If we want to solve the problems of poverty and child abuse, we have to do something about illegitimate babies born to teenage mothers and unwed mothers. Teenage and unwed mothers’ children tend to grow up in fatherless households with mothers who are not properly trained to deal with adult situations and are still developing their moral values and may not have full control over their offspring. The boys have a tendency to join gangs, deal drugs, steal cars, break into houses, get in trouble with the law and start their career as a criminal at an early age. They become so used to the cycle of crime and poverty that they never manage to escape it. The girls stand a good chance of becoming teenage mothers themselves, and spending eighteen years or more on government assistance. After their children are no longer a safety net to provide for their mothers, they are often put out on the street and/or forced into human trafficking, and the cycle of crime and poverty repeats itself. Many Americans believe that marital status and age-appropriate behaviour ensure the well-being of the family and the community. According to mainstream ideology, men who through hard work have moved up the career ladder and provide their families with decent food on the dinner table, clothes on their backs, and an occasional family vacation have achieved the American Dream. Women’s achievements are measured by their marriage and child rearing, done in proper order and at an appropriate age. Teenage girls are expected to replicate these values by refraining from pleasures of the flesh before adulthood and marriage. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

Teenage mothers tend to be housed in threatening, drug-infested environments, schooled in jail-like institutions, and obstructed from achieving the American Dream. In our ostensibly open society, teenage mothers are disqualified from full participation and are marked as deviant. Teenage girls aged fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen-many of them just beginning to show an adolescent interest in wearing makeup, dressing in the latest fashions, and reading teen magazines-are stigmatized. These teen mothers attempt to cope as best they can by redefining their situation in terms that involve the least damage to their self-respect. Are teenage mothers responsible for the socioeconomic problems besetting single, never married women? Do teenage mothers have different moral values than most Americans? Do they have babies in order to collect welfare, as politicians suggest? Do the families of teenage mothers condone their deviant behaviour, as the popular view contends? Or is teenage motherhood simply a response to the high inflation in America? Teenage girls confront a World in which gender norms, poverty, and gender discrimination are intertwined. The reality of these teenage mothers is that they have had to adopt strategies for survival that seem to them to make sense within their social environment but are as inadequate for them as they were for teenage mothers in the past. The study of teenage mothers illuminates the way structural contradictions act on psychological well-being and the way people construct and reconstruct their lives in order to cope on a daily basis. One issue that is overlooked is that these teenage mothers know what constitutes a successful life. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

Therefore, some of these teenage mothers may be trying to escape the family home, or they feel neglected and want to feel like they are loved. However, teenagers are incapable of knowing what romantic love is because they do not have enough life experience. Often times, many of these teenage girls feel like pleasures of the flesh is an indication of someone’s love for them. When early motherhood is added to the challenges of socioeconomic status, gender, race, and religion, these issues become unsurmountable. Frequently, adolescent mothers are deprived of every resource needed for any human being to function well in our society: education, jobs, food, medical care, a secure place to live, love and respect, the ability to securely connect with others. In addition, these girls are silenced by the insidious and insistent stereotyping of them as promiscuous and aberrant teenage girls. Another issues many see is why are taxpayers so willing to supply foreign aid to other countries, but so unwilling to give American youth the resources to overcome poverty, being a teenage parent, and staying out of jail. In 2022, the United States budgeted $38 billion for foreign aid spending. Although America has a moral and religious obligation to support other nations, the amount of money spent on foreign aid could be reduced and better used to fund a stipend to help teenagers escape abusive homes, provide better education to teenagers about love and pleasures of the flesh, and to fund public pensions and Social Security. . Furthermore, keep in mind, America never upheld its law, moral, ethical and religious promise and obligation of repaying the enslaved Africans for their mistreatment and deaths, and the World is still exploiting Africa for their minerals, people, and land. Africa is the richest nation in the World, but is home to the poorest people in the World. If the government wants to buy loyalty and forgiveness and make a gesture at healing the American people, a good way would be to help those who descended from slaves. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

The common-sense rue that states “Charity begins at home” applies to all Christians. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he had denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever,” reports 1 Timothy 5.8. Also, to bring manufacturing back to America and reinvest in the American economy, the government should off a supplement to the wages of people in farming and manufacturing, to lessen the burden on the corporation and help prevent Americans for turning to crime and government assistance. The believer should maintain neutrality to accusations until one is sure of their real source, and if the ground of 1 John 1.9 and refuse to be lashed by the ultimate negative—as it is not the judge of the ultimate concern’s children, or is the ultimate negative deputized as God’s messenger to make the charge of wrong. The Holy Spirit alone is commissioned by God to convict of sin. The steps in the working of evil spirits in their accusations and false charges are these, when the believer accepts their accusations: The believer think and believes one is guilty. Psychopathological offenders cause one to feel guilty. They cause one, then, to appear guilty. They cause one then to be actually guilty through believing their lies. It matters not whether one is guilty or not in the first instance. Malicious psychopathological offenders try to make a person feel guilty by their nagging accusations, so as to make one act or appear guilty before others—at the same moment flashing or suggesting to others the very things about which they are accusing one without cause. All such “feelings” should be investigated by the believer. Feeling wrong is not sufficient ground for one to say one is wrong. One should ask, “is the feeling right?” One may feel wrong and be right, or feel right and be wrong. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

