If people knew the likely course which American society will take, many if not most of them would be so horrified that they might take adequate measures to permit changing the course. If people are not aware of the direction in which they are going, they will awaken when it is too late and when their fate has been irrevocably sealed. Unfortunately, the vast majority are not aware of where they are going. They are not aware that the new society toward which they are moving is as radically different from Greek and Roman, medieval and traditional industrial societies as the agricultural society was from that of the food gatherers and hunters. Most people still think in the concepts of the society of the first Industrial Revolution. They see that we have more and better machines than man had fifty years ago and mark this down as progress. They believe that lack of direct political oppression is a manifestation of the achievement of personal freedom. Their vision of the year 2050 is that it will be the full realization of the aspirations of man since the end of the Middle Ages, and they do not see that the year 2025 may not be the fulfilment and happy culmination of a period in which man struggled for freedom and happiness, but the beginning of a period in which man ceases to be human and becomes transformed into an unthinking and unfeeling machine. It is interesting to note that the dangers of the new dehumanized society were already clearly recognized by intuitive minds in the nineteenth century, and it adds to the impressiveness of their vision that they were people of opposite camps. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

A conservative like Disraeil and a socialist like Marx were practically of the same opinion concerning the danger to man that would arise from the uncontrolled growth of production and consumption. They both saw how man would become weakened by enslavement to the machine and his own ever increasing cupidity. Disraeli thought the solution could be found by containing the power of the new bourgeoisie; Mark believed that a highly industrial society could be transformed into a human one, in which man and not material goods were the goal of all social efforts. One of the most brilliant progressive thinkers of the last century, John Stuart Mill, saw the problem with all clarity: “I confess I am not charmed with the ideal of life held out by those who think that the normal state of human beings is that of struggling to get on; that the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and treading on each other’s heels, which form the existing type of social life, are the most desirable lot of human kind, or anything but the disagreeable symptom of one of the phases of industrial progress…Most fitting, indeed, is it, that while riches are power, and to grow as rich as possible the universal object of ambition, the path to it attainment should be open to all, without favour or partiality. But the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to fear being thrust back by the efforts of other to push themselves forward.” #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

It seems that great minds a hundred and sixty years ago saw what would happen today or tomorrow, while we to whom it is happening blind ourselves in order not to be disturbed in our daily routine. It seems that liberals and conservatives are equally blind in this respect. There are only few writers of vision who have clearly seen the monster to which we are giving birth. It is not Anne Rice’s Queen of the Damn, but a Moloch, the all-destructive idol, to which human life is to be sacrificed. This Moloch has been described most imaginatively by Orwell and Aldous Huxley, by a number of science-fiction writers who show more perspicacity than most professional sociologists and psychologists. I have already quoted Brzezinski’s description of the technetronic society, and only want to quote the following addition: “The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideologically-minded intellectual-dissenter…is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist…or by the generalists-integrators, who become in effect house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.” A profound and brilliant picture of the new society has been given recently by one of the most outstanding humanists of our age, Lewis Mumford. If there are any, future historians will consider his work to be one of the prophetic warnings of our time. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

Mr. Mumford gives new depth and perspective to the future by analyzing its roots in the past. The central phenomenon which connects past and future, as he sees it, he calls the “megamachine.” The “megamachine” is the totally organized and homogenized social system in which society as such functions like a machine and men like its parts. This kind of organization by total coordination, by “the constant increase of order, power, predictability and above all control,” achieved almost miraculous technical results in early megamachines like the Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies, and it will find its fullest expression, with the help of modern technology, in the future of the technological society. Mr. Mumford’s concept of the megamachine helps to make clear certain recent phenomena. The first time the megamachine was used on a large scale in modern times was, it seems to me, in the Stalinist system of industrialization, and after that, in the system used by Chinese Communism. While Mr. Lenin and Mr. Trotsky still hoped that the Revolution would eventually lead to the master of society by the individual, as Mr. Marx had visualized, Mr. Stalin betrayed whatever was left of these hopes and sealed the betrayal by physical extinction of all those in whom the hope might not have completely disappeared. Mr. Stalin could build his megamachine on the nucleus of a well-developed industrial sector, even though one far below those of countries like England or the United States of America. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

