of his real will, and the temptation to sin does not cease, he should then deal with the spirts of evil who may be seeking to awaken sinful desires (Jas. 1.14) or to counterfeit them. For they can counterfeit the dole nature in evil desire, evil thoughts, evil words, evil presentations—and many honest believers think they are battling with the workings of the old nature when these things are given by evil spirits. However, if the believer is not standing actively on Romans 5, the “counterfeits” are not necessary, for the old fallen creation is always open to be wrought upon the powers of darkness. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

The most normal and nonpathological form of violence is playful violence. We find it in those forms in which violence is exercised in the pursuit of displaying skill, not in the pursuit of destruction, not motivated by hate or destructiveness.  Examples of this playful violence can be found in many instances: from the war games of primitive tribes to the axe throwing of Victorian famers. In all such games of fighting it is not the aim to kill; even if the outcome is death of the opponent, it is, as it were, the opponent’s fault for having “stood in the wrong spot.” Naturally, if we speak of the absence of the wish to destroy in playful violence, this refers only to the ideal type of such games. In reality one would often find unconscious aggression and destructiveness hidden behind the explicit logic of the game. However, even this being so, the main motivation in this type of violence is the display of skill, not destructiveness. Of much greater practical significance than playing violence is reactive violence. By reactive violence I understand that violence which is employed in the defense of life, freedom, dignity, property—one’s own or that of others. It is rooted in fear, and for this very reason it is probably the most frequent form of violence; the fear can be real or imagined conscious or unconscious. This typed of violence is in the service of life, not of death; its aim is preservation, not destruction. It is not entirely the outcome of irrational passions, but to some extent of rational calculation; hence it also implies a certain proportionality between end and means. It has been argued that from a higher spiritual plane killing—even in defense—is never morally right. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

However, most of those who hold this conviction admit that violence in the defense of life is of a different nature than violence which aims at destructiveness for its own sake. Very often the feeling of being threatened and the resulting reactive violence are not based upon reality, but on the manipulation of man’s mind; political and religious leaders persuade their adherents that they are threatened by an enemy, and thus arouse the subjective response of reactive hostility. Hence the distinction between just and unjust wars, which is upheld by capitalist and Communist governments as well as by the Roman Catholic Church, is a most questionable one, since usually each side succeeds in presenting its position as a defense against attack. In 1939, Mr. Hitler had to organize a fake attack on a Silesian radio station by alleged Polish soldiers (who ere, in fact SS men), in order to give his population the sensation of being attacked, and hence to justify his wanton attack against Poland as a “just war.” There is hardly a case of an aggressive war which could not be couched in terms of defense. The question of who claimed defense rightly is usually decided by the victors, and sometimes only much later by more objective historians. The tendency of pretending that any war is a defensive one shows two things. First of all that the majority of people, at least in most civilized countries, cannot be made to kill and to die unless they are first convinced that they are doing so in order to defend their lives and freedom; second, it shows that it is not difficult to persuade millions of people that they are in danger of being attacked, and hence that they are called upon to defend themselves. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

Such persuasion depends most of all on a lack of independent thinking and feeling, and on the emotional dependence of the vast majority of the people on their political leaders. Provided there is this dependence, almost anything presented with force and persuasion will be accepted as real. The psychological results of the acceptance of a belief in an alleged threat are, of course, the same as those of a real threat. People feel threatened, and in order to defend themselves are willing to kill and to destroy. In the case of paranoid delusions of persecution we find the same mechanism, only not on a group basis, but on an individual one. In both instances, subjectively the person feels in danger and reacts aggressively. Beware, you philosophers and friends of knowledge, and guard against martyrdom! Against suffering “for the sake of truth”! Even against defending yourselves! It spoils all the innocence and subtle neutrality of your conscience, it makes you headstrong against objections and red rags, it dumbs you down, makes you brutish and bullish, if, when battling danger, defamation, suspicion, expulsion, and even meaner consequences of animosity, you wind up having to play the role of protectors of truth or Earth—as if “the truth” were some harmless and clumsy person in need of protectors! And you of all people, you Knights of the Most Sorrowful Countenance, my dear loiterers and cobweb spinners of the spirit: in the end, you know well enough that nothing hinges on whether you are proved right, indeed that no philosopher has ever been proved right, and that there might by a more worthy truthfulness in every little question mark you put behind your favourite words an beloved doctrines (sometimes even behind yourselves) than in all the solemn gestures and trump cards played before accusers and courts of law! #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

No, step aside. Ruin to the shadows. And have your masks and your finesse, that you may not be recognized! Or that you may be feared a little! And do not forget the garden, the garden with the golden trelliswork! And have people around you who are like a garden—or like music on the waters, in the evening, when the day has sunk into memory—Choose that good solitude, free, playful, lighthearted solitude, which might even give you the right to be good, in some sense! How poisonous, how cunning, how bad every protracted war that cannot be waged with open force makes us. How personal and protracted fear makes us, a protracted spying on one’s enemies, on potential enemies! These outcasts of society, those long hunted, wickedly persecuted—the forced recluses, the Spinozas or the Giordano Brunos—always in the end become, albeit in the most spiritual guise, and perhaps without knowing themselves, sophisticated revenge seekers and poisoners (let someone unearth the foundations of Spinoza’s ethics and theology!); not to mention the clumsiness of moral indignation, which is a sure sign that a philosopher has lost his philosophical sense of humour. The martyrdom of the philosopher, his “sacrifice to truth,” brings to light the agitator and the actor in him; and if one has hitherto regarded him with mere artistic curiosity, in the case of some philosopher it is not hard to understand the dangerous wish to see them, too, in the degeneration (degenerating into “martyrs,” crying out from their stages and rostrums). Except that with such a wish we must be clear about what we will get to see: just a satyr play, just an epilogue farce, just more proof that the actual long tragedy has come to an end—assuming that every philosophy arose as a long tragedy. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