Therefore one should investigate and examine the question honestly, “Am I wrong?” While our repentance ensures God’s forgiveness, we need more than repentance to forgive ourselves. We also need accurate assumptions about the purpose of life and the place of sin and failure. We need to make sense of our past, fix our relationships with other people, and understand how self-forgiveness feels. The Greek word historia furnishes us with a point of departure for determining the concept of history. It signifies first an inquiry or report, and only secondly the events reported. Thus the subject-object structure of history is revealed: the interpreting subject singles out certain facts and imparts significance to them. A subjective mentality or view precedes events, not temporally, but in the sense that it determines which facts shall be remembered and the meaning they shall bear. This is historical consciousness. It is the awareness of the needs and desires of a social group, an awareness which molds the raw material of factual occurrences into an historical account. Through the semantic investigation of the word “history” indicates there is no history without factual occurrences, and there is no history without the reception and interpretation of factual occurrences by historical consciousness. Historical events move in a horizontal direction, that is, they are motivated by a purpose. Moreover, humans exercise freedom in the selection and execution of one’s purposes. Although freedom stands in polarity with destiny, the historical situation never so completely dominates humans as to smother one’s freedom. Consequently, in human history one witnesses the production of new and unique embodiments of meaning. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The forces of nature produce the new division, by reproduction, and especially by evolution, but in human history the new is of a qualitatively different nature—it is newness of meaning or value. Finally, if it is not to be a mere freak, a curiosity, the novelty of an historical event must be weighted with significance. To be significant means to represent something, to point beyond oneself. Historical events achieve significance by pointing to the actualization of essential human potentialities, and thus they represent moments in the development toward the fulfilment of history. A historical personality is historical because it represents larger events, which themselves represent the human situation, which itself represents the meaning of being as such. This analysis of historical events yields the four characteristics of human history: purpose, freedom, newness, and significance. In the realm of nature these qualities are only analogously verified: The analogy appears in the spontaneity in nature, in the new produced by the progress in biological evolution, in the uniqueness of cosmic constellations. However, freedom is lacking in nature, and the meaning is that there is perceived only by man. Outside the human realm, history is anticipated, but not actualized. Humans, then, are the bearer of history, the reality in which history occurs. Since humans actualized themselves only in a community according to the polarity of individualization and participation, the direct bearers of history are groups rather than individuals, who are only indirect bearers. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

A history-bearing group acts in a centered way; it must possess the power to maintain internal unity and to secure itself from external danger. This role has been fulfilled in the past by families, clans, tribes, cities, nations, and in present times by the modern state. Since history flows in a horizonal direction, a history-bearing group must have an aim or purpose called “vocational consciousness.” The vocational consciousness of Greece was expressed in the distinction between Greeks and barbarians, that of Rom was based on the superiority of the Roman law, that of medieval Germany on the symbol of the Holy Roman Empire of German nationality, that of Italy on the “rebirth” of civilization in the Renaissance, that of Spain on the idea of the Catholic unity of the World, that of France on its leadership in intellectual culture, that of England on the task of subjecting all peoples to be a Christian humanism, that of Russia on the salvation of the West through the traditions of the Greek church or through the Marxist prophecy, that of the United States of America on the belief in a new beginning in which the curses of the Old World are overcome and the democratic missionary task fulfilled. These widely differing examples show that any area of life—social, religious, economic, intellectual—may constitute the content of history, but, since it is the political realm which insures the basic cohesion and centeredness of the group, we assign a predominant importance to it. This is one of the reasons why the Christian biblical symbol for the fulfilment of history is political: the Kingdom of God. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Is humankind, rather than particular groups, the bearer of history? We answer negative because de facto a politically united humankind does not exist, and de jure it never exist, since the aim of history does not lie within history. By this is meant that the dynamics of human freedom can never come to rest within history, or else freedom itself, and hence humans, would be destroyed; and if they are active, then a politically united humankind is unthinkable. However, there is the possibility of a supra-national center of power. World War II was part of the upheaval leading to the emergence of a truly unified World. The technical conquest of space has produced a unity which makes a history of humankind as a whole possible and has started to make it real. We are stirring toward a united humankind. For a long time to come, particular groups will be bearers of history, not humankind as a whole. And even a united humankind will act according to the pressure and leadership of particular groups. Although history is borne by particular communities, these groups cannot be personified. They are not entities alongside or above the individuals of whom they are constituted, and consequently, it is not “the community” that wills and acts, but individuals who act in and through a community. Yet in avoiding the danger of personifying the group, the mistake should not be made of elevating the individual to a history-bearing role. Certain individuals have special historical significance—for example, Mr. Caesar or Mr. Napoleon—but they are significant only because they symbolically represent their community. The fact remains that the individual is a bearer of history only in relation to a history-bearing group. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

What are the various answers given to the question of how to solve the present-day World conflict without resorting to nuclear war? The first and still the most popular answer in the United States of America runs like this: the Communist camp is motivated by the wish for World domination, hence there can be no real end to the cold war. However, if the United States of America has such a retaliatory capacity (“second strike” capacity) that it would deter China and Russia, the Middle East and Mexico from attacking us. The fact that the United States of America has not been attacked (directly) since 9/11 is due either to the possibility that no other nation wants to attack the USA (even if our deterrent force was much smaller or perhaps even zero) or to the strength of our deterrent force, presumably in particular to our nuclear capability. We can forget about the first possibility; we would have been attacked had we been much weaker.  Hence our freedom, as well as peace, depends on sufficient nuclear armament, plus military alliances so that the Russian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, and Mexican leaders will be deterred from attacking us. With no advantage to be gained by striking first and no disadvantage to be suffered by striking second, there will be no motive for either surprise of preemptive attack. Mutual invulnerability means mutual deterrence. It is the most stable position from the point of view of presenting all our war. What do our experts think we should do in the event of an attack against positions outside the United States of America but to whose defense we are committed? #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

Most strategists, especially those of the Army and Navy, believe we should be prepared to meet political and military challenges with a limited war capability, back up by a “finite” nuclear deterrent to keep the situation from “escalating” into a total war. Such strategists reject the notion of “massive retaliation” for limited enemy actions as leading to total and mutual destruction, just as they consider the aim of our nuclear force is to prevent its ever being used. Among these is a program that requires provision for the following principal elements: An invulnerable, long-range missile force with a second-strike capability, id est, the ability to inflict crippling damage on an enemy even after absorbing a surprise nuclear attack. Adequate and properly equipped mobile forces to cope with limited war, id est, conflicts short of general atomic war between the two nuclear power blocs. An effective system of alliances. Procedures for assuring the most effective use of the resources committed to the program. If called upon to justify the need for these elements, the planners could advance the following reasons and explanations: The purpose of preparations for general atomic war is to assure that no such war will ever be fought. In all probability this purpose can be achieved provided there is an appropriate balance of destructive capability between the two power blocs which will make the deliberate choice of general atomic war unthinkable to either. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

