In the second half of the fifteenth century, ambitious monarchs coming to power in France, England, and Spain sought social order and political stability in their kingdoms. Louis XI in France, Henry VII in England, Isabella of Castile, and Ferdinand of Aragon all created armies and bureaucratic state machinery strong enough to quell internal conflict, such as the English War of the Roses, and to raise taxes sufficient to support their regimes. In these countries, and in Portugal as well, economic revival and the reversal of more than a century of population decline civil disorder nourished the impulse to expand beyond known frontiers. This impulse was also fed by Renaissance culture. Ushering in a new, more secular age, the Renaissance (Rebirth) encouraged freedom of thought, richness of expression, and an emphasis on human abilities. Beginning in Italy and spreading northward through Europe, the Renaissance peaked dramatically in the late fifteenth century when the age of exploration began. The exploratory urge had two initial objectives: to circumvent Muslim traders by finding an eastward oceanic route to Asia and to tap the African gold trade at its source. Since the tenth century, Muslim middlemen in North Africa had brought the precious metal to Europe from Guinea. Now the possibility arose of bypassing these non-Christian traffickers. Likewise, Christian Europeans dreamed of eliminating Muslim traders from the commerce with Asia. Since 1291, when Marco Polo returned to Venice with tales of Eastern treasures—spices, silks, perfumes, drugs, and jewels—Europeans had bartered with Asia. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

However, the difficulties of the long eastward overland route through the Muslim World kept alive the hope of Christian Europeans that an alternative water route existed. Eventually, Europe’s mariners would find that they could voyage to Cathay by both eastward and westward water routes, but this took two more centuries to discover. In the meantime, what are some ways that the Christians could avoid war with the Muslims? One way is deterrence. To be effective, deterrence has four requirements: The implementation of the deterrent threat must be sufficiently credible to preclude its being taken as a bluff. The potential aggressor must understand the decision to resist attack or pressure. The opponent must be rational, id est, one must respond to one’s self-interest in a manner which is predictable. In weighing one’s self-interest, the potential aggressor must reach the conclusion the “deterrer” is seeking to induce. In other words, the penalties of aggression must outweigh its benefits. They key concept here is one that assumes rationality on the part of both opponents. The proponents of the invulnerable deterrent must propose this, for where there is the possibility of such destruction, the danger is not worth risking unless one can trust people to act rationally. How valid are these assumptions? Now, in modern times, even if we had an invulnerable deterrent (and what an invulnerable deterrent is, always depends on the latest progress in the development of weapons), this would not protect at least half of the American population from being destroyed, provide the enemy is not deterred. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

The only safe way of deterring would be to show the other nations our military installations, so that their fear of our retaliatory power does not depend on a guess which can be wrong, but on solid knowledge. This procedure, while desirable, would at the same time give the opponent such knowledge of the location of our missile bases as to make such a procedure impractical. Furthermore, even with the invulnerable deterrent, all the possibilities for an unwanted war give one more time to wait for confirmation of an attack, since there would not be the chance that an attack could seriously cripple our retaliatory capacity. On the other hand, the decentralization of the units of deterrents (submarines, planes in the air, et cetera) actually increases the chances of irrational actions. The invulnerable deterrence theorists are forced to base all their hopes on mutual knowledge and rationality between the United States of America and Russia. This is in one sense ironic, since these same experts usually deny any possibility of understanding or rational agreement between the United States of America and Russian when it is a question of disarmament. In fact, if there is any agreement for rational actions, it is exactly the reverse of the argument of the deterrent theorist. In times of peace, one might assume that people have sufficient rationality to arrive at solutions which are beneficial for both sides. If this were not the case then, indeed, it is not likely that people would show this rationality of thought when threatened with the immediate extinction of a large part of their population or after even “only” one city with several million people has been pulverized. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