The Communist leaders in China were confronted with a different situation. They had no industrial nucleus to speak of. Their only capital was the physical energy and the passions and thoughts of 1.4 billion people. They decided that by means of the complete coordination of this human material they could create the equivalent of the original accumulation of capital necessary to achieve a technical development which in a relatively short time would reach the level of that of the West. This total coordination had to be achieved by a mixture of force, personality cult, and indoctrination which is in contrast to the freedom and individual Mr. Marx had foreseen as the essential elements of a socialist society. One must not forget, however, that the ideals of the overcoming of private egotism and of maximal consumption have remained elements in the Chinese system, at least thus far, although blended with totalitarianism, nationalism, and thought control, thus vitiating the humanist vision of Mr. Marx. The insight into this radical break between the first phase of industrialization and the second Industrial Revolution, in which society itself becomes a vast machine, of which man is a living particle, is obscured by certain important differences between the megamachine of Egypt and that of the twenty-first century. First of all, the labour of the live parts of the Egyptian machine was forced labour. The naked threat of death or starvation forced the Egyptian worker to carry out his task. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

Today, in the twenty-first century, the worker in the most developed industrial countries, such as the United States of America, has a comfortable life—one which would have seemed like a life of undreamed-of luxury to his ancestor working a hundred years ago. He has, and in this point lie one of the errors of Mr. Marx, participated in the economic progress of capitalist society, profited from it, and, indeed, has a great deal more to lose than his chains. The bureaucracy which directs the work is very different from the bureaucratic elite of the old megamachine. Its life is guided more or less by the same middle-class virtues that are valid for the worker, the difference in consumption is one of quantity rather than quality. Employers and workers smoke the same cigarettes and they ride in cars that look the same even though the better cars run more smoothly than the less expensive ones. They watch the same movies and the same television shows, and their wives use the same refrigerators. (The fact that the underdeveloped sector of the population does not take part in this new style of life has been mentioned.) The managerial elite are also different from those of old in another respect: they are just as much appendages of the machines as those whom they command. They are just as alienated, or perhaps more so, just as anxious, or perhaps more so, as the worker in one of their factories. They are bored, like everyone else, and use the same antidotes against the boredom. They are not as the elites were of old—a culture-creating group. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

Although they spend a good deal of their money to further science and art, as a class they are much consumers of this “cultural welfare” as its recipients. The culture-creating group lives on the fringes. They are creative scientists and artists, but it seems that, thus far, the most beautiful blossom of twenty-first century society grows on the tree of science, and not on the tree of art. Different as people are, many all have in common an uncompromising will to liberate man, an equally uncompromising faith in truth as the instrument of liberation and the belief that the condition for this liberation lies in man’s capacity to break the chain of illusion. That al men share the same basic anatomical and physiological features is common knowledge, and no physician would think he could not treat every man, regardless of race and colour, with the same methods he has applied to men of his own race. However, does man have also in common the same psychic organization; do al men have in common the same human nature? If there such an entity as “human nature?” The whole concept of humanity and of humanism is based on the idea of a human nature in which all men share. This was the premise of Jesus the Christ as well what the doctrine of Judaeo-Christian thought. The picture of man in existentialist and anthropological terms assumes that the same psychic laws are valid for all men because the “human situation” is the same for all of us; that we all live under the illusion of the separateness and indestructibility of each one’s ego; that we all try to find an answer to the problem of existence by the greedy desire to hold on to things, including that peculiar thing, “I”; that we all suffer because this answer to life is a false one, and that we can get rid of the suffering only by giving the right answer—that of overcoming the illusion of separateness, of overcoming greed, and of waking up to the fundamental truths which govern our existence. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