Knowledge for its own sake—this is the final snare set by morality: one thereby gets completely tangled up in it all over again. The allure of knowledge would be meager, were it not that so much shame must be overcome along the way. The meaning of history seems more important to the mind than does the meaning of being. The metaphysical interpretation of the meaning of history has become an urgent and practical concern. The necessity of acting historically in the true sense, that is, of acting so as to change history, is one of the strongest motives for the development of a metaphysics of history…the recognition of the necessity of a metaphysical interpretation of history leads to the recognition of the necessity of metaphysics. The importance of history is attached to a clear sign that the symmetry of this theonomous union of religion and culture can be appreciated only by viewing it within the historical dimension. God as the ground of being lies at the depths of theonomy. The power of the New Being enables us to rejoin the ground from which existence serves us. And the Spiritual Community is the place where the transforming impact of the Spirit is felt. However, when is theonomous fulfilment realized? This is the question of a Christian interpretation of history, and, since history moves forward to its term, it is also the eschatological question. History is the movement of creative time toward fulfilment. History is also the realization of meaning through freedom. Although the concepts of history may be opaque, we discuss the various aspects of history—the historical dimension, man and history, historical time, the ambiguities of history—in hope in this way gradually to penetrate to a better understanding of it. It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Must you salt your truth so heavily that it no longer even—quenches thirst? #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

The Winchester Mystery House

The Winchester Mystery House sits on an area of ancient human settlement. In a field close to the old road is the remains of a neolithic chambered tomb that has become known as “the dungeon”; in an adjacent field were a number of scattered stones, and standing stones in the vicinity know, as “The Winchester Stonehenge.”  The road itself traveled over several prehistoric burials. The dungeon itself was erected at some date between 4300 BC and 3000 BC. However, The Winchester Mansion is also of more contemporary relevance. In The Oakland Tribune, 10 September 1890, there was a report concerning numerous sightings of a girl standing by the side of the road at eleven o’clock in the evening; she was at the gate of the mansion. She was hitch-hiking, even at this late hour. She was not in the least a faint or ghostly figure. However, then, unaccountably, on all occasion, she vanished. In The Oakland Tribune of 27 February 1899, there was another disappearance along the entrance of the mansion. Claus Holestein of Germany, for example, had several times seen two pedestrians walking along the front gate of the mansion; when the carriage came close to them, however, they disappeared. On one occasion he saw them walking around the mansion, when a sudden the two people rushed into the path of a carriage which passed straight through them.

Then in 1904, the local police were called to the scene on two occasions when motorists believed that they had knocked down a young woman on the road; on both occasions there was no evidence of any accident of victim. The first encounter was Wednesday 13 July 1904 when Mr. Groning past The Winchester Mansion, when suddenly a young girl appeared in front of his vehicle. He braked and swerved, but he was sure that he had hit her; he said that he heard the sound of the impact. He left his car and found a young girl lying in the road; she was bleeding. He described her as wearing a white blouse and white dress. He wrapped her in a tartan rug taken from the car, and carried her to Mrs. Winchester’s mansion. Unable to gain entrance to the front door, he left the girl and went looking for help. By the time he found one of the farmers, and they returned to the front door of the estate, there was no girl, and no signs of blood. Tracker dogs were introduced the following morning, but there was no scent. There were marks or indentations upon the car. After this event was widely publicized there were of course innumerable local reports of phantom hitch-hikers seen near The Winchester mansion, but none of them had been substantiated. There was, however, one interesting coincidence. An investigator, on searching through the back numbers of The Oakland Tribune, discovered that three young women were killed in a car accident in Santa Clara Valley late on the evening of 19 November 1905. One of these women was to have been married on the following day.

In the autumn of 1922 three separate motorist reported that they had knocked down a young woman who had run unexpectedly into the road. A driver was quoted saying that “she ran in front of the car. She stopped and looked at me. There was no expression on her face. Then I hit her, and it was as if the ground moved apart and sent went under the car. I thought I had killed her, because it was not as if she was see-through or anything. She was solid—as real as you are.” But of course, there was no one there.

For further information about tours, including group tours, weddings, school events, birthday party packages, facility rentals, and special events please visit the website: https://winchestermysteryhouse.com/

Please visit the online giftshop, and purchase a gift for friends and relatives as well as a special memento of The Winchester Mystery House. A variety of souvenirs and gifts are available to purchase.  https://shopwinchestermysteryhouse.com/

We’re thrilled and honored to announce that Winchester Mystery House has been chosen to be featured on the boardwalk space of the brand new San Jose edition of Monopoly! 🏰🌟

Get ready to roll the dice and explore the city of San Jose like never before 🎲