However, this may be, it is the common assumption of most “invulnerable deterrent” strategists that they do not see any alternative to the efficacy of deterrence. If the deterrent would not work them, indeed, the United States of America would cease to exist. Defense against these weapons is practically nonexistent; indeed, it is now impossible. It exists only in the fertile imagination of some men, not in physical reality. However, in contrast with this wide, is another view which claims that the deterrent does not necessarily preclude war, but thermonuclear war would by no means have to be as catastrophic as the nuclear pacifists on the one hand. Perhaps even more pertinent is this question, “How happy or normal a life can the surviours and their descendant hope to have?” Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, objective studies indicate that even though the amount of human tragedy would be greatly increased in the postwar World, the increase would not preclude normal and happy lives for the majority of survivours and their descendants. It is only a squeamishness which keeps experts from facing the possibilities of a total war. If we assume that people could survive the long-term effects of radiation, what would the standard of living in their postwar World be like? Would the survivours live as Americans are accustomed to living—with Ultimate Driving Machines, television, ranch house, freezers, and so on? No one can say, but I believe there is every likelihood that even if we make almost no preparations for recuperation except to buy radiation meters, write and distribute manuals, train some cadres for decontamination and the like, and make some other minimal plans, the country would recover rather rapidly and effectively from the small attack. This strong statement is contrary to the beliefs of many laymen, professional economists, and war planners. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

What are the proper preparations which will secure relatively harmless consequences of nuclear war? If the United States of America had a system of fall-out shelters all over the country, plus a system of blastproof shelters (plus arrangements for rapid entry), plus thirty to sixty minutes of warning, plus strategic evacuation of cities (that is, several days before an attack), the estimated casualties would be “only” 10,200,000 in an attack on one hundred and fifty cities; on the other hand, if none of these preparations ware made it is assumed the causalities would be 320,000,000. The actual figure between these two extremes will lie according to the degree of preparation. For example, with nothing else but fallout shelters plus arrangements for tactical evacuation, losses could be held to 170,000,000 people, given thirty to sixty minutes warning. What about these figures? In the first place, some of the conditions are completely unrealistic, such as the thirty to sixty minutes’ warning, when missiles from submarines or from Earth satellites would give practically no warning time other than a fifteen-minute alarm. In addition, tactical evacuation into blastproof shelters, even if there were a fifteen-minute warning, could only give people enough time to trample one another to death before they entered the shelters. If the warning time is in minutes only, as it will be at best, almost no one will reach the few shelters in large cities if these come under attack. People would be hijacking planes, killing to get on planes, and the people who did make it to the shelter would have to worry about chaos inside of the shelter and them being overrun by people who discover their location. There is also a small chance of contamination. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

Whether or not all Americans will be destroyed still depends on other factors. On the other hand, even with the assumed shelter systems, heavier casualties and more extensive destruction are also conceivable. Unless U.S.A. active offenses and active defenses can gain control of the military situation after only a few exchanges, an enemy could, by repeated strikes, reach almost any level of death and destruction one wished. If all fifty-three large metropolitan areas in the United States of America were completely destroyed, still one-third of the United States of America’s population and one-half of the wealth of the United States of American, being left outside, would be spared. From this point of view, the above destruction does not seem to be a total economic catastrophe. It may simply set the nation’s productive capacity back a decade or two, plus destroying many “luxuries.” There is also another possibility of limitless destruction of the United States of America, unless we can win the war militarily. Or, in the long run, a purely military approach to the security problem can lead to disaster for civilization, and by long run, I mean decades, not centuries. However, there are flaws in this reasoning, which ignores a number f essential fact. First, the whole balance sheets of deaths is based on the shelter idea. However, it is generally recognized that within a few years there will be bombs many times more destructive than the Tsar Bomb of 50 megatons, which is ten times more powerful than all of the ordnances exploded during tht whole of World War II, would be invented, and then shelters will be useless, even if we all live underground. It is easier to increase the striking power of nuclear weapons than to increase the safety factors of shelters and hardened bases. #Randolphharris 6 of 19

Hardening imposes a greater burden on a country than the burden the opponent has to assume in order to raise one’s striking power with which to offset the effects of hardening. It follows that despite all the optimistic figures, if the arms race goes on for five years more, we, the Russians, the Chinese, the Middle East, Mexico, Japan, Germany, and a large part of the World are threatened with much higher losses than previous calculations assume, if not with extinction. Also, keep in fact that the figures focus on attacks all happening within a few days, then stopping. However, in past years, these shocks were spread over many years. While many normal personalities would disintegrate under hardships spread over a period of years, the habits of a lifetime cannot be changed for most people in a few days. If you have to take it at all, then from the viewpoint of character stability it is better to take this kind of shock in a short time rather than in a long one. To a psychologist, it is much more likely tht sudden destruction, and the threat of slow death to a large part of the American population or the Russian population or large parts of the World will create such a panic, fury, and despair, as could only be compared with the mass psychosis that resulted from the Black Death in the Middle Ages. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