The Judaeo-Christian tradition, being conceptualized in reference to a supreme creator and ruler, God, defined man in a different way. One man and one woman are the forebears of the whole human race, and these forebears as well as all the generations to come are made in “the likeness of God.” They all share the same basic features that make them human, which enable them to know and to love one another. This is the premise for the prophetic picture of the Messianic Time, the peaceful unity of all mankind. Among the philosophers, Mr. Spinoza, the father of modern dynamic psychology, postulated the picture of the nature of man in terms of a “model of human nature,” which was ascertainable and definable and from which the laws of human behaviour and reaction followed. Man, and not just men of this or of that culture, could be understood like any other being in nature because man is one, and the same laws are valid for all of us at all times. The philosophers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (especially Goeth and Herder) believed that the humanity (Humanitaet) inherent in man leads him to ever higher stages of development; they believed that every individual carries within himself not only his individuality but also all of humanity with all its potentialities. They considered the task of life to be the development toward totality through individuality; and they believed that the voice of humanity was given to everybody and could be understood by every human being. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

Today the idea of human nature or of an essence of man has fallen into disrepute, partly because one has become more skeptical about metaphysical and abstract terms like “the essence of man,” but partly also because one has lost the experience of humanity which underlay the Judaeo-Chrisitan, Spinozist, and Enlightenment concepts. Contemporary psychologist and sociologists are prone to think of man as a blank sheet of paper on which each culture writes it text. While they do not deny the oneness of human race, they leave hardly any content and substance to this concept of humanity. In contrast to these contemporary trends, Mr. Marx and Dr. Freud assumed that man’s behaviour is comprehensible precisely because it is the behaviour of man, of a species that can be defined in terms of its psychic and mental character. Mr. Marx, in assuming the existence of nature of man, did not concur in the common error of confusing it with its particular manifestations. He differentiated “human nature in general” from “human nature as modified in each historical epoch.” Human nature in general we can never see, of course, as such, because what we observe are always the specific manifestations of human nature in various cultures. However, we can infer from these various manifestations what this “human nature in general” is, what the laws are which govern it, what the needs are which man has as man. In his earlier writings Mr. Marx still called “human nature in general” the “essence of man.” He later gave up this term because he wanted to make it clear that “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each separate individual.” #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

Mr. Marx also wanted to avoid giving the impression that he thought of the essence of man as an unhistorical substance. For Mr. Marx, the nature of man was a given potential, a set of conditions, the human raw material, as it were, which as such cannot be changed, just as the size and structure of the human brain has remained the same since the beginning of civilization. Yet man does change in the course of history. He is the product of history, transforming himself during his history, He becomes what he potentially is. History is the process of man’s creating himself by developing—in the process of work—those potentialities which are given him when he is born. “The whole of what is called World history,” says Mr. Marx, “is nothing but the creation of man by human labour, and the emergence of nature for man; he therefore has the evident and irrefutable proof of his self-creation of his own origins.” Mr. Marx was opposed to two positions: the unhistorical one that the nature of man is a substance present from the very beginning of history, and the relativistic position that man’s nature has no inherent quality whatsoever and is nothing but the reflect of social conditions. However, he never arrived at the full development of his own theory concerning the nature of man, transcending both the unhistorical and the relativistic positions; hence he left himself open to various and contradictory interpretations. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

