In the past the system has come first; in the future, America must be first. America is great and genius; she has commodious harbors and ample rivers, fertile fields and boundless forest. America has rich mines and vast World commerce, along with the best public school system and institutions of learning in the World. The genius of the American system lies in her matchless Constitution and righteousness. The secret of her power is that American is great because good. Other nations are shameless and godless, their habits are corrupt and abominable; among them, as is repeatedly said, there is none the does good, non that understands any more what is desired of human beings, how they should rule and be ruled, they are all gone aside from their original humanity as willed in the creation, they are altogether decaying, like tainted food. However, if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great. In spite of everything there is a pitiable self-righteousness in understanding the great picture of America, the Heavens are looking down upon us and spying out every single person with a patriotic heart who enquires after the American Dream, and shining down upon these people are such brilliant beams of prosperity. However, evil doers are eating up our people; therefore they must be outside this people. That is so; but our people are righteous and some oppressed. We no longer count as part of the people of the shameless, those gone aside, who oppress the righteous. Thus we are acting in guidelines with the holy remnant which is the true people, and are here concentrated in the consideration of the present. However, the view of others too, those who are “decayed,” is prophetic and have fallen into corruption. Make sure you remain in the proven generations of the real people. God’s people, and the others are just the others; but they are so many that they seem to be “all.”

The falling away of the corrupt means the immorality is falling asunder. What appears outwardly to be a unified nation is in truth torn in two—but of the two parts only one is still truly to be called America, a living organism; the other is nothing but decomposed tissue, the rotting substance of people. There are the oppressors and there are the oppressed, the arrogant and the humble. Those say in their heart, “There is no God.” They do not say it aloud, it does not rise from the heart to the lips with their lips they confess Him. Even in their heart thy do not mean, by what they say, to contest the existence of God. Why should there not be a God—so long as He does not bother Himself with what humans are doing on Earth! However, the truth is that God watches what His creatures are making of themselves. He sees how humans “eat up” humans; this is not a food-like the animal sacrifice which is called the bread of God—over which is called the name of God. Those who have fallen away from the great Kingdom and blessed nations rush again to their prey, but suddenly they are filled with terror: there, in the midst of those who they thought were abandoned to an arbitrary fate, the Presence of God appears, even that God and His great kingdom America, who they thought was far from men and their doings, but who is in truth the refuge of the oppressed. And His words thunders upon them. We must unite in a messianic promise. America’s liberation and salvation can only come from the Heavens. The Heavens of righteousness fulfilled in the land of America is what must be meant. For the “remnant,” which has now truly become the people of God, the great turning-point draws near.

No one can be satisfied with the division of America, just as one cannot be satisfied with the division of the human Word. We see the rift between those who do violence and those to whom violence is done, the rift between those who are true to God, running not merely through every nation, but also through every group in a nation, and even through every soul is part of the fabric of our royal heritage. Only in times of great crisis does the hidden rift in a people become apparent. There is now an entirely new language of good and evil, originating in an attempt to get “beyond good and evil” and preventing us from talking with any conviction about good and evil anymore. Even those who deplore our current moral condition do so in the very language that exemplifies that condition. The new language is that of value relativism, and it constitutes a change in our view of things moral and political as great as the one that took place when Christianity replaced Greek and Romans paganism. A new language always reflects a new point of view, and the gradual, unconscious popularization of new words, or of old words used in new ways, is a sure sign of a profound change in people’s articulation of the World. When bishops, a generation after Hobbes’s death, almost naturally spoke the language of the state of nature, contract and rights, it was clear that he had defeated the ecclesiastical authorities, who were no longer able to understand themselves as they once had. It was henceforward inevitable that the modern archbishops of Canterbury would have no more in common with the ancient ones than does the second Elizabeth with the fist. What is offensive to contemporary ears in the use of the word “evil” is its cultural arrogance, the presumption that one, and America, knows what is good; it closes the dignity of other ways of life; its implicit contempt for those who do not share our ways.