Among the adherents of “security by deterrent” one can distinguish two positions. One, which seems to be accepted by the present administration, holds that if both sides have an efficient and stabilized deterrent, nuclear war is practically impossible. This position is based on the assumption that the destruction brought about by thermonuclear war would be so devastating that no government acting in good faith of humankind and the Earth would ever try to use these weapons if it expects its opponent to be strong enough to retaliate after an attack. Some people feel that disbarment is nothing but a trick from A to Z. The second position does not hold this optimistic belief in the “impossibility of war” and in the guaranteed success of deterrence. However, its adherents fall into two sharply disparate groups. On the one hand, those who urge complete disarmament because they do not believe that the deterrent will prevent war; on the other hand, those who hold that it is possible to win a thermonuclear war. These latter experts argue that such a war need not be as utterly dreadful as many people fear; that its horror can be diminished to a very “bearable” minimum provided we spend enough money on the proper measures, an efficient shelter system, and ever more efficient thermonuclear weapons. Herman Kahn has two reasons for believing that it is foolish to think that the deterrent makes war impossible. It is possible that if the proper precautions have been made, it would be possible for our enemies to cope with all the effects of a thermonuclear war, in the sense of saving most people and restoring something close to the prewar standard of living in a relatively short time. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

However, there is no reason to believe this will be true unless both nations investigate the problem more thoroughly than has been done so far, and then take the necessary preparations. Deterrence does not provide the security that has been claimed for it by every authority from the Pentagon to the leading magazines and newspapers. Going to war might be better than its alternatives, assuming, of course, that would could win. Even if the government of both sides do not want a war the outbreak of war is still possible. Accidental War. The possibilities for accidental war include false alarms reacted to by attack, unauthorized behaviour, and true mechanical or human error, the chances of which become greater as the number of weapons increase. Further, it is always possible for one side to misread another’s defensive or alerting reactions to false alarms as the beginning of an attack, and in “self-defense” to attack first. As far as the danger of accidental war is concerned, it must be added that there exist a considerable number of potentially paranoid persons among the “normal” part of the population in whom the tension of prolonged expectation of an attack may lead to the outbreak of manifest paranoia carrying the conviction that one—whoever the person is who could give the alarm or push the button—must save the country by starting an attack. This danger lies particularly in the fact that even the full-fledged paranoiac can be perfectly reasonable in one’s thinking outside of one’s delusion, and hence one—and even more so the potential paranoiac—is not easy to discovery. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

The Rationality of Irrationality. To explain what he means by this, Mr. Khan quotes a graphic example given by this sport called “Chicken.” It is played by choosing a long straight road with a white line down the middle and starting two very fast cars towards each other from opposite ends. Each car is expected to keep the wheels of one side on the white line. As they approach each other mutual destruction becomes more and more imminent. If one of them swerves from the white line before the other, the other, as one passes, shouts “Chicken!” and the one who has answered becomes and object of contempt. If one side really wishes to win this game, it is clear that its best (rational) strategy is to commit itself irrevocably to going ahead. If one can convince the other side that one has done this, then the other side mut back down. However, if the other side still refuses to back down after the irrevocable commitment has been made, it would be irrational to carry out the rationally made commitment. Since both sides will be attempting to use this strategy, it is also quite clear that the game may end in disaster. The rationality of irrationality war should be distinguished from the situation in which both sides have incompatible objectives which they are determined to achieve, no matter what the risks: in this case war must result. The rationality of irrationality of war corresponds to a situation in which neither side really believes the issue is big enough to go to war over, but both sides are willing to use some partial or total strategy of commitment to force the other side to back down. If either side had realized ahead of time that the other side would not back down, as a result, even under pressure, they may end up in a war they would not have gone into. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

Violence can be a form of archaic “blood thirst.” This is not the violence of the cripple; it is the blood thirst of the human who is still completely enveloped in one’s tie to nature. One has a passion for killing as a way to transcend life, inasmuch as one is afraid of moving forward and of being fully huma. In the human who seeks an answer to life by regressing to the pre-individual state of existence, by becoming like an animal and thus being freed from the burden of reason, blood becomes the essence of life; to shed blood is to feel alive, to be strong, to be unique, to be above all others. Killing become the great intoxication, the great self-affirmation on the most archaic level. Conversely, to be killed is the only logical alternative to killing. This is the balance of life in the archaic sense: to kill as many as one can, and when one’s life is thus satiated with blood, one is ready to be killed. Killing in this sense is not essentially love of death. It is affirmation and transcendence of life on the level of deepest regression. We can observe this thirst for blood in individuals; sometimes in their fantasies or dreams, sometimes in severe mental sickness or in murder. We can observe it in a minority in times of war—international or civil—when the normal social inhibitions have been removed. We observe it in archaic society, in which killing (or being killed) is the polarity which governs life. We can observe this in phenomena like the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, in the blood revenge practiced in places like Montenegro or Corsica in the role of blood as a sacrifice to God in the Old Testament. One of the most lucid descriptions of this joy of killing is to be found in G. Flaubert’s short story The Legend of St. Julian the Hospitaler. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Mr. Flaubert describes a man about whom it is prophesied at birth that he will become a great conqueror and a great saint; he grew up as a normal child until one day he discovered the excitement of killing. At the church services he had observed several times a little mouse scurrying from a hole in the wall; it angered him; he was determined to rid himself of it. “So, having closed the door and having sprinkled some cake crumbs on the altar steps, he posted himself in front of the hole, with a stick in his hand. After a very long time a small pink nose appeared, then the whole mouse. He struck a slight blow, and stood aghast over this tiny body which no longer moved. A drop of blood stained the flagstone. He wiped it away quickly with his sleeve, threw the mouse outside and said nothing to anyone.” Later, when strangling a bird, “the bird’s writhing made his heart thump, filling him with a savage, tumultuous delight.” Having experienced the exaltation of shedding blood, he became obsessed with killing animals. No animal was too strong or too swift to escape being killed by him. Shedding blood became the utmost affirmation of himself as the one way to transcend all life. For years his only passion and only excitement was killing animals. He returned at night “covered with blood and mud, and reeking with the odor of wild beast. He became like them.” He almost attained the aim of being transformed into an animal, yet being human he could not attain it. A voice told him that he would eventually kill his father and mother. Frightened he fled his castle, stopped killing animals, and instead became a feared and famous leader of troops. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

