Some still believe that universal disarmament is a necessary condition for the preservation of peace and freedom. However, others would like to know how is disarmament possible? How can any power seriously negotiate disarmament as long as each suspects the other of wanting to destroy it? No political understanding is possible or practical so long as the mutual threat of extinction exists, and at the same time disarmament is not possible unless a political understanding is reached. It is believed that some nations may want disarmament to relieve their internal economic problems; and that they are probably as anxious as anyone in the West to escape the nuclear threat. The true Western answer is not to allege bad faith, but to ask how other members of the atomic club conceive that the power struggle will be conducted under the provisions they propose. None of the great power centers are prepared today to provide an answer to such a demand. If the answer is discovered, the World problem will be solved. If it is not, most of us will probably die of blast and radiation disease, and our survivours will live a very poor life on a globe somewhat less suitable than the present one for human habitation. The first condition for a political understanding is to overcome the hysterical and irrational misconception the blocs have about each other. Most nations are conservative, totalitarian, managerialism, and not revolutionary systems with the aim of World domination; many World leaders have their own political positions they have to claim. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

We no longer have a capitalistic system of individual initiative, free competition, minimal government intervention. We are also a bureaucratic technological society with deep socialistic policies. It seems, indeed, as if the only point of which East and West agree are the cliches about each other. To disagree with this agreement is the beginning of a realistic understanding. The next step lies in the knowledge that there are no important economic or even political conflict between the atomic members club which in themselves would constitute a reason for war; that the only danger might bring about a war is mutual fear resulting from the arms race, and from ideological differences. What, then, is the realistic basis for a cohesive understand of the nations? The basis is the mutual recognition of the status quo, the mutual agreement not to change the existing political balance of power between the members of the atomic club. This means first of all that all nations must learn to respect the boundaries of other nations. It is perfectly true that satellites have come under control by force, and as a result of victorious wars. It is true that it might that at the end of any war, it might have been possible by means of greater insistence to save some countries from being dominated; some are wondering if Russian will eventually dominate Ukraine? It is obvious that Russian will not relinquish what she has or wants without a war. This may be the same method of other countries. If one faces the dilemma realistically, then there remains only one answer: to accept the facts as they are in the knowledge that the aim of avoiding war from every standpoint more important than that of a “liberated” Ukraine. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

The irony of it is that there is no such alternative, since the real choice is only between a Communist-dominated or destroyed Ukraine. The West knows that the conflict in Ukraine cannot be stopped short of a war. However, American keeps sending money to Ukraine as a means of sustaining nationalist feelings and for political understanding. Because we are obsessed by the idea of the Russian menace and thus a need for American aid, we are driven to support a Ukrainian policy that in the long run makes a political settlement with Russia possible—and hence makes peace improbable. We must free ourselves from purely ideological cliches. Why is it that we cannot surrender the right of the Ukrainian people to determine its own fate at a time not too far distant? Is this not another way of saying that we must prevent Russian expansionism and not let them have their way? Russia’s seizure of Crimea was the first time since World War II that a European state annexed the territory of another. Because of our obsession with the Russian wish for World domination. The President Joe Biden administration and U.S.A. Congress have directed more than $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military support. President Vladimir Putin’s announcement on September 21, 2023 of a partial mobilization and annexation of four Ukrainian provinces was a stark reminder that this war is nowhere near a resolution. Fighting still rages across nearly 1,000 km of front lines. Negotiations on ending the conflict has been suspended since May. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

