Destructiveness is different from the sado-masochistic strivings since it aims not at active or passive symbiosis but at elimination of its object. However, it, too, is rooted in the unbearableness of individual powerlessness and isolation. I can escape the feeling of my own powerlessness in comparison with the World outside of myself by destroying it. To be sure, if I succeed in removing it, I remain alone and isolated, but mine is a splendid isolation in which I cannot be crushed by the overwhelming power of the object outside myself by destroying it. To be sure, if I succeed in removing it, I remain alone and isolated, but mine is a splendid isolation in which I cannot be crushed by the overwhelming power of the object outside of myself. The destruction of the World is the last, almost desperate attempt to save myself from being crushed by it. Sadism sims at incorporation of the object; destructiveness at its removal. Sadism tends to strengthen the atomized individual by the domination over others; destructiveness by the absence of any threat from the outside. Any observer of personal relations in our social sense cannot fail to be impressed with the amount of destructiveness to be found everywhere. For the most part it is not conscious as such but is rationalized in various ways. As a matter of fact, there is virtually nothing that is not used as a rationalization for destructiveness. Love, duty, conscience, patriotism have been and are being used as disguises to destroy others or oneself. However, we must differentiate between two different kinds of destructive tendencies. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

There are destructive tendencies which result from a specific situation; as reaction to attacks on one’s own or others’ life and integrity, or on ideas which one is identified with. This kind of destructiveness is the natural and necessary concomitant of one’s affirmation of life. The destructiveness where under discussion, however, is not this rational—or as one might call it “reactive”—hostility, but a constantly lingering tendency within a person which so to speak waits only for an opportunity to be expressed. If there is no objective “reason” for the expression of destructiveness, we call the person mentally or emotionally sick (although the person oneself will usually build up some sort of a rationalization). In most cases the destructive impulses, however, are rationalized in such a way that at least a few other people or a whole social group share in the rationalization and thus make it appear to be “realistic” to the member of such a group. However, the objects of irrational destructiveness and the particular reasons for their being chosen are only of secondary importance; the destructive impulses are a passion within a person, and they always succeed in finding some object. If for any reason other persons cannot become the object of an individual’s destructiveness, one’s own self easily becomes the object. When this happens in a marked degree, physical illness is often the result and even suicide may be attempted. We have assumed that destructiveness is an escape from the unbearable feeling of powerlessness, since it aims at the removal of all objects with which the individual has to compare oneself. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

However, in view of the tremendous role that destructive tendencies play in human behaviour, this interpretation does not seem to be a sufficient explanation; they very conditions of isolation and powerlessness are responsible for two other sources of destructiveness: anxiety and the thwarting of life. Concerning the role of anxiety not much needs to be said. Any threat against vital (material and emotional) interests creates anxiety, and destructive tendencies are the most common reaction to such anxiety. The threat can be circumscribed in a particular situation by particular persons. In such a case, the destructiveness is aroused towards these persons. It can also be a constant—though not necessarily conscious—anxiety springing from an equally constant feeling of being threatened by the World outside. This kind of constant anxiety results from the position of the isolated and powerless individual and is one other source of the reservoir of destructiveness that develops in him. Another important outcome of the same basic situation is what I have just called the thwarting of life. The isolated and powerless individual is blocked in realizing one’s sensuous, emotional, and intellectual potentialities. One is lacking the inner security and spontaneity that are the conditions of such realization. This inner blockage is increased by cultural taboos on pleasures and happiness, like those that have run through the religion and mores of the middle class since the period of the Reformation. Nowadays, the external taboo has virtually vanished, but the inner blockage had remained strong in spite of the conscious approval of sensuous pleasure. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