As a reward for one of his greatest victories he was given the hand of an extraordinarily beautiful and loving woman. He stopped being a warrior, settles down with her to what could be a life of bliss—yet he is bored and depressed. One day he began hunting again, but a strange force made his shots impotent. “Then all the animals that he had hunted reappeared and formed a tight circle around him. Some sat on their haunches, others stood erect. Julian, in their midst, was frozen with terror, incapable of the slightest movement.” He decided to return to his wife and to his castle; in the meantime his old parents had arrived there and had been given by his wife her own bed; mistaking them for his wife and a lover, he slew them both. When he has attained the depth of regression, the great turn came. He became, indeed, a saint, devoting his life to the poor and the sick, and eventually embracing a leper to give him warmth, “Julian ascended toward the blue expanses, face to face with our Lord Jesus, who bore him to Heaven.” Mr. Flaubert describes in this story the essence of blood thirst. It is the intoxication with life in its most archaic form; hence a person, after having reached this most archaic level of relatedness to life, can return to the highest level of development, to that of the affirmation of life by his humanity. It is important to see that this thirst of killing is not the same as the love of death. Blood is experienced as the essence of life; to shed the blood of another is to fertilize mother Earth with what see needs to be fertile. (Compare the Aztec belief in the necessity to shed blood as a condition for the continued function of the cosmos, or the story of Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel.) Even if one’s own blood is shed, one fertilizes the Earth, and becomes one with her. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

It seems that at this level of regression blood is the equivalent of semen; Earth is the equivalent of mother-woman. Semen-egg are the expression of the male-female polarity, a polarity which becomes central only when man has begun to emerge fully from Earth, to the point that woman becomes the object of his desire and love. When the Christian biblical story tells us that God made Eve to be a “helpmate” to Adm this new function is indicated. The shedding of blood ends in death; the shedding of semen in birth. However, the goal of the first is, like that of the second, the affirmation of life, even though hardly above the level of animal existence. If one becomes fully born, if one casts away one’s tie to Earth, and if one overcomes one’s narcissism, the killer can become the lover. Yet, if one is unable to do this, it cannot be denied one’ narcissism and one’s archaic fixation will entrap one in a way of life which is so close to the way of death that the difference between bloodthirsty man and the lower of death may become hard to distinguish. The main reason which could impel Russia, China, the United States of America, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Vietnam or the Middle East to atomic war is the constant fear of being attacked and pulverized by the opponent. Aside from the ideological differences and the problem of security itself, there does not seem to be between many nations that justifies the risks and costs that we subject other to. The biggest thing most nations have to fear is themselves. If, indeed, the main cause of war lies in mutual fear, then the disarmament of any developed nation would most likely do away with this major cause and, thus, with the probability of war. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

Other motives other than fear which could prompt a nation to try for World conquest. One such motive could be economic interest in expansion, which was a basic motivation for the initiation of war in the nineteenth century and also for the first two World wars. Exactly here we see the difference between the nature of the conflicts in 1914 or 1939 and the present situation. In World War I, Germany threatened British markets and the French sources of coal and iron; in 1939, Mr. Hitler needed territorial conquest for the economic expansion he wanted. Today, many major nations have an overriding economic interest in the conquest of markets and supplies, and a 3 or 5 percent rise in the level of national productivity would bring a greater advantage than would any military conquest, and, moreover, each has the capital, raw material, supplies, and population for a constant increase in its general productivity. How we, too, are still pious. In science, convictions have no right of citizenship, so it is said and with good reason: only when they decide to descend to the modesty of a hypothesis, a provisional experimental standpoint, a regulative fiction, may be granted admission and even a certain value in the realm of knowledge—though always with the restriction of remaining under police surveillance, under police suspicion. However, considered more precisely, does this not mean: only when a conviction ceases to be a conviction may it gain admission to science? Would not the cultivation of the scientific spirit begin with no longer allowing oneself to have any convictions? Probably so; only it remains to ask whether for this cultivation even to begin, there must already be some conviction, indeed one so commanding and unconditional as to sacrifice all other convictions to itself. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

We see that even science rests on faith; there is no such thing as “presuppositionless” science. The question whether truth is necessary must not only already have been answered affirmatively but must be affirmed to such a degree that the principle, the faith, the conviction is expressed: “There is nothing more necessary than truth, and compared to it everything else has only secondary value.” This unconditional will to truth: what is it? Is it the will not to let oneself de deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? For the will truth could be interpreted in this second way, too—provided that one also subsumes under the generalization “I want not to deceive” the special case “I want not to deceive myself.” However, why not deceive? And why not let oneself be deceived?—Note that the reasons for the former lie in an entirely different realm from those for the latter: one wants not to let oneself be deceived, on the assumption that it is harmful, dangerous, disastrous to be deceived—in this sense, science would amount to a far-sighted intelligence, a cautiousness, a utility, to which one could, however, fairly object: But why? Is not wanting to let oneself be deceived really less harmful, less dangerous, less disastrous? What do you know in advance of the character of existence to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditionally distrustful or the unconditionally trusting? However, if both should be necessary, great trust and great distrust, then whence does science derive its unconditional faith, the conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than anything else, including every other conviction? #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