The political corollary is that one is not open to negation. The opposition between good and evil is not negotiable and is a cause of war. Those who are interested in “conflict resolution” find it much easier to reduce the tension between values than the tension between good and evil. Values are insubstantial stuff, existing primarily in the imagination, while death is real. The term “value,” meaning the radical subjectivity of all belief about good and evil, serves the easygoing quest for comfortable self-preservation. Value relativism can be taken to be a great release from the perpetual tyranny of good and evil, with their cargo of shame and guilt, and the endless efforts that the pursuit of the one and the avoidance of the other enjoin. Intractable good and evil cause infinite distress—like war and repression of pleasures of the flesh—which is almost instantly relieved when more flexible values are introduced. One need not feel bad about or uncomfortable with oneself when just a little value adjustment is necessary. And this longing to shuck off constraints and have one peaceful, happy World is the first of the affinities between our real American World and that of decaying flesh. However, there is a second side of the coin. Persons deeply committed to values are admired. Their intense belief, their caring or concern, their believing in something, is the proof of autonomy, freedom and creativity. Such persons are the contrary of easygoing, and they have standards, all the more worthy because they are not received from tradition, and are not based on a reality all can see, or derived from thin rationalizing confined to calculate themselves to ideals of their own making. They are the antibourgeois.

Value here serves those who are looking for fresh inspiration, for beliefs about good and evil at least as powerful as the old ones that have been disenchanted, demystified, demythologized by scientific reason. This interpretation seems to say that dying for values is the noblest of acts and that the old realism or objectivism led to weak attachments to one’s goals. Nature is indifferent to good and evil; man’s interpretations prescribe a law of life to nature. Thus our use of the value language leads us in two opposite directions—to follow the line of least resistance, and to adopt strong poses and fanatic resolutions. However, these are merely different deductions from a common premise. Values are not discovered by reason, and it is fruitless to seek them, to find the truth or the good life. The quest begun by Odysseus and continued over three millennia had come to an end with the observation that there is nothing to seek. This alleged fact was announced by Nietzsche just over a century ago when he said, “God is dead.” Good and evil now for the first time appeared as values, of which there have been a thousand and one, none rationally or objectively preferable to any other. The salutary illusion about the existence of good and evil has been definitively dispelled. For Nietzsche this was an unparalleled catastrophe; it meant the decomposition of culture and the loss of human catastrophe; it meant that decomposition of culture and the loss of human aspiration. The Socratic “examined” life was no longer possible or desirable. It was itself unexamined, and if there was any possibility of human life in the future it must begin from the naïve capacity to life an unexamined life. The philosophic way of life had become simply poisonous. In short, Nietzsche with the utmost gravity told modern humans that he was freefalling in the abyss of nihilism. Perhaps after having lived through this terrible experience, drunk it to the dregs, people might hope for a fresh era of value creation, the emergence of new gods.

One of these new gods is the television, and the other is the Internet. It has become clear that watching television is an experience that an amazing number of people are eager to describe. It is like a machine that invades the mind, controls and deadens the people who view it. It is not unlike the alien operated “influencing machine” of the psychopathic fantasy. At one point I heard my son Leo say: “I don’t want to watch television as much as I do but I can’t help it. It makes me watch. TV is colonizing my brain.” However, there are some favorable reports, it can make lonely people feel like they are in the company of friends and family, and they can live vicariously through the TV. Not everyone becomes sucked into the programing and experiences severe acute television intoxication. You know, one reason spiritualism and séances, which were so popular during the Victorian ages may be dying out, is because we have what the Victorians were trying to channel. Victorian people did not have televisions, and some did not have neighbours for miles and miles and days away, so they had to use their imagination and try to tap into the supernatural to understand life and how other felt, how they reacted, how they live—they need a chance to have conversations with people about life experiences. Now, people have television that does that for them. There may be some who believe the TV is talking to them, there may be others who watch TV to make sure their behavior is considered rational. Nonetheless, not all TV is bad, it will teach one how to read into situations and discover what others may have actually been saying to you. In Victorian times and this day, not everyone had or has access to friends and therapists and many people on the television are playing out situations that actually do occur in peoples lives.

You may learn by watching TV, for example, when you expressed a grievance to someone about what another person did to your car, and she seem to blow it off did not mean she did not believe, but that she was simply trying to keep peace between you and the other party. It does not mean that she favors that other person. She may in fact agree with you, but does not want you to know what this individual did because it would cause a rift. You have to learn to read people and trust your instincts. In contrast, TV also helps people “space out” and the like that experience. It may help some forget about their otherwise busy lives. Many people believe that the TV has “meditative” qualities; others find it “relaxing,” saying that it helps them “forget about the World.” Some who used terms like feeling “brainwashed” or “addicted” nonetheless feel that television provides them with good information or entertainment, although there is no one who felt television lived up to its “potential.” In all the time we collected responses about the television, only eight people suggested they watched too little. Ideally, it is a good idea to keep television watching down to two or three hours a month. Even if the programs you are watching are interesting, it feels “antilife,” as though one has been drained in some way, or one has been used. If you spend all this time watching television on purpose, to understand life better, you will have all the answers, but realize you do not have much more life to live. Do not let your whole physical being go dormant, do not become the victim of a vague soft assault.