The trajectory and ultimate outcome of the war will, of course, be determined largely by the policies of Ukraine and Russia. However, Kyiv and Moscow are not the only capitals with a stake in what happens. This war is the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences for the United States of America. The U.S.A. government has an obligation to Ukrainian citizens to determine how different war trajectories would affect U.S.A. interest and explore options for influencing the course of the war to promote those interest. The specter of Russian nuclear use has haunted this conflict since its early days. In announcing his invasion in February 2022, President Putin threatened any country that tried to interfere in Ukraine with consequences “such as you have never seen in history.” He went on to order a special regime of combat duty for Russia’s nuclear forces a week later. In October 2022, Moscow alleged that Kyiv was planning to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in Ukraine as a false flag operation and then blame Russia. U.S.A. officials worried that Russia was promoting this story to create a pretext for using nuclear weapons. And perhaps most disconcertingly, Western governments appear to have become convinced that Moscow considered using nonstrategic nuclear weapons (NSNW) as it forces lost ground in the fall. Russia has denied these allegations, but news reports suggest that top Russian commander did discuss this option. Some analysts have dismissed the possibility of NSNW use, contending the Russia knows that employment of nuclear weapons would be self-defeating. They point to the lack of high-value military targets (for example, concentrated Ukrainian forces) that could be effectively destroyed with such weapons and to the risk that these weapons might harm Russian troops deployed in Ukraine. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

Use of these weapons could provoke NATO’s entry into the war, erode Russia’s remaining international support, and spark domestic political backlash for the Kremlin. Knowing this, the logic goes, Russia would be deterred from using nuclear weapons. The decision to mobilize 300,000 Russian in September 2022 shows Mr. Putin’s willingness to accept domestic costs and risks. U.S.A. President Joe Biden pleased with Republicans for more military aid for Ukraine, warning that a victory for Russia in Ukraine would strengthen Moscow to such an extent that it could then attack NATO allies and draw American troops into war. The U.S.A. announced 6 December 2023 $175 million in additional Ukraine aid from its dwindling funds for Kyiv but Mr. Biden failed to convince Republican senators to back a larger $110 billion emergency spending bill that included a large pork barrel of aid for Ukraine (of around $50 billion) amid continued disputes over southern American border security. “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Mr. Biden said. Putin will attack a NATO ally, he predicted, and then “we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today: American troops fighting Russian troops,” Mr. Biden said. The address drew an angry response from Moscow, with Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov commenting on Telegram that Mr. Biden’s comments were “provocative rhetoric unacceptable for a responsible nuclear power.” Can we be surprised that Anatoly Antonov felt personally slapped-down and, more importantly, that he had to react to this statement in a way that preserved his position in Russia? There is no denying the fact that unless an America-Russian modus vivendi is accepted there will be continued tension and a continued armament race—and the probability of a thermonuclear war. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

That such an understanding should be possible requires, of course, in the first place, that neither side has the intention of conquering the World. However, how can the United States of America and Russian agree on the status quo in Ukraine, Asia, Africa, Latin America when there is a current conflict and these parts of the World are in a continuous ferment, both politically and socio-economically? Would not such an agreement, even if it could be arrived at, not mean freezing the present power structure all over the World, stabilizing what can not remain stable? Doe it not mean an international guarantee for the continued existence of some of the most reactionary regimes which are bound to fall sooner or later? This difficulty will appear less formidable if one considers that an agreement not to alter the present possessions and spheres of interest between the United States of America and Russia and China, is not the same as freezing the internal structure of all Asiatic, African, and Latin American states. It means, in fact, that nations, even though they change their government and their social structure, do not, for this reason, change their allegiance from one block to another. There are a number of examples showing that this is possible; the most striking one is Egypt. Egypt, which was one of the poorest countries in the World and, in addition, one of the most corruptly governed was bound to have a revolution. Like all other revolutions in Asia and Africa, the Egyptian had two aspects: it was intensely nationalistic; and it was socialistic in a broad sense, aiming at basic economic changes for the benefit of the broad masses of the Egyptian population. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