Nevertheless from his concept of man follow certain ideas about human pathology and about human health. As the main manifestation of psychic pathology, Mr. Marx speaks of the cripped and alienated man; as the main manifestation of psychic health, he speak of the active, productive, independent man. Up to this point the analyst, on the whole, has followed the patient. There is a certain amount of implicit guidance, of course, in each suggestion of a possible lead—a new slant offered by an interpretation, a question raised, a doubt expressed. However, for the most part the initiative lies with the patient. When a resistance has developed, however, interpretative work and implicit guidance may be insufficient, and then the analyst must definitely take the lead. In these periods his task is, first, to recognize the resistance as such, and, second, to help the patient to recognize it. And he must not only help him to see that he is engaged in a defensive battle but also find out, with or without the patient’s help, what it is that the latter is warding off. He does so by going back in his mind over the pervious sessions and trying to discover what may have struck the patient before the session in which the resistance started. It is sometimes easy to do this, but it may be extremely difficult. The beginning of the resistance may have been unnoticeable. The analyst may not yet be aware of the patient’s vulnerable spots. However, if the analyst can recognize the presence of the resistance, and can succeed in convincing the patient that one is operating, the source can often be discovered through common search. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

The immediate gain from this discovery is that the way is cleared for further work, but an understanding of the sources of a resistance also provides the analyst with significant information concerning the factors the patient wants to keep under cover. When the patient has arrived at an insight that has far-reaching implications—for example, when he has succeeded in seeing a neurotic trend and in recognizing in it a driving force of primary order, the analyst’s active guidance is likely to be particularly necessary. This could be a time of harvest, a time in which many previous findings might fall in line and further ramifications might become apparent. What frequently happens instead is that at this very point, the patient develops a resistance and tries to get away with as little as possible. He may do so in various ways. He may automatically search for and express some ready-at-hand explanation. Or he may in a more or less subtle way disparage the significance of the finding. He may respond with good resolutions to control the trend by sheer will, a course which recalls the paving of the road to hell. Finally, he may prematurely raise the question why the trend has obtained such a hold on him, delving into his childhood and at best brining forth relevant data contributing to the understanding of origins, for he is actually using this dive into the past as a means of escaping from the realization of what the discovered trend means for his actual life. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

These efforts to rush away from an important insight as quickly as possible are understandable. It is difficult for a person to face the fact that he has put all his energies into the pursuit of a phantom. More important, such an insight confront him with the necessity for radical change. It is only natural that he should tend to close his eyes to a necessity so disturbing to his whole equilibrium. However, the fact remains that through this hasty retreat, he prevents the insight from “sinking in” and thereby deprives himself of the benefits it might mean for him. Here the help the analyst can give is to take the lead, revealing to the patient his recoiling tactics and also encouraging him to work through in great detail all the consequences the trend has for his life. It is extent and intensity and implications are fully confronted, ss mentioned before, a trend can be coped with only then. When the patient unconsciously shrinks a square recognition that he is caught in a conflict of opposing drives, another point at which a resistance may necessitate active guidance from the analyst occurs. Here again his tendency to maintain the status quo may block all progress. His associations may represent only a futile shuttling between one aspect of the conflict and another. He may talk about his need to force others into helping him by arousing pity, and soon after about his pride preventing him from accepting any help. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

As soon as the analyst comments on the one aspect he will shuttle to the other. This unconscious strategy may be difficult to recognize because in pursuing it the patient may bring forth valuable material here and there. Nevertheless, it is the analyst’s task to recognize such evasive maneuvers and to direct the patient’s activity toward a square recognition of the existing conflict. The psychiatric social worker is typically the holder of a Master’s degree (commonly the M.S.W., Master of Social Work). This means that in addition to an undergraduate college degree she has completed a two-year course of study in a recognized school of social work. To qualify for admission to such a graduate program, she has pursued a college curriculum, especially in her junior and senior years, which has emphasized courses in child and adolescent psychology, sociology, and public health. Her undergraduate major is very likely to be in sociology, entailing the study of community organization, family structure, and political and economic aspects of welfare agencies. As a graduate student, she takes didactic instruction in personality development, psychopathology, community organization, social welfare programs and agencies, and principles of social case work. She is required to complete an extended thesis or research project, frequently as a collaborative endeavour with other students. In the first year of her graduate study, she enters upon a sequence of intensive field work experience, usually beginning in a general community agency (for example, a family and children’s service). #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