Often times, the longer one watches television, the worse one will feel. Afterwards, several people notice there is nearly always a desire to go outdoors, or go to sleep, to recover one’s strength and one’s feelings. Another thing. After watching television, one will always be aware of a kind of glowing inside one’s head: the images! They will remain in there even after the set is off, like an aftertaste. Again one’s will, one will find oneself returning to one’s awareness hours later. Gather descriptions of the experience other people have watching television. That may be a good topic of conversation. We have found that people frequently describe concrete physical symptoms that neither they nor anyone else actually believed are real. The people who tell us that television is controlling their minds would then laugh about it. Or they would say they were addicted to it, or feel like vegetables while watching, and then they laugh at that. People were saying they were being hypnotized, controlled, drugged, deadened, but they would not assign validity to their own experience. (However, these are the same reason many people do not like working. I guess making money is not enough of a reward when one has to exert physical energy.) Yet if there is any truth in these descriptions, we are dealing with a force that is far more powerful and subtle than Huxley’s hypnopeadic machines. If television “hypnotizes,” “brainwashes,” “controls minds,” “makes people stupid,” “turns everyone into zombies,” then you would think it would be an appropriate area of scientific inquiry. In fact, someone should call the police. Science has a name for such collections of descriptions. They are called “anecdotal evidence” or “experiential reports.” Such reports are not totally ignored by researchers, although they are not exactly taken seriously either.

In the case of television, there is the problem that the symptoms are not fatal, they are subtle. Few people go to doctors complaining about them. They therefore remain below the threshold of visibility for the scientific inquiry. Even when such reports are noticed, science does not accept them as valid unless they have been put through the grinder of scientific proof. Since it is beyond science to validate exactly what is meant by “zombie” or “brainwash” or even “addiction” or, as we will see, even “hypnosis,” these symptoms inevitably remain unproved, leaving people who need external validation at a loss. One major result of modern science has been to make people doubt what they would otherwise accept as true from their own observation and experience. Science, medicine, psychology and economics all deeply depend on people being mystified by their own experience and blind to the strict limits of scientific method. In this country, where intervention between humans and their inner selves is so very advanced, the mystification is virtually total. If the National Institutes of Health funded a $5 million study over a three-year period which gathered together all the “experts” to determine the effects of television on the body and mind, and then reported its findings to the president of the United States of America, who, frightened by the results, then appointed a commission of scholars and other experts to do it over again, one of whom smuggled a copy of the original “findings” to The Oakland Tribune, which then carried it on page one: SUPPRESSED STUDY SUGGESTS TELEVISION IS ADDICTIVE, HYPNOTIC, STOPS THOUGHT: SIMILAR TO BRAINWASHING: OTHER PHYSICAL EFFECT NOTED, then people would day, “You know, I always thought that might be true.”

In my opinion, if people are watching television for four hours every day and they say they cannot stop it, and also say that it seems to be programming them in some way, and they are seeing their kids go dead, then really, I deeply feel there is no need to study television. This evidence is what lawyers call “prima facie” proof. The only question is how to deal with it. I am satisfied that most people are already perfectly aware of what television is doing to them, but they remain tranquilized by the general wisdom that: the programming is the problem, and it is useless to attempt to change it anyway. Television is here to stay. More than a century after the invention of the steam engine, the Industrial Revolution had at last found its philosophy and its philosopher. Frederick Winslow Taylor’s tight industrial choreography—his “system,” as he liked to call it—was embraced by manufacturers throughout the country and, in time, around the World. Seeking maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output, factory owners used time-and-motion studies to organize their work and configure the jobs of their workers. The goal, as Mr. Taylor defined it in his celebrated 1911 treatise The Principles of Scientific Management, was to identify and adopt, for every job, the “one best method” of work and thereby to the effect “the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts.” Once his system was applied to all acts of manual labor, Mr. Taylor assured his many followers, it would bring about a restructuring not only of industry but of society, creating a utopia of perfect efficiency. “In the past the man has been first,” he declared; “in the future system must be first.” Mr. Taylor’s system of measurement and optimization is still very much with us; it remains one of the underpinnings of industrial manufacturing. And now, thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual and social lives, Mr. Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well.