Nasser has to free himself from the remnants of British domination, but he was resolved not to fall under Russian domination either. He took the only reasonable course, that of non-alignment, exploiting the rivalry between the two bloc to his advantage and for the political survival of an independent Egypt. It is hardly exaggerated to say that United States of America’s foreign policy as it was then formulated by the late Mr. Dulles almost drove Nasser into the Russian camp. Neutrality, according to this doctrine, was immoral, and friendly relations on the part of a small power like Egypt toward the Soviet Union were considered to hostile to the United States and were to be punished accordingly. (In the case of Egypt the abrupt withdrawal of the promised loan for the Assuan Dam.) Yet Nasser remained neutral, even in spite of the extreme Anglo-French military provocation of the Suez attack.  The same holds true for Iraq, Lebanon, Indonesia. In Iraq and in Lebanon the United States of America seemed convinced that a new government would slip into the Soviet orbit, and we prepared for military intervention, but the State Department’s prognosis failed to materialize. The United States of America’s attitude was then justified as having “prevented” the Soviets from taking over these countries, even though it is very unlikely that there had been such intentions, and even less so that the respective countries wanted to be taken over by the Soviets. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

The United States of America’s position of trying to enforce the continuance of “pro-Western governments” in countries where these governments are definitely unpopular is, in the long run, doomed to failure. The only constructive policy lies in permitted and even furthering the emergence of a bloc of nonaligned, neutral countries. Only in this way can acute American-Russian conflicts with accompanying threats of using nuclear force be avoided. The Russians have actually acted more wisely in this respect than we: they accept neutrality as a sufficient condition for friendly relations and economic help. It is time for the United States of America to adopt the same attitude. Discussing the need for accepting and furthering the political neutrality of large parts of the underdeveloped World is, however, only the beginning. The political stance of these counties cannot be separated from their internal social and economic development. It is precisely here where a more realistic attitude is necessary. Dr. Freud, when he tentatively suggested the existence of the duality of life instinct (Eros) and the death instinct suggested the existence of the duality of these two drives within man was deeply impressed, especially under the influence of the First World War, by the force of the destructive impulses. He revised his older theory in which the sexual instinct had been opposed to the ego instincts (both serving survival, and thus the purpose of life) for the sake of the hypothesis that both the striving for life and the striving for death are inherent in the very substance of life. In Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), Dr. Freud expressed the view that there was a phylogenetically older principle which he called the “repetition compulsion.” #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

The latter operates to restore a previous condition and ultimately to take organic life back to the original state of inorganic existence. “If it is true,” said Dr. Freud, “that once in an inconceivably remote past, and in an unimaginable way, the life rose out of inanimate matter, then, in accordance with our hypothesis, an instinct must have at that time come into being, whose aim it was to abolish life once more and to re-establish the inorganic state of things. If this instinct we recognize the impulse to self-destruction in our hypotheses, then we can regard that impulse as the manifestation of a death instinct which can never be absent in any vital process.” The death instinct may be actually observed either turned outward against others, or inward against ourselves, and often blended with the sexual instinct, as in sadistic and masochistic perversions. Opposite to the death instinct is the life instinct. While the death instinct (sometime called Thanatos in the psychoanalytic literature, although not by Dr. Freud himself) has the function of separating and disintegrating. Eros has the function of binding, integrating, and uniting organisms to each other and cells within the organism. Each individual’s life, then, is a battlefield for these two fundamental instincts: “the effort of Eros to combine organic substances into ever larger unities” and the efforts of the death instinct which tends to undo precisely what Eros is trying to accomplish. Dr. Freud himself proposed the new theory only hesitantly and tentatively. This is not surprising, since it was based on the hypothesis of the repetition compulsion which in itself was at best an unproved speculation. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

In fact, none of the arguments in favour of his dualistic theory seem to answer objections based on many contradictory data. Most living beings seem to fight for life with an extraordinary tenacity, and only exceptionally do they tend to destroy themselves. Furthermore, destructiveness varies enormously among individuals, and by no means in such a way that the variation is only one between the respective outward and inward-directed manifestations of the death instinct. We see some persons who are characterized by an especially intense passion to destroy others, while the majority do not show this degree of destructiveness. This lesser degree of destructiveness against others is, however, not matched by a correspondingly higher degree of self-destruction, masochism, illness et cetera. Considering all these objections to Dr. Freud’s theories, it is not surprising that a large number of otherwise orthodox analysts, like O. Fenichel, refused to accept his theory of the death instinct, or accept it only conditionally and with great qualification. The contradiction between Eros and destruction, between the affinity to life and affinity to death is, indeed, the most fundamental contradiction which exists in humans This duality, however, is not one of two biologically inherent instincts, relatively constant and always battling with each other until the final victory of the death instinct, but it is one between the primary and most fundamental tendency of life—to preserve in life—and its contradiction, which comes into being when a human fails in this goal. In this view the “death instinct” is a malignant phenomenon which grows and takes over to the extent to which Eros does not unfold. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