Her placement in the second year will be in a psychiatric clinic or hospital where she receives “on-the-job” orientation to the functions of the psychiatric social worker (PSW) and undertakes increasing responsibility for carrying out such functions herself under regular and close case-by-case supervision from an experienced staff member. In total, she will accumulate close to the equivalent of one year of full-time supervised experience in interviewing patients and families, collecting and integrating case material, contacting relevant community agencies, and communicating her findings to other professional staff. In her field work she is required, under very close supervision, to “carry” an increasing load of cases, id est, be the primary source of a patient’s therapeutic conversation. Historically, intensive individual attention to and frequent contact with a client by a social worker has been a part of “case work.” As functions and roles of the social worker have shifted under the increasing burdens of the case load of psychiatric patients and as the psychiatric social worker has become more visible, it becomes increasingly clear that she is engaged frequently in an undifferentiated psychotherapeutic endeavour. Largely for purposes of maintaining amicable relationships with her “overseer,” she has been content with the professional usage that designates her activity as case work. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

However, attempts to differentiate logically between what should go in “case work” and what should transpire in psychotherapy have not yielded either numerous or clear distinctions. Typically, some six to seven years following graduation from high school, at an average age of 24 years, the PSW is ready to function as one of the sources of therapeutic conversation for the patient of a completely staffed psychiatric clinic or hospital. In areas of heavy population density where the demand for psychotherapy is in great excess to the supply, some social workers (not always trained in the psychiatric specialty) are finding it feasible to offer their service to private clients who consult them directly. For most people in the mental health field and patients, there are days when one cannot seem to do anything right. When one adds in a person who constantly criticizes you and everything you do, it makes it so much worse. When people are micromanaging you and constantly criticizing you, they may cause you to make the mistakes they think they are preventing you from making. In situations like these, it is always best to stop the person who is doing this to you right away. Tell them if they have something constructive to say, that you will listen. Shouting at you and following you around and harassing and annoying you may not only be criminal offenses, but it may also only make it where you ignore them all together. And remind them that no one does everything wrong. And no one know it all either. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

The Sacramento Fire Department insists that they treat each structure as if it were their own home or business. By producing that kind of atmosphere, that kind of attitude, then all of the rest of it kind of falls into place. Your politicians will be happy. The boss will be happy. Your firefighters and EMS crew are going to enjoy the accolades for doing a good job and the thank you notes for going above and beyond the normal expectations of firefighters and EMS. And most of the public, whom they have sworn to serve and protect, will be grateful for the services these heroes provide us with. That is their mission. Their mission is to protect property and take care of people. The excitement of being a firefighter or EMS who responds to calls, fights fires, and helps people is unmatched by anything else. It takes people who love to help people and lives to be challenged to be a firefighter or EMS. Firefighters have knowledge of building construction, regulations, and fire behaviour. They know how the fire is going to react with the building. Many people who live in multi-story buildings should invite the fire department to host a fire prevention program and tenants how safe their residence is and what is to be expected in case of an emergency. To ensure the Sacramento Fire Department has adequate resources, please make a donation. And remember to vote Kevin McCarty for mayor of Sacramento, he is endorsed by the Sacramento Fire Department and has led on housing and homelessness. 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. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

The Winchester Mystery House

At the time Mrs. Winchester was lowered into her grave in New Haven, Connecticut, her niece Daisy had a vision of her in the casket…and heard her cough. The dead do not do that, and Daisy thought her dear aunt Sarah tried to tell her she was not quite ready yet. Or perhaps Mrs. Winchester’s spirit was not finished building. Unfortunately, nothing was done about it at the time, so she went, ready or not.

Come and enjoy a delicious meal in Sarah’s Café, stroll along the paths of the beautiful Victorian gardens, and wonder through the miles of hallways in the World’s most mysterious mansion. 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/