The Internet is a machine designed for the efficient, automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information, and its legions of programmers are intent on finding the “one best way”—the perfect algorithm—to carry out the mental movements of what we have come to describe as knowledge work. Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters—the Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church, and the religion practiced inside its walls is Taylorism. Google’s CEO is Sundar Pichai. The company was founded around the science of measurement. It is striving to systematize everything it does. Google tries to be data-driven, and quantify everything. This corporation lives in a World of numbers. Drawing on the terabytes of behavioral data Google collects through it search engine and other sites, the company carried out thousands of experiments a day and uses the results to refine the algorithms that increasingly guide how all of us find information and extract meaning from it. What Mr. Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind. The company’s reliance on testing is legendary. Although the design of its Web pages may appear simple, even austere, each element has been subjected to exhaustive statistical and psychological research. Using a technique called “split A/B testing,” Google continually introduces tiny permutations in the way its sites look and operate, shows different permutations to the sets of users, and then compares how the variations influence the users’ behaviour—how long they stay on a page, the way they move their cursor about the screen, what they click on, what they do not click on, where they go next. In addition to the automated online test, Google recruits volunteers for eye-tracking and other psychological studies at its in-house “usability lab.”

Because Web Surfers evaluate the contents of pages so quickly that they make most of their decisions unconsciously, monitoring their eye movements is the next best thing to actually being able to read their minds. Google relies on cognitive psychology research to further its goals of making people use their computers more efficiently. Subjective judgments, including aesthetic ones, do not enter into Google’s calculations. On the web, design has become much more of a science than an art. Because you can iterate so quickly, because you can measure so precisely, you can actually find small differences and mathematically learn which one is right. In one famous trial, the company tested forty-one different shades of blue on its toolbar to see which shade drew the most clicks from visitors. It carries out similarly rigorous experiments on the texts it puts on its pages. You have to try to make words less human and more a piece of the machinery. Furthermore, Taylorism is founded on six assumptions: if not the only, the primary goals of human labor and thought is efficiency; that technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment; that in fact human judgment cannot be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity; that subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking; that what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value; and that the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts. What is remarkable is how well this encapsulates Google’s intellectual ethic. Only one tweak is required to bring it up to date. Google does not believe that the affairs of citizens are best guided by experts. It believes that those affairs are best guided by software algorithms–which is exactly what Mr. Taylor would have believed had powerful digital computers been around in his day.

Google also resembles Mr. Taylor in the sense of righteousness it brings to work. It has a deep, even messianic faith in its cause. Google is more than a mere business; it is a moral force. The company’s much-publicized mission is to organize the World’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. Fulfilling that mission will take approximately 300 years. (I know many of us may have not even looked that far into the future yet. We are just praying the World will last a few more lifetimes at this point.) The company’s more immediate goal is to create the perfect search engine, which is something that understands exactly what you mean and give you back exactly what you want. In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can, and should, be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can access and the faster we can distill their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers. Anything that stands in the way of the speedy collection, dissection, and transmission of data is a threat not only to Google’s business but to the new utopia of cognitive efficiency it aims to construct on the Internet. As outsiders, we and many others for decades have repeatedly hectored economists about their failure to adequately credit the crucial role prosuming plays in generating wealth. In doing so, we followed in the pioneering footsteps of Gary Becker and Amartya Sen. From within the economics profession, they made very early, intellectually powerful efforts to persuade their colleagues of the importance of this hidden economy—only to face decades of polite humming before being belatedly aware their Nobel Prizes.