If truth and untruth had both constantly shown themselves to be useful—which is the case, even this conviction that trust is the most important aspect of life could not have arisen. Hence, faith in science, which after all undeniably exists, cannot have had its origin in such a utility calculus but rather in spite of the fact that the uselessness and dangerousness of the “will to truth,” of “truth at all costs”: oh, we understand that well enough, once we have offered up and slaughtered one faith after another on this altar! Consequently, “with to truth” does not mean “I want not to let myself be deceived” but—there is no alternative—“I want not to deceive, not even myself”: and with that we stand on moral ground. For you need only to ask yourself, really ask, “Why do you not want to deceive?” especially if it should seem—as it does seem!—that life aims at semblance, I mean error, cheating, dissembling, delusion, self-delusion, and when in fact the grand pageant of life has always shown itself to be on the side of the most carefree. Such a resolution, charitable interpreted, might be a mere quixotism, a minor mad folly; but it could also be something worse, namely, a destructive principle hostile to life. “Will to truth”—that could be a concealed will to death. Thus, the question “Why science?” leads back to the moral problem: wherefore morality at all, if life, nature, history are “amoral”? Man didst the ultimate concern created in Thine own image, giving him dominion over all Thy works. Sovereign of all creation, Lord most high, Thy power is manifest in the destiny of nations and humans. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Be sure to open your hearts and donate to the Sacramento Fire Department this season, they risk life and limb to save our community and are not receiving all of their resources. Help them to break ever shackle asunder, hastening the day when the strong shall be just, and the weak shall no longer know fear. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Millhaven Homes

Going Beyond the Build means exceeding client expectations. Our team of professionals specialize in every aspect of a Design + Build experience.

The Millhaven Difference

• Unique approach, end to end services in-house
• Transparency, organization and communication
• Live and accurate budget monitoring, no financial surprises
• High standards of quality & proven trade partners
• Clearly defined systems of execution and expectations
• 8 person team of professionals assigned to each project
• Customized software for total project management
• Going BEYOND the BUILD in every way

Any discrimination based simply on race or colour is barbarous, we care not how hallowed it be by custom, expediency or prejudice. Differences made on account of ignorance or immorality are legitimate methods of calling attention to improper thinking; but discriminations based simply and solely on physical peculiarities, place of birth, color of skin, are relics of that unreasoning human savagery of which the World is and ought to be thoroughly ashamed. We repudiate the monstrous doctrine that the oppressor should be the sole authority as to the rights of the oppressed. At the same time, we want to acknowledge with deep thankfulness the help of our fellow humans who still stand for equal opportunity and who have given and still give of their wealth and of their poverty for our advancement. And while we are demanding and ought to demand, and will continue to demand the rights enumerated above, God forbid that we should ever forget to urge corresponding duties upon our people: The duty to vote. The duty to respect the rights of others. The duty to work. The duty to obey the laws. The duty to be clean and orderly. The duty to send our children to school. The duty to respect ourselves, even as we respect others. This statement, complaint and prayer we submit to the American people, and Almighty God. The difference between the accusations of the enemy and the ultimate negative’s temptations is that the latter is an effort on its part to compel or draw human beings into sin, and the former is a charge of transgression. Temptation is an effort to cause the human to transgress the law; accusation is an effort to place the believer in the guilty position of having transgressed the law. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

Psychopathological offenders want human beings to be wrong so that they may accuse and punish others for being wrong. “Accusation” can be a counterfeit of conviction—the true conviction of the Spirit of God. It is important that the believer should know, when the charge of transgression is made, whether it is a divine conviction or an accusation of the ultimate negative. Yes, the ultimate negative may accuse a person when one is truly guilty. However, it may also accuse a person when one is not guilty—endeavouring to make one’s accusation seem like a conviction from the humans’ own conscience. The ultimate negative is thus able to infuse a sense of guilt. A genuine sin originates from the evil nature within—a result of the Fall. It is not a transgression forced into the personality from without—something involuntary. If psychopathological offenders are at the back of an involuntary sin, how can the believer tell? If the human is right with God, standing on Romans 6 with no deliberate yielding to known sin, then any accusation of sin coming back again unaccountably may be dealt with as from evil spirits. The believer must therefore never accept an accusation—or a charge, supernaturally made—of having transgressed unless one is fully convinced, by one’s own knowledge and clear decision, that one has sinned; for if one accepts the charge when innocent, one will suffer as much as if one had really transgressed. One must also be on guard to refuse any compulsory drive to “confession” of sin to others, which may be the forcing of the enemy to pass on one’s lying accusations. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

Life is the process of actualization of the potential. As different potencies are actuated, different life-dimensions appear—the inorganic, organic, psychological, spiritual, and historical dimensions. The historical dimension is the broadest of them all; it includes all the others and adds an element of its own. This additional element is best seen by contrasting the historical with the dimension which precedes it, the spiritual dimension. The realm of the spirit is characterized by the actualization of power and meaning, while the historical dimension looks to their fulfilment. The spiritual dimension describes the process of actualization; the historical dimension, the direction of this process. In the spiritual dimension humans create; in the historical dimension the newness of one’s creation appears. It should now be evident that there is no real distinction between the two dimensions, for an actualization is already a kind of fulfilment, and a process has a direction. The historical dimension, therefore, is a continuation of the spiritual dimension, and to this prolongation it adds the note of finality. History, because it is a form of spiritual creativity, is proper to humans alone, but, due to the multidimensional unit of life, it is applied analogously to all dimension of life. The more abstract the truth you want to teach, the more you must seduce the senses to it. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