Duration of the fall-out shelters determines the length of time it is necessary to remain in shelters. These small and cramped; people will develop claustrophobia, run out of food and water or fall ill. In short, the point may be reached where in despair they prefer to venture outside, only to succumb to radiation sickness, probably to die. One can barely imagine the psychological situations that would arise and the problems the occupants of the shelter would have to solve for themselves. In the minds of the persons in the shelters would be the shattering knowledge of being involved in the greatest disaster the human race has ever seen. This would indeed be so: the Black Death, the massacres by the Mongol hordes, or any other large misfortunes either have been spread out over many years, or have involved isolated, widely separated cities, small by modern standards. Here disaster would cover great areas, be concentrated in tie and still last indefinitely, if the enemy so chose. The traumatic effects of such a catastrophe would lead to a new form of primitive barbarism, the resurgence of the most archaic elements that are still potentialities in every man and of wish we have had ample evidence in the terror systems of Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin. It is unlikely that human beings could cherish freedom, respect for life—in short, what we call democracy—after having witnessed and participated in the unlimited cruelty of man against man which thermonuclear war would mean. There is no evading of the fact that brutality has a brutalizing effect on the participants, and that total brutality leads to total brutalization. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

Even in the event of only partial destruction—from one and twenty to one hundred and sixty million causalities in America (and corresponding numbers in other countries) one thing is definite: after such an event there will be no democracy left anywhere, only ruthless dictatorships and gangs organized by the survivours in a half-destroyed World. The only question posed is how many of us will be killed; the moral problem of killing millions of fellow human beings—men, women, children—hardly is mentioned. After wholesale slaughters, the survivours are supposed to live a reasonably happy life. One asks oneself from what kind of moral or psychological position these assumptions are made. One comes to a rather shocking suspicion when one understands war is horrible. There is no question about it. But so is peace. And it is proper, with the kind of calculations we are making today, to compare the horror of war and the horror of peace and see how much worse it is. When people forming life into a balance sheet of life and death, the horrors of war are minimized because peace—and that is life—is felt to be only a little less horrible than death. We are dealing here with one of the most crucial problems of our age—the transformation of men into numbers on a balance sheet; one thinks it is a reasonable calculation to weigh the death of one- to two-thirds of the nation, provided the economy will soon recover. Indeed, there have always been wars; there have always been people who have sacrificed their own lives or killed other humans—out of love of liberty or in mere drunken orgies of hate. What is so new and shocking about the contributions of our age is the cold-blooded use of bookkeeping methods to encompass the destruction of millions of human beings. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

Mr. Stalin did this with millions of peasants. Mr. Hitler did its with millions of Jews. He was motivated by an unknown source, but for many of his subordinates it was simply a bureaucratic measure; regardless of the motives, once the order had been given, millions of human beings were liquidated systematically, economically and totally. Yet, another consideration is one cannot discuss the question of what might happen as a result of unilateral disarmament—or, for that matter, of any mutual disarmament—without examining some psychological arguments. The most popular one is that China, the Middle East, Russia, and Mexico cannot be trusted. If “trust” is meant in a moral sense, it is unfortunately true that political leaders can rarely be trusted. The reason lies in the split between private and public morals: the state, having become an idol, justifies any immortality if committed in its interest, while the very same political leaders would not commit the same acts if they were acting in behalf of their own private interests. However, there is another meaning to “trust in people,” a meaning which is much more relevant to the problem of politics: the trust that they are sane and rational beings, and that they will act accordingly. If I deal with an opponent in whose sanity I trust, I can appreciate his or her motivations and to some extent predict them, because there are certain rules and aims, like that of survival or that of commensurateness between aims and means, which are common to all sane people. Mr. Hitler could not be trusted because he was lacking in sanity, and this very lack destroyed both him and his regime. It seems quite clear that the Russian leaders of today are sane and rational people; therefore, it is important not only to know what they are capable of, but also to predict what they might be motivated to do. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