The death instinct represents psychopathology. The life instinct thus constitutes the primary potentiality in man; the death instinct a secondary potentiality. The primary potentiality develops if the appropriate conditions for life are present, just as a seed grows only if the proper conditions of moisture, temperature, et cetera, are given. If the proper conditions are not present, the necrophilous tendencies will emerge and dominate the person. The ultimate negative is a counterfeiter, a false “angle of the light”; the ultimate negative himself fashions himself into an angel of light, and his ministers (false apostles, deceitful workers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness. This aspect of victory over the ultimate negative runs on the same lines as the preceding, one; id est, by the knowledge of truth, enabling the believer to recognize the lies of the ultimate negative when he presented himself under the guise of light. Light is the very nature of God Himself. To recognize darkness when clothed in light—supernatural light—requires deep knowledge of the true light, and a power to discern the innermost sources of things that in appearance look Godlike and beautiful. The main attitude for this aspect of victory over the Adversary is a settled position of neutrality to all supernatural workings, until the believer knows what is of God. If any experience is accepted without question, how can its divine origin be guaranteed? The basis of acceptance or rejection must be knowledge. The believe must know, and one cannot know without examination; nor will one “examine” unless one maintains the attitude of “Believe not ever spirit” until one has “tested” and proved what is of the ultimate concern. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

After the maturing process of preparation, the Kingdom of God was manifested within history by the appearance of Jesus as the Christ. The moment of this breakthrough is called Kairos, the New Testament word that means “the right time” or “the fulfilment of time.” Mr. Tillich introduced this term and he is proud of the fact that it was he and his fellow Religious Socialists who introduced the term into the discussion of the interpretation of history. It not only expressed the dynamic movement of history, but also sums up the feeling of many people in central Europe after the First World War that a moment of history had appeared which was pregnant with a new understanding of the meaning of history and life. Kairos is contrasted with chronos which is measured time or clock time. Chronos is the quantitative side of time, while Kairos stresses a quality of time which is approximated by the English word “timing.” Kairos is time of revelation. Divine revelation, through gratuitous, breaks through at the moment propitious moment, prepared for by prophetic criticism and followed by embodiment in the church. The original appearance of Jesus as the Christ is the “great Kairos,” but his manifestation is re-experienced again and again in moments of conversation which are “relative kairoi.” These secondary kairoi depend upon the great Kairos as their criterion and source of power. A relative Kairos that extends to multitudes of people and significantly shapes the course of history is rare, but, on a more modest scale, “kairoi have occurred and are occurring in all preparatory and receiving movements in church latent and manifest.” To these two senses of Kairos can be added a third meaning, namely, Kairos as a general category which the philosopher of history employs to describe any decisively important turn in history. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