Where the tree of knowledge stands, there is always paradise; thus speak the oldest and the youngest serpents. Perhaps no one has yet been truthful enough about what “truthfulness” is. Perhaps it is not entirely clear what the “fundamental will of the spirit” means. It means that commanding something-or-other that people call “the spirit” wants to be master of itself and of its surroundings, and to feel itself to be master: it wills from multiplicity to simplicity, a binding, taming, domineering, and truly mastering will. Its needs and capacities are in this sense the same as those the physiologist attribute to everything that lives, grows, and multiplies. The strength of the spirit to appropriate what is foreign manifests itself in a strong tendency to assimilate the new to the old, to simplify the manifold, to overlook or put aside what is utterly contradictory—just as it arbitrarily highlights certain features and lines in what is foreign, in every piece of the “external World,” prescinding, falsifying just so. Its aim is thereby to incorporate new “experiences,” to line things up in new rows—hence, growth or, more precisely, the feeling of growth, the feeling of increased strength. An apparently opposite drive of the spirit serves this same will, an abrupt opting for ignorance, willful exclusion, a closing of one’s windows, an inner nay-saying to this or that thing, not letting things come near, a kind of defensive attitude against much that is knowable, a contentment with darkness, horizons closing in, a yea-saying and approving of ignorance: all this is necessary relative to its power to appropriate, its “digestive power,” so to speak—and, really, “the spirit” is most like a stomach. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

Here, too belongs the occasional will of the spirit to let itself be deceived, perhaps with a capricious intimation that things are not such and such, that one merely accepts that such and such—a relishing of all uncertainty and ambiguity, a joyful self-delight in the arbitrary narrowness and secrecy of a nook, in the all too near, the foreground, the enlarged, the diminished, the shunted aside, the beautified, a self-delight in the willfulness of all these expressions of power. And here, too, belongs that by no means harmless willingness of the spirit to deceive other spirits and to dissemble before them, that constant stress and strain of a creative, formative, changeable force: the spirit enjoys its feeling of security in them—it is indeed precisely its protean arts that defend and conceal it best!—This will to semblance, to simplification, to masks, to cloaks, in short, to surfaces—for every surface is a cloak—is countered by that sublime inclination of the knower who takes things, and wants to take them, in a deep, manifold, and thorough way: as a kind of cruelty of intellectual conscience and taste, which every courageous thinker will recognize in one’s self, provided one has hardened and sharpened one’s eyes for oneself long enough and is accustomed to strict discipline and strict words. One will say, “There is something cruel in the inclination of my spirit”—let the virtuous and amiable try to take him out of that! #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

In fact, if we were charged, rumoured, praised for a kind of “wild honesty”–it would sound nicer—we free, very free spirits—and perhaps that will in fact be how it sounds, our—legacy? Meanwhile—for there is still time till then—we ourselves are least of all inclined to dress up with the same moral verbal tinsels and fringes: our entire work hitherto has made us sick of this style and its glaring opulence. These are beautiful, glittering, tinkling, festive words: honesty, love of truth, love of wisdom, self-sacrifice for knowledge, heroism of the truthful human—there is something in them that makes one swell with pride. However, we hermits and marmots, we convinced ourselves long ago in all the secrecy of a hermit’s conscience that even this dignified pageantry of words belongs to the old false finery, junk, and gold dust of unconscious human vanity, and that the terrible underlying primary text homo natura must also be recognized beneath such flattering colours and painted surfaces. To translate humans back into nature; to master the many vain and effusive interpretations and incidental meanings that have until now been scrawled and painted over that eternal primary text homo natura; to make sure that humans stand henceforth before humans, as one stands already today, hardened by the discipline of science, before the rest of nature, with unfrightened Oedipus eyes and sealed Odysseus ears, deaf to the lures of the old metaphysical bird catchers who have whistled to one all too long, “You are more! You are higher! You are of a different origin!”—that may be a strange and insane task, but it is a task—who would deny it! Why would we choose it, this insane task? Everyone will ask us this. And we, pressed so hard, we who have already asked ourselves the same question a hundred times, we have found and find no better answer. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

There are many political problems which stand in the way of an American-Russian understanding: Korea, Formosa, Laos, the Middle East, the Congo, Cuba, South America. Yet there is probably no problem which forms a greater obstacle to understanding than that of Germany. When the Second World War ended there was agreement that Germany must be prevented from ever again becoming a military menace to either the West or to Russia. While the fantastic Morgenthau plan for making here a mainly agricultural states was rejected, it was agreed that Germany was not to have a strong army. The Germans themselves also seemed to agree to this. Mr. Adenauer spoke out firmly against the idea of a strong Germany military force, and the Social Democrats, the strongest opposition party, were violently opposed to armament and “Atomtod” (atom-death). There were also big popular demonstrations against atomic armament in several German cities. Now, not too many years later, the situation has been completely reversed. Germany is already the strongest military power in Europe, with the exception of Russia. Her generals insist that Germany keeps possession of their atomic weapons and continues to advance them for her self-defense; the Social Democrats are hardly less ardent promoters of German military might than the Adenauer party. The Western position is simple enough; the Soviet Union in her wish to dominate the World (as demonstrated by her conquest of the East European states after the war) will overrun Western Europe unless Europe can be defended by sufficiently strong military forces. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Without an armed Germany, however, Europe is not strong enough to resist a Russian onslaught, hence a rearmed, military strong Germany is needed to defend the free World This argument is further strengthened by the assumption that present-day Germany is democratic and peace-loving, and thus can not possibly be a threat to Russia or to anyone who does not have evil intentions. The Russians, on the other hand, have never shared this viewpoint; they feel menaced by a militarily strong Germany, and they believed that Hermany will repeat the Kaiser’s and Mr. Hitler’s attempts to conquer Russia. Is the Western emphasis on the peace-loving and democratic nature of the present German regime sufficiently convincing to dispel the Russian fears? Is Germany as “changed” as the Western allies proclaim? Germany is a big industrial European, which has arrived at full maturity. The World has already been divided among the older powers (England, France, Holland, Belgium). Germany, whose industrial development assumed an extraordinarily fast pace has a highly developed industry (characterized, like that of Japan, by a great degree of cartelization) and a disciplined and capable labour force, yet it is geographically a relatively small country and still in the process of reaching its fully potential. Some people believe it will become a World power. At the same time, Germany has a feudal class, which has developed a most remarkable military cast. It is competent, devoted, and extremely nationalistic. The blending of industrial expansion with her military potential has led Germany on the path of being a strong country capable of defending itself. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

