Security Will Not Wait!

If we want to solve the problems of poverty and child abuse, we have to do something about illegitimate babies born to teenage mothers and unwed mothers. Teenage and unwed mothers’ children tend to grow up in fatherless households with mothers who are not properly trained to deal with adult situations and are still developing their moral values and may not have full control over their offspring. The boys have a tendency to join gangs, deal drugs, steal cars, break into houses, get in trouble with the law and start their career as a criminal at an early age. They become so used to the cycle of crime and poverty that they never manage to escape it. The girls stand a good chance of becoming teenage mothers themselves, and spending eighteen years or more on government assistance. After their children are no longer a safety net to provide for their mothers, they are often put out on the street and/or forced into human trafficking, and the cycle of crime and poverty repeats itself. Many Americans believe that marital status and age-appropriate behaviour ensure the well-being of the family and the community. According to mainstream ideology, men who through hard work have moved up the career ladder and provide their families with decent food on the dinner table, clothes on their backs, and an occasional family vacation have achieved the American Dream. Women’s achievements are measured by their marriage and child rearing, done in proper order and at an appropriate age. Teenage girls are expected to replicate these values by refraining from pleasures of the flesh before adulthood and marriage. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

Teenage mothers tend to be housed in threatening, drug-infested environments, schooled in jail-like institutions, and obstructed from achieving the American Dream. In our ostensibly open society, teenage mothers are disqualified from full participation and are marked as deviant. Teenage girls aged fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen-many of them just beginning to show an adolescent interest in wearing makeup, dressing in the latest fashions, and reading teen magazines-are stigmatized. These teen mothers attempt to cope as best they can by redefining their situation in terms that involve the least damage to their self-respect. Are teenage mothers responsible for the socioeconomic problems besetting single, never married women? Do teenage mothers have different moral values than most Americans? Do they have babies in order to collect welfare, as politicians suggest? Do the families of teenage mothers condone their deviant behaviour, as the popular view contends? Or is teenage motherhood simply a response to the high inflation in America? Teenage girls confront a World in which gender norms, poverty, and gender discrimination are intertwined. The reality of these teenage mothers is that they have had to adopt strategies for survival that seem to them to make sense within their social environment but are as inadequate for them as they were for teenage mothers in the past. The study of teenage mothers illuminates the way structural contradictions act on psychological well-being and the way people construct and reconstruct their lives in order to cope on a daily basis. One issue that is overlooked is that these teenage mothers know what constitutes a successful life. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

Therefore, some of these teenage mothers may be trying to escape the family home, or they feel neglected and want to feel like they are loved. However, teenagers are incapable of knowing what romantic love is because they do not have enough life experience. Often times, many of these teenage girls feel like pleasures of the flesh is an indication of someone’s love for them. When early motherhood is added to the challenges of socioeconomic status, gender, race, and religion, these issues become unsurmountable. Frequently, adolescent mothers are deprived of every resource needed for any human being to function well in our society: education, jobs, food, medical care, a secure place to live, love and respect, the ability to securely connect with others. In addition, these girls are silenced by the insidious and insistent stereotyping of them as promiscuous and aberrant teenage girls. Another issues many see is why are taxpayers so willing to supply foreign aid to other countries, but so unwilling to give American youth the resources to overcome poverty, being a teenage parent, and staying out of jail. In 2022, the United States budgeted $38 billion for foreign aid spending. Although America has a moral and religious obligation to support other nations, the amount of money spent on foreign aid could be reduced and better used to fund a stipend to help teenagers escape abusive homes, provide better education to teenagers about love and pleasures of the flesh, and to fund public pensions and Social Security. . Furthermore, keep in mind, America never upheld its law, moral, ethical and religious promise and obligation of repaying the enslaved Africans for their mistreatment and deaths, and the World is still exploiting Africa for their minerals, people, and land. Africa is the richest nation in the World, but is home to the poorest people in the World. If the government wants to buy loyalty and forgiveness and make a gesture at healing the American people, a good way would be to help those who descended from slaves. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