Kairos in its unique and universal sense is, for Christian faith, the appearing of Jesus as the Christ. Kairos in its general and special sense of the philosopher of history is every turning-point in history which the eternal judges and transforms the temporal. Kairos in its special sense, as decisive for our present situation, is the coming of a new theonomy on the soil of a secularized and emptied autonomous culture. How does one become aware of a Kairos which heralds the advent of a theonomous era? It is not a matter of detached observation but of involved experiences. A period of history, ripe for a Kairos, is characterized by openness to the unconditional. This is not to say that such an age is necessarily more religious than a so-called irreligious age, but an age that is turned toward, and opened to, the unconditional is one in which the consciousness of the presence of the unconditional permeates and guides all cultural functions and forms. The divine, for such a state of mind, is not a problem but a presupposition. The breakthrough of a Kairos coincides with the establishment of a theonomous culture. In describing a period of Kairos, we shall call such a situation “theonomous,” not in the sense that in it God lays down the laws but in the sense that such an age, in all its forms, is open to and directed toward the divine. The problem, of course, is why a theonomous period does not endure, if it is founded upon the presence of the unconditioned in totality of man’s cultural life. Kairos is also grounded in the Protestant principle. The Protestant principle demands the creative presence of the divine in history (the Yes) and the transcendence of the divine to all its historical manifestations (the No). #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

Kairos fulfill these conditions, for it includes both a prophetic protest, which prepares for and accompanies the manifestation of the center of history, and an affirmation of the presence of the Kingdom of God among us. The idea of “the Kairos” united criticism and creation. The Cross of the Christ proclaimed in the great Kairos must be the constant criterion of lesser kairoi. For just as the holy and faith itself is open to demonic distortion, so too is Kairos. The Religious Socialists of the 1920’s and 1930’s preached a Kairos, but, at the same time, Nazism exploited the concept to build an idolatrous nationalism and racism. Besides the danger of being demonized, every Kairos, even the great Kairos, is liable to error about calculation of time and detail. No date foretold in the experience of a Kairos was ever correct; no situation envisaged as the result of a Kairos ever came into being. However, something happened to some people through the power of the Kingdom of God as it became manifest in history, and history has been changed ever since. We “knowers” are by now mistrustful of all kinds of believers; our mistrust has gradually accustomed us to infer the very opposite of what was once inferred: namely, wherever the strength of a belief comes very much to the fore, we infer a certain weakness of demonstration, an improbability of what we believed. We do not deny that faith “beatifies”: for that very reason we deny that faith proves anything—a strong faith that beatifies raises suspicion against what it believes; what it proves is not “truth” but a certain probability—of deception. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

How do things stand in this case?—These modern-day nay-sayers ad standoffish ones, those who are unconditional on a single point—the claim to intellectual cleanliness—these hard, strict, abstinent, heroic spirits who constitute the honour of our age, all these pale atheists, anti-Christians, immoralists, nihilists, these skeptics, ephetics, hectics of the spirit (for this they are, one and all, in some sense), these last idealists of knowledge in whom alone intellectual conscience today dwells and is embodied—they in fact believe themselves to be as free as possible of the ascetic ideal, these “free, very free spirits”; and yet, to intimate to them what they themselves cannot see—for they are standing too close to themselves—this ideal is precisely their ideal, too; they themselves represent it, and perhaps no one else; they themselves are its most spiritualized product, its most advanced warriors and scouts, its most captious, most delicate, most elusive form of seduction—If I am any kind of guesser of riddles, let me try with this proposition! They are far from being free spirits: for they still believe in truth. When the Christian crusaders in the Orient came across that invincible order of Assassins, that order of free spirits par excellence whose lower ranks lived in an obedience such as no order of monks has ever attained, they also acquired somehow or other a hint of that symbol and watchword reserved only for the highest ranks as their secretum: “Nothing is true, everything is permitted.” Now that was freedom of the spirit, with that, faith in truth itself was renounced. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

Has any European, any Christian free spirit ever strayed into this proposition and its labyrinth consequences? Does one know the Minotaur of his cave from experience? I doubt it; in fact, I know it is not so: nothing is more foreign to those who are unconditional on a single point, these so-called “free spirits,” than freedom and unfettering in this sense; in no respect are they more firmly bound; it is precisely in their faith in truth tht they are, like no one else, firm and unconditional. I know all this from too close up, perhaps: that admirable abstemiousness of philosophers to which such faith obliges one; that stoicism of the intellect that in the end forbids the No just as strictly as it does the Yes; that wanting to stand still before the factual, the factum brutum; that fatalism of the “petits faits” (ce petit faitalisme, as I call it), in which French science now seeks a kind of moral superiority over German science; that general renunciation of interpretation (of forcing, setting straight, abridging, omitting, padding, inventing, falsifying, and whatever else belongs to the essence of all interpreting)—this, broadly speaking, expresses as much asceticism of virtue as any abnegation of sensibility (it is, at bottom, simply a mode of that abnegation). However, what it forces you into, that unconditional will to truth, is faith in the ascetic ideal itself, even if as its unconscious imperative—make no mistake about it—this is faith in a metaphysical value, the value in itself of truth, as sanctioned and guaranteed in that ideal alone (it stands or falls with that ideal). #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