This question of the leaders’ and the people’s sanity leads to another consideration which affects us as much as it does other nations. In the current discussion on armament control, many arguments are based on the question of what is possible, rather than on what is probable. The difference between these two modes of thinking is precisely the difference between paranoid and sane thinking. The paranoiac’s unshakable conviction in the validity of one’s delusions rests upon the fact that it is logically possible, and, so, unassailable. It is logically possible that his wife, children, and colleagues hate him and are conspiring to kill him. The patient cannot be convinced that his delusion is impossible; one can only be told that it is exceedingly unlikely. While the latter position requires an examination and evaluation of the facts and also a certain amount of faith in life, the paranoid position can satisfy itself with the possibility alone. Our political thinking suffers from such paranoid trends. We should be concerned, not with the possibilities, but rather with the probabilities. This is the only sane and realistic way of conducting the affairs of national as well as of individual life. Again on the psychological plane, there are certain misunderstandings of the radical disarmament position which occur in many of the discussions. First of all, the position of unilateral disarmament has been understood as one of submission and resignation. On the contrary, the pacifists as well as the humanist pragmatists believe that unilateral disarmament is possible only as an expression of a deep spiritual and moral change within ourselves: it is an act of courage and resistance—not one of cowardice or surrender. Forms of resistance differ in accordance with the respective viewpoints. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

On the other hand, Gandhists and men like King-Hall advocate nonviolent resistance, which undoubtedly requires the maximum of courage and faith; they refer to the example of Indian resistance against Britain or Norwegian resistance against the Nazis. Thus, we dissociate ourselves from the basically selfish attitude that has been miscalled pacifism, but that might be more accurately described as a kind of irresponsible antimilitarism. We dissociate ourselves also from utopianism. Though the choice of nonviolence involves a radical change in humans, it does not require perfection. We have tried to make it clear that readiness to accept suffering—rather than inflict it on others—is the essence of the nonviolent life, and that we must be prepared if called upon to pay the ultimate price. Obviously, if humans are willing to spend billions of treasure and countless live in war, they cannot dismiss the case for nonviolence by saying that in a nonviolent struggle people might be killed! It is equally clear that where commitment and the readiness to sacrifice are lacking, nonviolent resistance cannot be effective. On the contrary, it demands greater discipline, more arduous training, and more courage than its violent counterpart. Some think of armed resistance, of men and women defending their lives and their freedom with Winchester Rifles, pistols, or knives. It is not unrealistic to think that both forms of resistance, nonviolent or violent, might deter an aggressor from attacking. At least, it is more realistic than to think that the use of thermonuclear weapons could lead to a “victory for democracy.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

The proponents of “security by armament” sometimes accuse us of having an unrealistic, flatly optimistic picture of the nature of man. They remind us that this “perverse human being has a dark, illogical, irrational side.” They even go so far as to say that “the paradox of nuclear deterrence is a variant of the fundamental Christian paradox. In order to live, we must express our willingness to kill and to die.” Apart from this crude falsification of Christian teaching, we are by no means oblivious of the potential evil within man and of the tragic aspects of life. Indeed, there are situations in which man must be willing to die in order to live. In the sacrifices necessary for violent or nonviolent resistance, I can see an expression of the acceptance of tragedy and sacrifice. However, there is no tragedy or sacrifice in irresponsibility and carelessness; there is no meaning or dignity in the idea of the destruction of mankind and of civilization. Man has in himself a potential for evil; his whole existence is beset by dichotomies rooted in the very conditions of his existence. However, these truly tragic aspects must not be confused with the results of stupidity and lack of imagination, with the willingness to stake the future of mankind on a gamble. Finally, to take up one last criticism, directed against the position of unilateral disarmament: that it is “soft” on communism. Our position is precisely based on the negation of the Russian principle of the omnipotence of the state. Just because the spokesmen for unilateral disarmament are drastically opposed to the supremacy of the state, they deny the right of the state to make decisions which can lead to the destruction of a great part of humanity and can doom future generations. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