Among activists, too, Hazel Henderson, in Paradigms in Progress and other insightful books; Edgar Cahn in Time Dollars; Nona Y. Glazer in Woman’s Paid and Unpaid Labor; and others have attacked the self-imposed blingers of mainstream economists. Finally, and perhaps most important, countless NGOs in many countries have echoed these criticisms. Yet even today, little has been done to systematically map the vital two-way links that connect the money economy and its huge, off-the-books doppelganger. When prosumers help glue families, communities and societies together, they do it as part of everyday life without, as a rule, calculating its effects on the nation’s visible economy. Yet, if economists could tell us what social cohesion is worth in dollars, yen, yuan, won or euros—or what social disintegration costs—it would be highly instructive. So what, then, is all this unpaid work worth? There are failures, fallings-short, and compromises. Imagine that these modern radical positions had been more fully achieved: we should have a society where: A premium is placed on technical improvement and on the engineering style of functional simplicity and clarity. Where the community is planned as a whole, with an organic integration of work, living, and play. Where buildings have the variety of their real functions with the uniformity of the prevailing technology. Where a lot of money is spent on public goods. Where workers are technically educated and have a say in management. Where no one drops out of society and there is an easy mobility of classes. Where production is primarily for use. Where social groups are laboratories for solving their own problems experimentally. Where democracy begins in the town meeting, and a man seeks office only because he has a program. Where regional variety is encouraged and there is pride in the republic. And young men are free of conscription. Where all feel themselves citizens of the universal Republic of Reason.

Where it is policy to give an adequate voice to the unusual and unpopular opinion, and to give a trial and market to new enterprise. Where races are factually equal. Where vocation is sought out and cultivated as God-given capacity, to be conserved and embellished, and where the church is the spirit of its congregation. Where ordinary experience is habitually scientifically assayed by the average human. Where it is felt that the suggestion of reason is practical. And speech leads to the corresponding action. Where the popular culture is daring and passionate culture. Where children can make themselves useful and earn their own money Where their sexuality is taken for granted. Where the community carries on its important adult business and the children fall in at their own pace. And where education is concerned with fostering human powers as they develop in the growing child. In such an utopian society, as was aimed at by modern radicals but has not eventuated, it would be very easy to grow up. There would be plenty of objective, worth-while activities for a child to observe, fall in with, do, learn improvise on his own. That is to say, it is not the spirit of modern times that makes our society difficult for the young; it is that that spirit has not sufficiently realized itself. In this light, the present plight of the young is not surprising. In the rapid changes, people have not kept enough in mind that the growing young also exist and the World must fit their needs. So instead, we have the present phenomena of excessive attention to the children as such, in psychology and suburbs, and coping with “juvenile delinquency” as if it were an entity.

Adults fighting for some profoundly conceived fundamental change naturally give up, exhausted, when they have achieved some gain that makes life tolerable again and seems to be the substance of their demand. However, to grow up, the young need a World of finished situations and society made whole again. Indeed, the bother with the above little utopian sketch is that many adults would be restive in such a stable modern World if it were achieved. They would say: It is a fine place for growing boys. I agree with this criticism. I think the case is as follows: Every profound new proposal, of culture or institution, invents and discovers a new property of “Human Nature.” Henceforth it is going to be in these terms that a young fellow will grow up and find one’s identity and one’s task. So if we accumulate the revolutionary proposals of modern times, we have named the goals of modern education. We saw that it was the aim of Progressive Education to carry this program through. However, education is not life. The existing situation of a grown man is to confront an uninvented and undiscovered present. Unfortunately, at present, he must also try to perfect his unfinished past: this bad inheritance is part of the existing situation, and mist be stoically worked through. Our new media environment, with television at its center, is leading to the rapid disappearance of childhood in North America, that childhood probably will not survive to the end of this century, and that such a state of affairs represents a social disaster of the first order. Childhood is a social artifact, not a biological category. Our genes contain no clear instruction about who is and who is not a child, and the laws of survival do not require that a distinction be made between the World of the adult and the World of the child. In fact, if we take the word “children” to mean a special class of people somewhere between the ages of seven and, say, seventeen, who require special forms of nurturing and protection, and who are believed to be qualitatively different from adults, then there is ample evidence that children have existed for less than four hundred years.