This problem of the relation between the thwarting of life and destructiveness has been touched upon by Dr. Freud. Dr. Freud realized that he had neglected the weight and importance of destructive impulses in his original assumption that the sexual drive and the drive for self-preservation were two basic motivations of human behaviour. Believing, later, the destructive tendencies are as important as the sexual ones, he proceeded to the assumption that there are two basic strivings to be found in humans: a drive that is directed toward life and is more or less identical with sexual libido, and a death-instinct whose aim is the very destruction of life. He assumed that the latter can be blended with the sexual energy and then be directed either against one’s own self or against objects outside of oneself. He furthermore assumes that the death-instinct is rooted in a biological quality inherent in all living organisms and therefore a necessary and unalterable part of life. The assumption of the death-instinct I satisfactory inasmuch as it takes into consideration the full weight of destructive tendencies, which had been neglected in Dr. Freud’s earlier theories. However, it is not satisfactory inasmuch as it resorts to a biological explanation that fails to take account sufficiently of the fact that the amount of destructiveness varies enormously among individuals and social groups. If Dr. Freud’s assumptions were correct, we would have to assume that the amount of destructiveness either against others or oneself is more or less constant. However, what we do observe is to the contrary. Not only does the weight of destructiveness among individuals in our culture vary a great deal, but also destructiveness is of unequal weight among different social groups. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

Thus, for instance, the weight of destructiveness in the character of the members of some of the lower middle class in Europe is definitely much greater than among the working and the upper classes. Anthropological studies have acquainted us with peoples in whom a particularly great amount of destructiveness is characteristic, whereas others show an equally marked lack of destructiveness, whether in the form of hostility against others or against oneself. It seems that any attempt to understand the roots of destructiveness must start with the observation of these very differences and proceed to the question of what other differentiating factors can be observed and whether these factors may not account for the differences in the amount of destructiveness. This problem offers such difficulties that it requires a detailed treatment of its own which we cannot attempt here. However, it would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of humans’ sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived. It seems that if this tendency is thwarted the energy directed toward life undergoes a process of decomposition and changes into energies directed toward destruction. In other words: the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually independent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive toward life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive toward destruction; the more life is realized, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which the particular hostile tendencies—either against others or against oneself—are nourished. The character structure of the industrial worker contains punctuality, discipline, capacity for teamwork; this is the syndrome which forms the minimum for the efficient functioning on an industrial worker. (Other differences—dependence-independence, interest-indifference, activity-passivity—are at this point ignored, although they are of utmost importance for the character structure of the worker now and in the future.) The most important application of the concept of the social character lies in distinguishing the future social character of a socialist society as visualized by Mr. Marx from the social character of nineteenth-century capitalism, with its central desire for possession of property and wealth; and distinguishing it from the social character of nineteenth-century capitalism, with its central desire for possession of property and wealth; and distinguishing it from the social character of the twentieth century (capitalist or communist), which is becoming ever more prevalent in the highly industrialized societies—the character of homo consumens. Homo consumens is the human whose main goal is not primarily to own things, but to consume more and more, and thus to compensate for one’s inner vacuity, passivity, loneliness, and anxiety. In a society characterized by giant enterprises and giant industrial, governmental and labour bureaucracies, the individual, who has no control over one’s circumstances of work, feels impotent, lonely, bored, and anxious. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

At the same time, the need for profit of the big consumer industries, through the medium of advertising, transforms one into a voracious human, an eternal suckling who wants to consume more and more and for whom everything becomes an article of consumption—premium cranberry juice, dinner dates, movies, television, travel, and even education, books, and lectures. New artificial needs are created and humans’ tastes are manipulated. (The character of homo concumnes in its more extreme forms is a well-known psychopathological phenomenon. It is to be found in many cases of depressed or anxious persons who escape into overeating, overbuying, or alcoholism to compensate for the hidden depression and anxiety.) The greed for consumption, an extreme form of what Dr. Freud called the “oral-receptive character,” is becoming the dominant psychic force in present-day industrialized society. Homo consumnes is under the illusion of happiness, while unconsciously one suffers from one’s boredom and passivity. The more power one has over machines, the more powerless one becomes as a human being; the more one consumes, the more one becomes a slave to the ever-increasing needs which the industrial system creates and manipulates. One mistakes thrill and excitement for joy and happiness and material comfort for aliveness; satisfied green becomes the meaning of life, the striving for it a new religion. The freedom to consume becomes the essence of human freedom. This spirit of consumption is precisely the opposite of the spirit of a socialist society as Mr. Marx visualized it. He clearly saw the danger inherent in capitalism. His aim was a society in which man is much, not in which one has or uses much. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Mr. Marx wanted to liberate humans from the chains of one’s material greed so that one could become fully awake, alive, and sensitive, and not be the slave of one’s greed. “The production of too many useful things,” Mr. Marx wrote, “result in the creation of too many useless people.” He wanted to abolish extreme poverty, because it prevents humans from becoming fully human; he also wanted to prevent extreme wealth, in which the individual becomes the prisoner of one’s greed. His aim was not the maximum but the optimum of consumption, the satisfaction of those genuine human needs which serve as a means to a fuller and richer life. It is one of the historical ironies that the spirit of capitalism, the satisfaction of material greed, is conquering the communist and socialist countries which, with their planned economy, would have the means to curb it. This process has its own logic; the material success of capitalism was immensely impressive to those less developed countries (LCDs) in Europe in which communism had been victorious, and the victory of socialism became identified with successful competition with capitalism within the spirit of capitalism. Socialism is in danger of deteriorating into a system which can accomplish the industrialization of LCDs more quickly than capitalism, rather than of becoming a society in which the development of humans, and not that of economic production, is the main goal. This development has been furthered by the fact that Soviet communism, in accepting a crude version of Mr. Marx’s “materialism,” lost contact, as did the capitalist countries, with the humanist spiritual tradition of which Mr. Marx was one of the greatest representatives. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