If the basic conflict between Russia’s system and the democratic World is the question of the defense of the individual against the encroachment of an omnipotent state, then, indeed, the position for unilateral disarmament is the one which is most radically opposed to the Russian principle. No one must deny that there are risks involved in a limited form of unilateral action. Consider that we could easily be tricked into disarming ourselves and being attacked by others, we are caught in a position with little chance of survival without our weapons, unless we want to take refuge in hopes. Even if we make all the provisions, including shelters, warning and strategic evacuation of cities, and if the United States of America’s active offenses and active defenses can gain control of the military situation after only a few exchanges, we might only have 10,200,000 people killed. However, if these conditions do not materialize, an enemy could, by repeated strikes, reach almost the destruction of 320,000,000 Americans. In other words, any level of death and destruction he or she wished. (And, I assume, the same threat exists for other nations.) In such a situation, when nations are poised at the last moment when an agreement appears possible to end the risk of horrifying war, unleashed by fanatics, lunatics, or humans of ambition, it is imperative to shake off the inertia of our accustomed thinking, to seek for new approaches to the problem, and above all, to see new alternatives to the present choices that confront us. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

Adolf Eichmann was fascinated by bureaucratic order and death. His supreme values were obedience and the proper functioning of the organization. He transported Jewish people as he would have transported coal off to exterminations camps. That they were human beings was hardly within the field of his vision, hence even the problem of whether he hated or did not hate his victims is irrelevant. However, examples of the necrophilous character are by no means to be found only among the inquisitors, the Hitlers, the Eichmanns. There are any number of individuals who do not have the opportunity and the power to kill, yet whose necrophilia expresses itself in other and, superficially seen, more harmless ways. An example is the parent who will always be interested in one’s child’s sickness, in one’s failures, in morbid prognoses for the future; at the same time one will not be impressed by a favourable change; one will not respond to the child’s joy; one will not notice anything new that is growing within one. We might find that one’s dreams for the child deals with sickness, death, corpses, blood. One does not harm the child in any obvious way, yet one may slowly strange one’s joy of life, one’s faith in growth, and eventually the parent will infect that child with their own necrophilous orientation. It is fashionable today to talk about the inherent evil quality of human beings, which, allegedly, stamps optimism for a better future as sinful pride. However, if we were really so evil, our cruelty would at least be human. However, the bureaucratic indifference toward life is a symptom of a new and terrible form of inhumanity, one in which humans have been transformed into things. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

Indeed, an individual’s decision to give one’s life for the sake of a fellow man’s life, or his own integrity and his own convictions, is one of the greatest moral achievements man or woman is capable of. However, it is a moral achievement only if it is the result of an individual’s decision, a decision not motivated by vanity, depression, or masochism, but by devotion to another person’s life or to an idea. Few people have the courage and conviction to make this supreme sacrifice for the sake of an idea. The majority are not even willing to risk a job for the sake of their convictions. However, if this decision is made not individually but nationally, it loses its ethical significance. It is not an authentic decision made by one person, but a decision made for millions by a few leaders who, in order to get the individuals to accept the “ethical” decisions, have to make them drunk with passions of hate and fear. The ultimate negative very quickly becomes an accuser even if it does not succeed in getting a person to yield to one’s temptations. Psychopathological offenders can cause apparent conduct disorder to be manifested to the consciousness of a believer, and then will lash and accuse the human for their own workings. They counterfeit some sin, which may be called with sadness with sadness “my besetting sin,” in the believer’s life; and as long as it is believed to be sin from the evil nature, no “confessing” or seeking victory over it will cause it to pass away. They can also hide behind real sin. A sense of guiltlessness does not necessarily lead to absolute happiness, for even with the peace of conscious innocence there may be suffering, and the suffering may have its source in some sin which is not known. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