The common-sense rue that states “Charity begins at home” applies to all Christians. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he had denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever,” reports 1 Timothy 5.8. Also, to bring manufacturing back to America and reinvest in the American economy, the government should off a supplement to the wages of people in farming and manufacturing, to lessen the burden on the corporation and help prevent Americans for turning to crime and government assistance. The believer should maintain neutrality to accusations until one is sure of their real source, and if the ground of 1 John 1.9 and refuse to be lashed by the ultimate negative—as it is not the judge of the ultimate concern’s children, or is the ultimate negative deputized as God’s messenger to make the charge of wrong. The Holy Spirit alone is commissioned by God to convict of sin. The steps in the working of evil spirits in their accusations and false charges are these, when the believer accepts their accusations: The believer think and believes one is guilty. Psychopathological offenders cause one to feel guilty. They cause one, then, to appear guilty. They cause one then to be actually guilty through believing their lies. It matters not whether one is guilty or not in the first instance. Malicious psychopathological offenders try to make a person feel guilty by their nagging accusations, so as to make one act or appear guilty before others—at the same moment flashing or suggesting to others the very things about which they are accusing one without cause. All such “feelings” should be investigated by the believer. Feeling wrong is not sufficient ground for one to say one is wrong. One should ask, “is the feeling right?” One may feel wrong and be right, or feel right and be wrong. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

Therefore one should investigate and examine the question honestly, “Am I wrong?” While our repentance ensures God’s forgiveness, we need more than repentance to forgive ourselves. We also need accurate assumptions about the purpose of life and the place of sin and failure. We need to make sense of our past, fix our relationships with other people, and understand how self-forgiveness feels. The Greek word historia furnishes us with a point of departure for determining the concept of history. It signifies first an inquiry or report, and only secondly the events reported. Thus the subject-object structure of history is revealed: the interpreting subject singles out certain facts and imparts significance to them. A subjective mentality or view precedes events, not temporally, but in the sense that it determines which facts shall be remembered and the meaning they shall bear. This is historical consciousness. It is the awareness of the needs and desires of a social group, an awareness which molds the raw material of factual occurrences into an historical account. Through the semantic investigation of the word “history” indicates there is no history without factual occurrences, and there is no history without the reception and interpretation of factual occurrences by historical consciousness. Historical events move in a horizontal direction, that is, they are motivated by a purpose. Moreover, humans exercise freedom in the selection and execution of one’s purposes. Although freedom stands in polarity with destiny, the historical situation never so completely dominates humans as to smother one’s freedom. Consequently, in human history one witnesses the production of new and unique embodiments of meaning. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The forces of nature produce the new division, by reproduction, and especially by evolution, but in human history the new is of a qualitatively different nature—it is newness of meaning or value. Finally, if it is not to be a mere freak, a curiosity, the novelty of an historical event must be weighted with significance. To be significant means to represent something, to point beyond oneself. Historical events achieve significance by pointing to the actualization of essential human potentialities, and thus they represent moments in the development toward the fulfilment of history. A historical personality is historical because it represents larger events, which themselves represent the human situation, which itself represents the meaning of being as such. This analysis of historical events yields the four characteristics of human history: purpose, freedom, newness, and significance. In the realm of nature these qualities are only analogously verified: The analogy appears in the spontaneity in nature, in the new produced by the progress in biological evolution, in the uniqueness of cosmic constellations. However, freedom is lacking in nature, and the meaning is that there is perceived only by man. Outside the human realm, history is anticipated, but not actualized. Humans, then, are the bearer of history, the reality in which history occurs. Since humans actualized themselves only in a community according to the polarity of individualization and participation, the direct bearers of history are groups rather than individuals, who are only indirect bearers. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