Germany has put pressure on the peacefully minded civilian government to enforce national pride. The German army has been modernized and rebuilt and industries are flourishing and its leaders are focusing on protection of private enterprises. This nationalistic feeling is kept alive and it can be fanned to great intensity any day a German government should want to do so. Unlike America, a nation of immigrants, many patriotic people are still in high government positions. What is the likely future of the social character of humans in a bilateral or multilateral armed World, where, no matter how complex the problems or how full the satisfactions of any particular society, the biggest and most pervasive reality in any humans’ life is the poised missile, the humming data processor connected to it, the waiting radiation counters and seismographs, the overall technocratic perfection (overlying the nagging but important fear of its imperfection) of the mechanism of holocaust? To live for any length of time under the constant threat of destruction creates certain psychological effects in most human beings—fright, hostility, callousness, a hardening of the heart, and a resulting indifference to all the values we cherish. Such conditions will transform us into barbarians—through barbarians equipped with the most complicated machines. If we are serious in claiming that our aim is to preserve freedom (that is, to prevent the subordination of the individual under an all-powerful state), we must admit that this freedom will be lost, whether the deterrent work or does not work. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

Aside from these psychological facts, the continuation of the arms race constitutes a particular threat to Western culture. In the process of conquering nature, producing and consuming have become the main preoccupation of Western life—the goal of many. We have transformed means into ends. We manufacture machines which are like men and women, and we produce men and women who are like machines. In one’s work, the individua is managed as a part of a production team. During one’s leisure time, one is manipulated as a consumer who likes what one is told to like and yet has the illusion that one follows one’s own taste. In centering one’s life around the production of things, humans themselves are in danger of becoming things, worshipping the idols of the production machine and the state while they are under the illusion of worshipping God. Things are in the saddle and ride humankind. Circumstances we created have consolidated themselves into powers which rule over us. The technical and bureaucratic system we have built tells us what to do, it decides for us. We may not be in danger of becoming slaves, but we are in danger of becoming robots, and the human values of our tradition are threatened—integrity, individuality, responsibility, reason, and love. Talking about these values more and more becomes an empty ritual. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

This trend toward a World of impotent men and women directed by virile machines (both in the United States of American and in Russia)—brought about by technological and demographic factors, and by the increasing centralization and bureaucracy in big corporations and government—will reach the point of no return if we continue the arms race. Dangerous as our present situation is, we still have a chance to put humans back into the saddle, to effect a renaissance of the spiritual values of the great humanistic tradition. Unless such a renaissance occurs, unless we can achieve a radical revitalization of the spirit on which our culture is founded, we shall lose the vitality necessary for survival and we shall decay, just as many other great powers have decayed in history. The real threat to our existence is not communist ideology, it is not even the communist military power—it is the hollowness of our beliefs, the fact that freedom, individuality, and faith have become empty formulas, that God has become an idol, that our vitality is sapped because we have no vision except that of having more of the same. It seems that a great deal of the hatred of communism is in the last analysis based on a deep disbelief in the spiritual values of democracy. Hence, instead of experiencing love of what we are for, we experience hate of what we are against. If we continue to live in fear of extinction and to plan mass destruction of others, the last chance for a revival of our humanist-spiritual tradition will be lost. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

An aspect of reactive violence is the kind of violence which is produced by frustration. When a wish or a need is frustrated, we find aggressive behaviour in animals, children, and adults. Such aggressive behaviour constitutes an attempt, although often a futile one, to attain the frustrated aim through the use of violence. It is clearly an aggression in the service of life, and not one for the sake of destruction. Since frustration of needs and desires has been an almost universal occurrence in most societies until today, there is no reason to be surprised that violence and aggression are constantly produced and exhibited. Related to the aggression resulting from frustration is hostility engendered by envy and jealousy. Both jealousy and envy constitute a special kind of frustration. They are caused by the fact that B has an object which A desires, or is loved by a person whose love A desires. Hate and hostility are aroused in A against B who receives that which A wants, and cannot have. Envy and jealousy are frustrations, accentuated by the fact that not only doe A not get what he or she wants, but that another person I favoured instead. The story of Mr. Cain, unloved through no fault of his own, who kills the favoured brother, and the story of Mr. Joseph and his brothers, are classical versions of jealousy and envy. Psychoanalytic literature offers a wealth of clinical data on these same phenomena. Another type of violence related to reactive violence but already a step further in the direction of pathology is revengeful violence. In reactive violence the aim is to avert the threatened injury, for this reason such violence serves the biological function of survival. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

In revengeful violence, on the other hand, the injury has already been done, and hence the violence has no function of defense. It has the irrational function of undoing magically what has been done realistically. We find revengeful violence in individuals as well as among primitive and civilized groups. The revenge motive is in inverse proportion to the strength and productiveness of a group or of an individual. If it has been shattered by having been injured, the important and the cripple have only one recourse to restore their self-esteem: to take revenge according to the lex talionis: “an eye for an eye.” On the other hand, the person who lives productively has no, or little, such need. Even if one has been hurt, insulted, and injured, the very process of living productively makes one forget the injury of the past. The ability to produce proves to be stronger than the wish for revenge. The truth of this analysis can be easily established by empirical data on the individual and on the social scale. Psychoanalytic material demonstrates that the mature, productive person is less motivated by the desire for revenge than the neurotic person who has difficulties in living independently and fully, and who is often prone to stake one’s whole existence on the wish for revenge. In server psychopathology, revenge becomes the dominant aim of one’s life, since without revenge not only self-esteem, but the sense of self and of identity threaten to collapse. Similarly we find that in the most backward groups (in the economic or cultural and emotional aspects) the sense of revenge (for example, for a past national defeat) seems to be strongest. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