Walking by known light and measuring guiltlessness by one’s cognizance of sin, is very dangerous for anyone who desires a fathomless peace, for it leads only to superficial rest—which may be disturbed at any moment by the attack of the Accuser, who will one’s darts at ta joint in the armour of peace which is hidden from the believer’s view. For obtaining victory over the Deceiver’s accusing spirits, spiritual believers should, therefore, understand clearly whether any consciousness of sin is the result of real transgression or is caused by evil spirits. If the believer accepts the consciousness of sin as from oneself when it is not, one at once leaves one’s position of being “dead to sin” and reckons oneself alive to it. This explains why many who have truly known victory over sin by the “reckon” of Romans 6.11 later surrender their basis and lose the position of victory—because the Accuser has counterfeited some manifestation of “self” or “sin” and then accused the man of it, with the taunt that “Romans 6 does not work.” This can cause one to fall into confusion and condemnation, as into a pit of miry clay and darkness. Every document reporting the past—legends, myths, chronicles, records, or scholarly history books—contains an interpretation of history which consciously or unconsciously wrestles with the meaning of existence and its ambiguities. What is the significance of history for the meaning of existence in general? In what way does history influence our ultimate concern? Because of the subject-object structure of history, a detached, objective answer is impossible: historical activity is the key to understanding history. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

One cannot stand back from the flood of history, the better to see whither it is rushing; only by plunging into the stream can one feel the strength and direction of the current. However, what type of historical activity provides the key to history? More specifically, to which historical group should one be committed, which vocational consciousness should one adopt as the key to unlock the enigma of history as a whole? The option for a particular historical group and its vocational consciousness as the key to history supposes that one has already grasped the meaning of history or has been grasped by it. For “the key and what the key opens are experienced in one and the same act.” This is not a barren, circular argument, but the dialectic of the theological circle which operates on faith. For the Christian, the Kingdom of God is both the key and the answer to the problem of history. An interpretation of history explains more than merely the direction and dynamics of man’s spiritual creativity; historical time embraces all the dimensions of life. Consequently, “the answer to the meaning of history implies an answer to the universal meaning of being.” In terms of the Christian interpretation of history, the Kingdom of God embraces life in every dimension, everything in which the inner aim of history is operative, from sub-atomic particles of matter to the sublimest cultural creation. You can see that consciousness does not really belong to the individual existence of man but to his community or heard nature; that, consequently, it is finely developed only in relation to community and herd utility; and, consequently, that each of us, with the best will to understand ourselves as individually as possible, “to know ourselves,” will always only bring to consciousness precisely what is nonindividual in ourselves, what is “average”; that our thoughts themselves are constantly overruled by the character of consciousness—by the “genius of the species” dominating them—and translated back into the herd perspective. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

All our actions are at bottom incomparably personal, unique, endlessly individual, there is no doubt; but as soon as we translate them into consciousness, they no longer seem so…This is genuine phenomenalism and perspectivism, as I understand it: the nature of animal consciousness is such that the World we can be conscious of is only a World of surfaces and signs, a World generalized, made common—that everything that becomes  conscious thereby becomes flat, thin, relatively unenlightened, general, a sign, a herd signal; that all coming to conscious involves a vast and thoroughgoing corruption, falsification, superficialization, and generalization. Heightened consciousness is ultimately a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious individuals knows moreover that it is a sickness. May the day soon dawn, we pray, that day of liberty, when every shackle forged by man is loosed to set him free, when serfdom’s yoke is broken, every politician humbled low, when man shall take his brother’s hand and lovingkindness show, when all are able to achieve the American Dream, and all are free from fear, and all are free to worship Thee and to Thy Law adhere. Then nevermore the wanderer’s staff, and nevermore the sword, for all Thy children everywhere shall live in true accord. O may we never weary grow, and may we never cease to work for such a blessed World where men shall be at peace. 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. Every man shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make him afraid. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

The Winchester Mystery House

There is a strange story, from December 2007, a caretaker, was waiting in the mansion for more Christmas decorations to arrive. All the doors were fast locked, and everyone else had gone home for the night, when the front doors suddenly burst open, a shadowy figure came silently in and walked through the foyer. The caretaker followed the shadow as he passed through the Venetian Dining Room and straight through the glass doors to the courtyard. The caretaker went and fastened the doors and sat down again and waited for the Christmas decorations, but in a few minutes the same thing happened again. And this was really odd. At this time, the doors to The Winchester Mansion were never opened, in honor of Mrs. Winchester having sealed them off in the past, due to angry spirits. However, the door burst open, and the shadowy man passed through the house, then in the glass doors from the courtyard, and out the front. All through that night, as often as the lad shut the doors, the same thing happened over and over again. And he never dared speak to the strange visitor, for “he took it to be an angry sprit.”

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

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