It is true that socialist countries have still not solved the problem of satisfying the legitimate material needs of their populations (and even in the United States fifty percent of the population is not “affluent”). However, it is of the utmost importance that socialist economists, philosophers, and psychologists be aware of the danger that the goal of optimal consumption can easily change to that of maximal consumption. The task for the socialist theoreticians is to study the nature of human needs; to find criteria for the distinction between genuine human needs, the satisfaction of which makes humans more alive and sensitive, and synthetic needs created by capitalism which tend to weak humans, to make one more passive and bored, a slave to one’s greed for things. Production should not be restricted, but, once the optimal needs of individual consumption are fulfilled, it should be channeled into more production of the means for social consumption such as schools, libraries, theaters, parks, hospitals, public transportation, et cetera. Some much money is being blown on assisting other nations and their people that buildings like the California Department of Veteran Affairs on O street in Sacramento, California is actually holding at least 15 windows together with clear plastic tape. The building cannot be safe for people to work in. However, no one would know that considering how taxpayer dollars are being thrown away on nonessential programs and services the government cannot afford. The State of California is literally crumbling because it is overwhelmed by people and does not have the resources to keep it running efficiently. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

The ever-increasing individual consumption in the highly industrialized counties suggests that competition, greed, and envy are engendered not only by private property, but also by unlimited private consumption. Socialist theoreticians must not lose sight of the fact that the aim of a humanistic socialism is to build an industrial society whose mode of production shall serve the fullest development of the total human and not the creation of homo consumens; that socialist society is an industrial society fit for human beings to live in and to develop. There are empirical methods which permit the study of the social character. The aim of such study is to discover the incidence of the various character syndromes within the population as a whole and within each class, the intensity of the various factors within the syndrome, and new or contradictory factors which have been caused by different socioeconomic conditions. All such existing character structure, the process of change, and also what measures might facilitate such changes. Needless to say, such insight is importation in countries in transition from agriculture to industrialism, as well as for the problem of the transition of the worker under capitalism or state capitalism, that is, under alienated conditions, to the conditions of authentic socialism. Furthermore, such studies are guides to political action. If I know only the political “opinions” of people as ascertained by the opinion polls, I know how they are likely at act in the immediate future. If I want to know the strength of psychic forces (which at the moment may not yet be manifest consciously) such as, for instance, racism, war- or peace-mindedness, such studies of character inform me of the strength and direction of the underlying forces which operate in the social process and which may become manifest only after some time. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

There is are several important characteristics of the managerial group. One, as Granick reports, is that Soviet data show that, as early as the 1930s, a great deal of social stability had developed. “Statistics on this subject,” writes Granick, “unfortunately end in the 1930s. Moreover, the data as to the occupation of parents is broken down into only a threefold classification: worker, farmer, and white-collar. Still, even this data is reasonably strong. It shows that the son of a white-collar employee, professional or business owner, had eight times as good a chance of reaching top management rank in the United States of America [in 1952] as did the son of manual workers and farmers, and that he had six times as good a chance in the Soviet Union [1936].” As far as the situation today is concerned, one can only guess. However, Granick sounds convincing when he says that the tendency against social mobility “has probably increased in present-day Russia simply because of the lesser amount of hostility toward the children of white collar parents.” This class stratification exist in spite of the fact that education in the Soviet Union is absolutely free and most of the better students receive stipends besides. This apparent contradiction is probably explained to some extent by the fact that many young Soviet people may not be able to go on to college because their families need their earnings. Considering the very high scholastic standards of Russian higher education, it would also appear likely that the cultural atmosphere of a managerial family provides a better preparation in this respect than that of a worker’s or peasant’s family. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