A history-bearing group acts in a centered way; it must possess the power to maintain internal unity and to secure itself from external danger. This role has been fulfilled in the past by families, clans, tribes, cities, nations, and in present times by the modern state. Since history flows in a horizonal direction, a history-bearing group must have an aim or purpose called “vocational consciousness.” The vocational consciousness of Greece was expressed in the distinction between Greeks and barbarians, that of Rom was based on the superiority of the Roman law, that of medieval Germany on the symbol of the Holy Roman Empire of German nationality, that of Italy on the “rebirth” of civilization in the Renaissance, that of Spain on the idea of the Catholic unity of the World, that of France on its leadership in intellectual culture, that of England on the task of subjecting all peoples to be a Christian humanism, that of Russia on the salvation of the West through the traditions of the Greek church or through the Marxist prophecy, that of the United States of America on the belief in a new beginning in which the curses of the Old World are overcome and the democratic missionary task fulfilled. These widely differing examples show that any area of life—social, religious, economic, intellectual—may constitute the content of history, but, since it is the political realm which insures the basic cohesion and centeredness of the group, we assign a predominant importance to it. This is one of the reasons why the Christian biblical symbol for the fulfilment of history is political: the Kingdom of God. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Is humankind, rather than particular groups, the bearer of history? We answer negative because de facto a politically united humankind does not exist, and de jure it never exist, since the aim of history does not lie within history. By this is meant that the dynamics of human freedom can never come to rest within history, or else freedom itself, and hence humans, would be destroyed; and if they are active, then a politically united humankind is unthinkable. However, there is the possibility of a supra-national center of power. World War II was part of the upheaval leading to the emergence of a truly unified World. The technical conquest of space has produced a unity which makes a history of humankind as a whole possible and has started to make it real. We are stirring toward a united humankind. For a long time to come, particular groups will be bearers of history, not humankind as a whole. And even a united humankind will act according to the pressure and leadership of particular groups. Although history is borne by particular communities, these groups cannot be personified. They are not entities alongside or above the individuals of whom they are constituted, and consequently, it is not “the community” that wills and acts, but individuals who act in and through a community. Yet in avoiding the danger of personifying the group, the mistake should not be made of elevating the individual to a history-bearing role. Certain individuals have special historical significance—for example, Mr. Caesar or Mr. Napoleon—but they are significant only because they symbolically represent their community. The fact remains that the individual is a bearer of history only in relation to a history-bearing group. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

What are the various answers given to the question of how to solve the present-day World conflict without resorting to nuclear war? The first and still the most popular answer in the United States of America runs like this: the Communist camp is motivated by the wish for World domination, hence there can be no real end to the cold war. However, if the United States of America has such a retaliatory capacity (“second strike” capacity) that it would deter China and Russia, the Middle East and Mexico from attacking us. The fact that the United States of America has not been attacked (directly) since 9/11 is due either to the possibility that no other nation wants to attack the USA (even if our deterrent force was much smaller or perhaps even zero) or to the strength of our deterrent force, presumably in particular to our nuclear capability. We can forget about the first possibility; we would have been attacked had we been much weaker. Hence our freedom, as well as peace, depends on sufficient nuclear armament, plus military alliances so that the Russian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, and Mexican leaders will be deterred from attacking us. With no advantage to be gained by striking first and no disadvantage to be suffered by striking second, there will be no motive for either surprise of preemptive attack. Mutual invulnerability means mutual deterrence. It is the most stable position from the point of view of presenting all our war. What do our experts think we should do in the event of an attack against positions outside the United States of America but to whose defense we are committed? #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

Most strategists, especially those of the Army and Navy, believe we should be prepared to meet political and military challenges with a limited war capability, back up by a “finite” nuclear deterrent to keep the situation from “escalating” into a total war. Such strategists reject the notion of “massive retaliation” for limited enemy actions as leading to total and mutual destruction, just as they consider the aim of our nuclear force is to prevent its ever being used. Among these is a program that requires provision for the following principal elements: An invulnerable, long-range missile force with a second-strike capability, id est, the ability to inflict crippling damage on an enemy even after absorbing a surprise nuclear attack. Adequate and properly equipped mobile forces to cope with limited war, id est, conflicts short of general atomic war between the two nuclear power blocs. An effective system of alliances. Procedures for assuring the most effective use of the resources committed to the program. If called upon to justify the need for these elements, the planners could advance the following reasons and explanations: The purpose of preparations for general atomic war is to assure that no such war will ever be fought. In all probability this purpose can be achieved provided there is an appropriate balance of destructive capability between the two power blocs which will make the deliberate choice of general atomic war unthinkable to either. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