There is, strictly speaking, no such things as “presuppositonless” science—the very idea is unthinkable, paralogical: a philosophy, a “faith” must always be there first, so that from it science can acquire a direction, a sense, a limit, a method, a right to exist. (Anyone who understands this the other way around, who sets out, for example, to put philosophy “on a rigorous scientific foundation,” first has to stand not only philosophy but truth itself one its head—the grossest violation of decency there can be in the presence of two such dignified ladies!) Anyone who is truthful in that bold and ultimate sense presupposed by faith in science thereby affirms a World other than that of life, nature, and history; and insofar as one affirms this “other World, must one not precisely thereby deny its counterpart, this World, our World? It is still a metaphysical faith on which our faith in science rests—even we knowing ones of today, we godless ones and antimetaphyicians, still also take our fire from the flame ignited by a faith thousands of years old, that Christian faith that was also Plato’s faith, that God is truth, that truth is divine…But what if just this were to become ever more unbelievable, if nothing else were ever to prove itself divine, only error, blindness, life—if God Himself proved to be our longest life?”—Here we must pause and reflect a while. Science henceforth stands in need of justification (which is not to say that it has one.) Just look at the most ancient and the most recent philosophies: in none of them is there any awareness of the extent to which the will to truth itself stands in need of justification; there is a gap here in every philosophy—why is that? #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

Because the ascetic idea has hitherto dominated all of philosophy; because truth was posited as being, as God, as the highest authority; because truth was simply not allowed to be a problem. Do we understand this “allowed”? –From the moment faith in the god of the ascetic ideal is repudiated, there is a new problem as well: that of the value of truth. The will to truth stands in need of critique—here we define our own task—the value of truth must be experimentally called into question. Thou who art the breath of life, who did create all humans alike in dignity, Thy power is manifest in the destiny of nations. 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. Thou make nations great; Thou bring nations low; thou gives freedom even unto the beasts and winged fowl; Thy will it is that all mankind be free. “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” We who know the sweet delights of liberty, yet look upon ourselves in every age as if we, too, had once been Pharaoh’s slaves, ours, then, the task to loose all fetters break all bonds, and bring men out of slavery. Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof. Would we bear the torch of freedom’s light into a World where men are still in servitude? Then from our shackles we must first emancipate ourselves, from ignorance and blinding hate, and set out own souls free. Only one is truly free who is devoted to the Christian Bible and observes its commandments. Please be kind this holiday season, and keep the Sacramento Fire Department in your hearts by making a kind donation. They have been proudly serving the community since 1851. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

CRESLEIGH HAVENWOOD

Lincoln, CA | from the high $600s

Now Selling!

No appointment needed! Cresleigh Havenwood features four distinct floor plans ranging from 2,293 – 3,377 square feet and offering up to five bedrooms. 

Each plan has been thoughtfully designed and includes great features such as single story homes, guest suites, optional offices, garage workshops, and more!

Get the most out of your new home with Cresleigh’s All Ready smart home featuring all the connectivity needed to keep your house running. Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes with owned solar included! 

Located off of Virginiatown Road and McCourtney Road, residents of the 83 homesites of Cresleigh Havenwood will benefit from a brand new neighborhood in the charming City of Lincoln. Palo Verde Park, is  just down the street and there’s plenty of recreation to take part in all around town. https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/residence-four/

#CresleighHomes