The surprising fact—surprising for those who believe in the socialist character of the Soviet system—is, as Berliner reports, that to be a “worker” is “something devoutly to be shunned by most young people who have reached the high school level.” This attitude toward being a worker is, of course, not expressed in the official ideology, which extolls the workers as being the true masters of Soviet society, and the myth of great social mobility continues to exist in the Soviet Union. It is correct, then, to speak of a managerial class in the Soviet Union? If one uses Mr. Marx’s concept, the term “class” could not very well be applied, since in Marxist thought this refers to a social group with reference to its relation to the means of production; that is, whether the group owns capital or its tools (artisans), or is made up of propertyless workers. Naturally in a country where the state owns all the means of production, there is no managerial “class” in this sense, nor any other for that matter, and, if one uses the term “class” in a strict Marxist sense, one can claim that the Russia is a classless society. In reality, however, this is not so. Mr. Marx did not foresee that in the development of capitalist society there would be a vast group of managers who, while not owning the means of production, exercise control over them, and who have in common a high income and high social status. Hence Mr. Marx never transcended his concept of class beyond that of ownership of the means of production to that of control of the means of production and of the “human material” employed in the process of production, distribution, and consumption. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

In terms of control, Russia is a society with rigid class distinctions. Aside from the managerial bureaucracy, there are the political bureaucracy of the Communist Party and the military bureaucracy. All three share control, prestige, and income. It is important to note that they largely overlap. Not only are most managers and top officers members of the party, but also they often “change hats,” that is, work for a time as managers, and then again as party officials. On the fringes of the three bureaucracies are the scientists, others intellectuals and artists, who are highly rewarded although they do not share in the power of the three main groups. The foregoing considerations make one point clear. Russian, in the process of developing into a highly industrialized system, has not only produced new factories and machines but also new classes, which direct and administer production. These classes have acquired interests of their own, which are quite different from those of the revolutionaries who took over in 1917. They are interested in material comforts, in security, and in education and social advancement for their children, in short, in the very same aims as the corresponding classes in capitalist countries. The continued existence of the myth of equality, however, does not mean that the fact of the rise of a Russian hierarchy is disputed in Russia. Mr. Stalin quite overtly-0and of course always quoted the proper passages from Mr. Marx and Mr. Lenin out of context—as early as 1925 warned the Fourteenth Congress: “We must not play with the phrase about equality. This is playing with fire.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

As Deutscher puts it: Mr. Stalin, in later years, spoke “against the ‘levellers’ with a rancour and venom which suggested that in doing so he defended the most sensitive and vulnerable facet of his policy. It was so sensitive because the highly paid and privileged managerial groups came to be the props of Mr. Stalin’s regime.” In fact, Russia copes with the same problem as the capitalist countries do—namely how to reconcile the ideology of an open, mobile society with the need for a hierarchically organized bureaucracy and how to give prestige and moral justification to those on top. The Russian solution is not too different from our own; both principles are emphasized, and the individual is supposed not to stumble over the contradiction. The growth of Russian industry not only produced a new class of managers, but also a growing class of manual workers. In 1928, 76.5 percent of the Russian population were dependent on agricultural occupation, as against 23.5 percent on nonagricultural occupations. In 2021, 5.8 percent of the workforce in Russian was employed in agriculture, 26.7 percent in industry and 67.32 percent in service. The majority of Russia’s labour force works in the services sector, which accounts for more than half the jobs in the country. About 30 percent work in the industry sector and the rest in agriculture. Interestingly, Russia is among the leading export countries in the Worldwide agricultural products, as well as meat, are among the main exported goods. Russia’s economy also profits significantly from selling and exporting fish and sea food. Due to large oil resources, Russian is also among the largest economies and the countries with the largest gross domestic product (GDP) Worldwide. Subsequently, living in working conditions in Russia should be above average, but for a long time, many Russians have struggled to get by. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