Among the adherents of “security by deterrent” one can distinguish two positions. One, which seems to be accepted by the present administration, holds that if both sides have an efficient and stabilized deterrent, nuclear war is practically impossible. This position is based on the assumption that the destruction brought about by thermonuclear war would be so devastating that no government acting in good faith of humankind and the Earth would ever try to use these weapons if it expects its opponent to be strong enough to retaliate after an attack. Some people feel that disbarment is nothing but a trick from A to Z. The second position does not hold this optimistic belief in the “impossibility of war” and in the guaranteed success of deterrence. However, its adherents fall into two sharply disparate groups. On the one hand, those who urge complete disarmament because they do not believe that the deterrent will prevent war; on the other hand, those who hold that it is possible to win a thermonuclear war. These latter experts argue that such a war need not be as utterly dreadful as many people fear; that its horror can be diminished to a very “bearable” minimum provided we spend enough money on the proper measures, an efficient shelter system, and ever more efficient thermonuclear weapons. Herman Kahn has two reasons for believing that it is foolish to think that the deterrent makes war impossible. It is possible that if the proper precautions have been made, it would be possible for our enemies to cope with all the effects of a thermonuclear war, in the sense of saving most people and restoring something close to the prewar standard of living in a relatively short time. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

However, there is no reason to believe this will be true unless both nations investigate the problem more thoroughly than has been done so far, and then take the necessary preparations. Deterrence does not provide the security that has been claimed for it by every authority from the Pentagon to the leading magazines and newspapers. Going to war might be better than its alternatives, assuming, of course, that would could win. Even if the government of both sides do not want a war the outbreak of war is still possible. Accidental War. The possibilities for accidental war include false alarms reacted to by attack, unauthorized behaviour, and true mechanical or human error, the chances of which become greater as the number of weapons increase. Further, it is always possible for one side to misread another’s defensive or alerting reactions to false alarms as the beginning of an attack, and in “self-defense” to attack first. As far as the danger of accidental war is concerned, it must be added that there exist a considerable number of potentially paranoid persons among the “normal” part of the population in whom the tension of prolonged expectation of an attack may lead to the outbreak of manifest paranoia carrying the conviction that one—whoever the person is who could give the alarm or push the button—must save the country by starting an attack. This danger lies particularly in the fact that even the full-fledged paranoiac can be perfectly reasonable in one’s thinking outside of one’s delusion, and hence one—and even more so the potential paranoiac—is not easy to discovery. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

The Rationality of Irrationality. To explain what he means by this, Mr. Khan quotes a graphic example given by this sport called “Chicken.” It is played by choosing a long straight road with a white line down the middle and starting two very fast cars towards each other from opposite ends. Each car is expected to keep the wheels of one side on the white line. As they approach each other mutual destruction becomes more and more imminent. If one of them swerves from the white line before the other, the other, as one passes, shouts “Chicken!” and the one who has answered becomes and object of contempt. If one side really wishes to win this game, it is clear that its best (rational) strategy is to commit itself irrevocably to going ahead. If one can convince the other side that one has done this, then the other side mut back down. However, if the other side still refuses to back down after the irrevocable commitment has been made, it would be irrational to carry out the rationally made commitment. Since both sides will be attempting to use this strategy, it is also quite clear that the game may end in disaster. The rationality of irrationality war should be distinguished from the situation in which both sides have incompatible objectives which they are determined to achieve, no matter what the risks: in this case war must result. The rationality of irrationality of war corresponds to a situation in which neither side really believes the issue is big enough to go to war over, but both sides are willing to use some partial or total strategy of commitment to force the other side to back down. If either side had realized ahead of time that the other side would not back down, as a result, even under pressure, they may end up in a war they would not have gone into. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