Indeed, if we use the word “children” in the fullest sense in which the average North American understand it, childhood is not much more than 150 years old. To take one small example: the custom of celebrating a child’s birthday did not exist in America throughout most of the eighteenth century, and the precise marking of a child’s age in any way is a relatively recent cultural tradition, no more than two hundred years old. To take a more important example: as late as 1890, high schools in the United States of America enrolled only 7 percent of the fourteen-through seventeen-year-old-population. Along with many much younger children, the other 93 percent worked at adult labor, some of them from sunup to sunset in all of our great cities. However, it would be a mistake to confuse social facts with social ideas. The idea of childhood is one of the great inventions of the Renaissance, perhaps its most humane one. Along with science, the nation state, and religious freedom, childhood as both a social principle and a psychological condition emerged around the sixteenth century. Up until that time, children as young as six and seven simply were not regarded as fundamentally different from adults. The language of children, their way of dressing, their games, their labor, and their legal rights were the same as adults. It was recognized, of course, that children tended to be smaller than adults, but this fact did not confer upon them any special status; there certainly did not exist any special institutions for the nurturing of children. Prior to the sixteenth century, for example, there were no books on childrearing or, indeed, any books about women in their role as mothers. Children were always included in funeral processions, there being no reason anyone could think of to shield them from death. Neither did it occur to anyone to keep a picture of a child, whether that child lived to adulthood or had died in infancy.

Nor are there any references to children’s speech or jargon prior to the seventeenth century, after which they are founded in abundance. If you have ever seen thirteenth-or fourteenth-century paintings of children, you will have noticed that they are always depicted as small adults. Except for size, they are devoid of any of the physical characteristics we associate with childhood, and they are never shown on canvas alone, isolated from adults. Such paintings are entirely accurate representations of the psychological and social perceptions of children prior to the sixteenth century. There was no separate World of childhood. Children shared the same games with adults, the same toys, the same fairy stories. They lived their lives together, never apart. The coarse village festivals of the past depicted men and women besotted with drink, groping for each other with unbridled lust, and children eating and drinking with the adults. Even in the soberer pictures of wedding feasts and dances, the children are enjoying themselves along aide their elders, doing the same thing. Now, are vampires eternally celibate lovers of is vampirism antithetical to celibacy? A bloodless look at some of the literature leaves the question largely unanswered, but severs up delectable literary tidbits suitable for nibbling. Bram Stoker’s Dracula, properly interpreted, was likely a Victorian adult film, pornography, but pornography with a difference. Where other authors titillated with seductions, various styles of pleasures of the flesh, and sadomasochistic drills, Mr. Stoker mesmerized with scenes of fantasized eroticism in which, for example, “lamias” of female vampires set upon hero Harker, trapped in the castle, and barely miss “Seducing” him, while nosferatu the “vampyre” is a constant menace, “drawing the life’s blood,” of his victims.

What does this really mean? Is the nosferatu akin to a ubiquitous, unkillable needle-happy doctor? Or are his biting kisses, at least metaphorically, seductive? Perhaps just bewitching? Tantalizing? Is this lustful experience of pleasures of the flesh without intercourse, without even the possibility of intercourse? The classic early vampire tales never clarify whether their characters actually engage in intimate passions with vampires, through certainly they pique the reader’s interest—and libido?—with their innuendos. In the end, the vampire is the ultimate seducer, and descriptions of his bloody conquests are metaphors for the reader’s dark and hidden fantasies of pleasures of the flesh. After all, who would not be charmed by an immortal, omnipotent being invisible in mirrors, perhaps presenting as a savage dog or wolf, whose Achilles’ heel is his aversion to religious paraphernalia, garlic, sunlight, and running water? Who cannot imagine the shivery thrill of blowing away this ancient predator with a hefty puff of garlicky breath or production of a gleaming crucifix? Modern vampires are very, very attractive, with all manner of erotic imagery—heterosexual, flexible, and even homosexual—quite prominent. Vampire pleasures of the flesh or celibacy—this is, of course, the stickiest question—is the ultimate kind, dangerous and deadly, with a quasi-surgical finality. Vampire intimate passions or celibacy, depending on your take, is the cutting edge of erotic fantasy and has led to admirably serious debate on the issue of whether vampires actually exist. (They do not, even in Transylvania, but perhaps at The Winchester Mystery House?) The demanding silence of forms, the loving speech of human beings, the eloquent muteness of creatures—all of these are gateways into the present World. When the perfect encounter is to occur, the gates are unified into the one gate of actual life, and you no longer know through which one you have entered.

Cresleigh Homes

Trust Cresleigh to build you a home that you can truly grow into. With nature focused amenities, large open spaces, several windows, plush backyards your hoe will always be filled with sunshine and beauty.

With a Cresleigh Home, you can enjoy a nice, perfect day outside from the inside of your home. And have the ability to extend family gatherings into your private and secure backyard.

#CresleighHomes