While conditions seem to improve nowadays, many Russian still live below the poverty line. One suggested reason for this is corruption, which has been cited as a severe problem for the country for a long time, and continues to pose difficulties for Russia’s economy. Illicit employment and the so-called “shadow economy,” which does not officially contribute to the fiscal system, yield amounts worth almost half of Russia’s GDP. This can be seen on a ranking of the untaxed economy in selected countries as a share of GDP.  The develop of industry requires more than an ever larger number of industrial workers. It also requires increasing productivity of the labour force. How serious this necessity is for Russia is illunstrated by the fact that labour productivity is 3-4 times lower in Russia than in the United States of America. Aside from higher levels of technology, one of the decisive factors in labour productivity is the character of the workers themselves. In order to further the development of a more independent and responsible character, not only have punitive policies been replaced, (absenteeism, for instance, which under Mr. Stalin was a criminal offense, is now a disciplinary matter to be dealt with by management), but Russian labour policy has moved in many respects to encourage the beneficial manifestations of application and effectiveness on the job, [in the area of wage policy and even in the worker’s greater role in the day-to-day decision-making of the enterprise] without, however, fundamentally usurping the prerogatives of management. The roles of education, material satisfaction, and incentives are generally recognized by Russian hierarchy as being of basic importance, and the state is trying its best to improve these factors and this to increase labour productivity. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

This development will undoubtedly lead to the very thing it has led to in the Western countries. The workers not only work better, they are also more satisfied and more loyal to the system: in the one case “capitalism,” in the other “communism.” While the gap between the situations of the workers in both systems is narrowing, there is one difference that shows no signs of being erased, a political and psychological rather than an economic one—the absence of independent trade unions in Russian. The “company union” character of their unions is, of course, denied by Russian ideology. The reasoning is that a workers’ state, in which the workers themselves “own” the means of production, does not need the type of unions the workers need under capitalism. However, this reasoning is mainly, of course, ideological. The crucial point is that the domination of the unions by party and state in Russian stifled the spirit of independence and freedom and thus tends to strengthen the authoritarian character of the whole Russian system. America is another country that often sees collective action. For instance, mineral rights in California in the mid nineteenth century—the aggregate gains from avoiding a free-for-all among prospectors were huge, so the need for delineation of property rights was quickly recognized. Camps formed their own “governments” and “laws.” Many of the resulting arrangements were then officially accepted, even though they did not conform to the Federal or State laws and practices. The homogeneity and lack of ex ante private information among the prospectors helped achieve agreement. Federal land policies in late nineteenth century western USA areas: here the process of delineation of property rights was slowed by the conflicting interests of ranchers, timber companies, and homesteaders in matter of size of land allocations, rules concerning fences, access to water, and so on. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

Fisheries raised some serious conflicts that delay or prevent agreement. More efficient incumbents are against uniform quotas and against tradeable quotas because they are hurt if low-efficiency incumbents can sell their quotas to better operators. Fish migrate, so property rights to an area may not solve externality problems. Also, efficiency-promoting arrangements may serve as a cloak for cartelization. Oil fields in Texas. Several drillers usually have the right to tap into a single pool of underground oil, so their free-rider problem needs to be solved by arrangements to treat the pool as a single entity and internalize the externality. The need for such arrangements, called “unitization,” was widely recognized but the efficient arrangements were delayed or not made either in private arrangements or government-imposed rules. Asymmetric information at the time of the negotiation may have been the key difficulty. For fisheries as well as oil, historically determined laws such as “rule of capture” also inhibited efficiency-enhancing adaptations. If there had been good planning up to the last phase, goals will already have been stated in quantitative terms. The index of progress, therefore, is mainly a matter of comparing expected and achieved results. In many cases, however, especially among new agencies, goals may not have been given quantitative formulation in advance. Nevertheless, if there is to be an appraisal at all, there must be quantitative indices. In the course of constructing such measures, there is, or ought to be, a progressive evolution of objective bases of comparison between periods. That is, the process of evaluating results of a program leads to a clarification of the objectives of the program itself, which is of great significance for the next cycle of planning. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