Violence can be a form of archaic “blood thirst.” This is not the violence of the cripple; it is the blood thirst of the human who is still completely enveloped in one’s tie to nature. One has a passion for killing as a way to transcend life, inasmuch as one is afraid of moving forward and of being fully huma. In the human who seeks an answer to life by regressing to the pre-individual state of existence, by becoming like an animal and thus being freed from the burden of reason, blood becomes the essence of life; to shed blood is to feel alive, to be strong, to be unique, to be above all others. Killing become the great intoxication, the great self-affirmation on the most archaic level. Conversely, to be killed is the only logical alternative to killing. This is the balance of life in the archaic sense: to kill as many as one can, and when one’s life is thus satiated with blood, one is ready to be killed. Killing in this sense is not essentially love of death. It is affirmation and transcendence of life on the level of deepest regression. We can observe this thirst for blood in individuals; sometimes in their fantasies or dreams, sometimes in severe mental sickness or in murder. We can observe it in a minority in times of war—international or civil—when the normal social inhibitions have been removed. We observe it in archaic society, in which killing (or being killed) is the polarity which governs life. We can observe this in phenomena like the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, in the blood revenge practiced in places like Montenegro or Corsica in the role of blood as a sacrifice to God in the Old Testament. One of the most lucid descriptions of this joy of killing is to be found in G. Flaubert’s short story The Legend of St. Julian the Hospitaler. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Mr. Flaubert describes a man about whom it is prophesied at birth that he will become a great conqueror and a great saint; he grew up as a normal child until one day he discovered the excitement of killing. At the church services he had observed several times a little mouse scurrying from a hole in the wall; it angered him; he was determined to rid himself of it. “So, having closed the door and having sprinkled some cake crumbs on the altar steps, he posted himself in front of the hole, with a stick in his hand. After a very long time a small pink nose appeared, then the whole mouse. He struck a slight blow, and stood aghast over this tiny body which no longer moved. A drop of blood stained the flagstone. He wiped it away quickly with his sleeve, threw the mouse outside and said nothing to anyone.” Later, when strangling a bird, “the bird’s writhing made his heart thump, filling him with a savage, tumultuous delight.” Having experienced the exaltation of shedding blood, he became obsessed with killing animals. No animal was too strong or too swift to escape being killed by him. Shedding blood became the utmost affirmation of himself as the one way to transcend all life. For years his only passion and only excitement was killing animals. He returned at night “covered with blood and mud, and reeking with the odor of wild beast. He became like them.” He almost attained the aim of being transformed into an animal, yet being human he could not attain it. A voice told him that he would eventually kill his father and mother. Frightened he fled his castle, stopped killing animals, and instead became a feared and famous leader of troops. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

As a reward for one of his greatest victories he was given the hand of an extraordinarily beautiful and loving woman. He stopped being a warrior, settles down with her to what could be a life of bliss—yet he is bored and depressed. One day he began hunting again, but a strange force made his shots impotent. “Then all the animals that he had hunted reappeared and formed a tight circle around him. Some sat on their haunches, others stood erect. Julian, in their midst, was frozen with terror, incapable of the slightest movement.” He decided to return to his wife and to his castle; in the meantime his old parents had arrived there and had been given by his wife her own bed; mistaking them for his wife and a lover, he slew them both. When he has attained the depth of regression, the great turn came. He became, indeed, a saint, devoting his life to the poor and the sick, and eventually embracing a leper to give him warmth, “Julian ascended toward the blue expanses, face to face with our Lord Jesus, who bore him to Heaven.” Mr. Flaubert describes in this story the essence of blood thirst. It is the intoxication with life in its most archaic form; hence a person, after having reached this most archaic level of relatedness to life, can return to the highest level of development, to that of the affirmation of life by his humanity. It is important to see that this thirst of killing is not the same as the love of death. Blood is experienced as the essence of life; to shed the blood of another is to fertilize mother Earth with what see needs to be fertile. (Compare the Aztec belief in the necessity to shed blood as a condition for the continued function of the cosmos, or the story of Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel.) Even if one’s own blood is shed, one fertilizes the Earth, and becomes one with her. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

It seems that at this level of regression blood is the equivalent of semen; Earth is the equivalent of mother-woman. Semen-egg are the expression of the male-female polarity, a polarity which becomes central only when man has begun to emerge fully from Earth, to the point that woman becomes the object of his desire and love. When the Christian biblical story tells us that God made Eve to be a “helpmate” to Adm this new function is indicated. The shedding of blood ends in death; the shedding of semen in birth. However, the goal of the first is, like that of the second, the affirmation of life, even though hardly above the level of animal existence. If one becomes fully born, if one casts away one’s tie to Earth, and if one overcomes one’s narcissism, the killer can become the lover. Yet, if one is unable to do this, it cannot be denied one’ narcissism and one’s archaic fixation will entrap one in a way of life which is so close to the way of death that the difference between bloodthirsty man and the lower of death may become hard to distinguish. The main reason which could impel Russia, China, the United States of America, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Vietnam or the Middle East to atomic war is the constant fear of being attacked and pulverized by the opponent. Aside from the ideological differences and the problem of security itself, there does not seem to be between many nations that justifies the risks and costs that we subject other to. The biggest thing most nations have to fear is themselves. If, indeed, the main cause of war lies in mutual fear, then the disarmament of any developed nation would most likely do away with this major cause and, thus, with the probability of war. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

Other motives other than fear which could prompt a nation to try for World conquest. One such motive could be economic interest in expansion, which was a basic motivation for the initiation of war in the nineteenth century and also for the first two World wars. Exactly here we see the difference between the nature of the conflicts in 1914 or 1939 and the present situation. In World War I, Germany threatened British markets and the French sources of coal and iron; in 1939, Mr. Hitler needed territorial conquest for the economic expansion he wanted. Today, many major nations have an overriding economic interest in the conquest of markets and supplies, and a 3 or 5 percent rise in the level of national productivity would bring a greater advantage than would any military conquest, and, moreover, each has the capital, raw material, supplies, and population for a constant increase in its general productivity. How we, too, are still pious. In science, convictions have no right of citizenship, so it is said and with good reason: only when they decide to descend to the modesty of a hypothesis, a provisional experimental standpoint, a regulative fiction, may be granted admission and even a certain value in the realm of knowledge—though always with the restriction of remaining under police surveillance, under police suspicion. However, considered more precisely, does this not mean: only when a conviction ceases to be a conviction may it gain admission to science? Would not the cultivation of the scientific spirit begin with no longer allowing oneself to have any convictions? Probably so; only it remains to ask whether for this cultivation even to begin, there must already be some conviction, indeed one so commanding and unconditional as to sacrifice all other convictions to itself. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

We see that even science rests on faith; there is no such thing as “presuppositionless” science. The question whether truth is necessary must not only already have been answered affirmatively but must be affirmed to such a degree that the principle, the faith, the conviction is expressed: “There is nothing more necessary than truth, and compared to it everything else has only secondary value.” This unconditional will to truth: what is it? Is it the will not to let oneself de deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? For the will truth could be interpreted in this second way, too—provided that one also subsumes under the generalization “I want not to deceive” the special case “I want not to deceive myself.” However, why not deceive? And why not let oneself be deceived?—Note that the reasons for the former lie in an entirely different realm from those for the latter: one wants not to let oneself be deceived, on the assumption that it is harmful, dangerous, disastrous to be deceived—in this sense, science would amount to a far-sighted intelligence, a cautiousness, a utility, to which one could, however, fairly object: But why? Is not wanting to let oneself be deceived really less harmful, less dangerous, less disastrous? What do you know in advance of the character of existence to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditionally distrustful or the unconditionally trusting? However, if both should be necessary, great trust and great distrust, then whence does science derive its unconditional faith, the conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than anything else, including every other conviction? #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

If truth and untruth had both constantly shown themselves to be useful—which is the case, even this conviction that trust is the most important aspect of life could not have arisen. Hence, faith in science, which after all undeniably exists, cannot have had its origin in such a utility calculus but rather in spite of the fact that the uselessness and dangerousness of the “will to truth,” of “truth at all costs”: oh, we understand that well enough, once we have offered up and slaughtered one faith after another on this altar! Consequently, “with to truth” does not mean “I want not to let myself be deceived” but—there is no alternative—“I want not to deceive, not even myself”: and with that we stand on moral ground. For you need only to ask yourself, really ask, “Why do you not want to deceive?” especially if it should seem—as it does seem!—that life aims at semblance, I mean error, cheating, dissembling, delusion, self-delusion, and when in fact the grand pageant of life has always shown itself to be on the side of the most carefree. Such a resolution, charitable interpreted, might be a mere quixotism, a minor mad folly; but it could also be something worse, namely, a destructive principle hostile to life. “Will to truth”—that could be a concealed will to death. Thus, the question “Why science?” leads back to the moral problem: wherefore morality at all, if life, nature, history are “amoral”? Man didst the ultimate concern created in Thine own image, giving him dominion over all Thy works. Sovereign of all creation, Lord most high, Thy power is manifest in the destiny of nations and humans. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Be sure to open your hearts and donate to the Sacramento Fire Department this season, they risk life and limb to save our community and are not receiving all of their resources. Help them to break ever shackle asunder, hastening the day when the strong shall be just, and the weak shall no longer know fear. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20