Even where there has been much previous experience and many careful estimates and predictions, there are always unexpected deviations and consequences in the actual working-out of the program. Thus the task of appraisal always to some degree involves the technical problem of modifying and applying indices of progress, and there is no end to the improvement can be made. When it comes to religion, when a believer understands the direct onslaughts of wicked spirits, one becomes able to discern the condition of one’s spirit and to retain control over it—refusing all forced elation and strain and resisting all weights and pressure to drive it below the normal state of poise—so that it is capable of cooperation with the Spirit of God. The danger of the human spirit acting out of cooperation with the Holy Spirit and becoming driven or influence by deceiving psychopathological offenders is a very serious one, yet it can be increasingly detected by those who walk softly and humbly with God. For instance, a human is liable to think one’s own masterful spirit is evidence of the power of God because in other directions one sees the Holy Spirit using one in winning souls. In another instance, one may have a flood of indignation inserted into one’s spirit which one pours out thinking it is all of God, though others shrink and are conscious of a harsh note which is clearly not God. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

This influence on the human spirit by psychopathological offenders counterfeiting the divine workings—or even the workings of humans themselves, because one is out of coworking with the Holy Spirit—needs to be understood and detected by the believer who seeks to walk with God. One needs to know that because one is spiritual one’s spirit is open to two forces of the spirit-real, and that is one thinks only the Holy Spirit can influence one in the spiritual sphere one is likely to be mislead. If such were so, one would become infallible; but one needs to watch and pray, and seek to have the eyes of one’s understanding enlightened to know the true workings of God. Critical judgment is the second mode of the relating function of the churches. By it they publicly expose and energetically protest the negatives of society. If the silent penetration of a society by the Spiritual Presence can be called “priestly,” the open attack on this society in the name of the Spiritual Presence can be called “prophetic.” The success of this criticism may be modest, but even a rejected criticism has been heard. Prophetic judgment will not create the Spiritual Community, but it can advance toward it by encouraging a state of society which approaches theonomy—the relatedness of all cultural forms to the ultimate. However, again, the relationship between the churches and society is mutual. By a kind of “reverse prophetism” society criticizes ecclesiastical injustice and forms of saintliness which verge on the inhuman. In the thirteen and twentieth centuries society’s criticism of the churches resulted in their loss of the labouring class, but eventually it forced them to revise their views of social justice and the nature of humans. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

The third made my which the churches are related to society is political establishment. Although at first sight this seems to be a non-religious arrangement, Christ has not only a priestly and prophetic office, but also a royal one. So, too, the churches. Their royal character consists in exercising sufficient influence to safeguard the free exercise of their priestly and prophetic duties. The danger is that power politics may replace spiritual persuasion in achieving this objective. Sometimes the royal office of the churches is exercised by a political establishment in which the reciprocity of influence between church and state is clearly evidenced. The church is never totally free; inevitably there are limits imposed by its political milieu. However, these restrictions are tolerable, even desirable, as long as the church remains unhindered to express itself as the Spiritual Community. A political arrangement between church and states is inimical to the interest of both, only if it permits either party to assume a totalitarian control over the other. In general, the churches as actualizations of the Spiritual Community relate to society by belonging to it and by opposed by the church is not simply not-church but has in itself elements of the Spiritual Community in its latency which work toward a theonomous culture. Pledging allegiance to the flag is very important. This is a promise that we will always be true to our country and our special red, white, and blue flag represents all 50 states in our country. We are all on a team together and the flag is our symbol…our nation’s family crest. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation, Under God, Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for All. “Ye shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy; ye shall revere your God; I am the Lord.” And please be kind and donate to the Sacramento Fire Depart, for they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20  

Millhaven Homes

Ready to build your custom dream home?

Millhaven Homes have many windows that flood the home with natural light, allowing the owner to enjoy postcard picture views.

Soaring ceilings make your new home look and feel more open and spacious.

A custom-built home by Millhaven Homes provides buyers with that exquisite living experience one is seeking.

These trophy properties are built in highly coveted communities that provide peace, security, and privacy.

Some homes are even located on tree farms, allowing the homeowners to enjoy lush landscaping and a restore style estate which makes rest and relax a charm.

Millhaven Homes offers uncompromising quality making a Millhaven Home a truly remarkable find.

The outdoor living spaces, and options like an outdoor fireplace, make al-fresco dining an option year-round.

Get started today by telling us what you’re wanting and we can schedule an initial consultation. https://millhavenhomes.com/