Thus the lower middle classes, which are those most deprived in industrialized nations, are in many countries the focus of revenge feelings, just as they are the focus of racialist and nationalist feelings. By means of a “projective questionnaire” it would be easy to establish the correlation between the intensity of revenge feelings and economic and cultural impoverishments. More complicated probably is the understanding of revenge among primitive societies. Many primitive societies have intense and even institutionalized feelings and patterns of revenge, and the whole group feels obliged to avenge the injury inflicted on one of its members. It is likely that two factors play a decisive role here. The first is much the same as the one mentioned above: the atmosphere of psychic scarcity which pervades the primitive group and which makes revenge a necessary means of restitution for a loss. The second is narcissism, a phenomenon which can become intense with which the primitive group is endowed, any insult to its self-image is so devasting that it will quite naturally arouse intense hostility. Closely related to revengeful violence is a source of destructiveness which is due to the shattering of faith which often occurs in the life of a child. What is meant here by the “shattering of faith”? A child starts life with faith in goodness, love, justice. The infant has faith in his mother’s milk, in her readiness to cover him or her when one is cold, to comfort one when one is sick. This faith can be faith in father, mother, in a grandparent, or in any other person close to one; it can be expressed as faith in God. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

In many individuals this faith is shattered at an early age. The child hears father lying in an important matter; he sees his cowardly fright of mother, ready to betray him (the child) in order to appease her; he witnesses the parents’ pleasures of the flesh, and may experience a father as a brutal beast; he is unhappy or frightened, and neither one of the parents, who are allegedly so concerned for him, notices it, or even if he tells them, pays any attention. There are any number of times when the original faith in love, truthfulness, justice of the parents is shattered. Sometimes, in children who are brought up religiously, the loss of faith refers directly to God. A child experiences the death of a little bird he loves, or of a friend, or of a sister, and his faith in God as being good and just is shattered. However, it does not make much of a difference whether it is faith in a person or in God which is shattered. It is always the faith in life, in the possibility of trusting it, of having confidence in it, which is broken. It is of course true that every child goes through a number of disillusionments; but what matters is the sharpness and severity of a particular disappointment. Often this first and crucial experience of shattering of faith takes place at an early age: at four, five, six, or even much earlier, at a period of life about which there is little memory. Often the final shattering of faith takes place at a much later age. Being betrayed by a friend, by a sweetheart, by a teacher, by a religious or political leader in whom one can trust. Seldom is it one single occurrence, but rather a number of small experiences which accumulatively shatter a person’s faith. The reactions to such experiences vary. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

One person may react by losing dependency on the particular person who has disappointed one, by becoming more independent oneself and being able to find new friends, teachers, or loved ones whom one trusts and in whom one has faith. This is the most desirable reaction to early disappointments. IN many other instances the outcome is that the person remains skeptical, hopes for a miracle that will restore one’s faith, tests people, and when disappointed in turn by them tests still others or throws oneself into the arms of a powerful authority (the Church, or a political party, or a leader) to regain one’s faith. Often one overcomes one’s despair at having lost faith in life by a frantic pursuit of Worldly aims—money, power, or prestige. The reaction which is important in the context of violence is still another one. The deeply deceived and disappointed person can also begin to hate life. If there is nothing and nobody to believe in, if one’s faith in goodness and justice has all been a foolish illusion, if life is ruled by the ultimate negative rather than by the ultimate concern—then, indeed, life becomes hateful; one can no longer bear the pain of disappointment. One wishes to prove that life is evil, that humans are evil, that oneself is evil. The disappointed believer and lover of life thus will be turned into a cynic and a destroyer. This destructiveness is one of despair; disappointment in life has led to hate of life. In my clinical experience these deep-seated experiences of loss of faith are frequent, and often constitute the most significant leitmotiv in the life of a person. The same holds true in social life, where leaders in whom one trusted prove to be evil or incompetent. If the reaction is not one of greater independence, it is often one of cynicism or destructiveness. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

While all these forms of violence are still in the service of life realistically, magically, or at least as the result of damage or to disappointment in life, the next form to be discussed, compensatory violence, is a more pathological form, even though less drastically so than necrophilia. By compensatory violence, violence is a substitute for productive activity occurring in an impotent person. While human beings are the object of natural and social forces which rule them, one is at the same time not only the object of circumstances. One has the will, the capacity, and the freedom to transform and to change the World—within certain limits. What matters here is not the scope of will and freedom, but the fact that humans cannot tolerate absolute passivity. One is driven to make one’s imprint on the World, to transform and to change, and not only to be transformed and changed. This human need is expressed in the early cave drawings, in all the arts, in work, and in pleasures of the flesh. All these activities are the result of the human capacity to direct one’s will toward a goal and to sustain one’s effort until the goal is reached. The capacity to thus use one’s powers is potency. (Potency involving pleasures of the flesh is only one of the forms of potency.) If, for reasons of weakness, anxiety, incompetence, et cetera, humans are not able to act, if one is impotent, one suffers; this suffering due to impotence is rooted in the very fact that the human equilibrium has been disturbed, that humans cannot accept the state of complete powerlessness without attempting to restore one’s capacity to act.  However, can one and how? #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

One way to restore one’s capacity to act is to submit to and identify with a person or a group having power. By this symbolic participation in another person’s life, humans have the illusion of acting, when in reality one only submits to and becomes a part of those who act. The other way, and this is the one which interests us most in this context, is humans’ power to destroy. To create life is to transcend one’s status as a creature that is thrown into life as dice are thrown out of a cup. However, to destroy life also means to transcend it and to escape the unbearable suffering of complete passivity. To create life requires certain qualities which the impotent person lacks. To destroy life requires only one quality—the use of force. The impotent human, if one has a pistol, a knife, or a strong arm, can transcend life by destroying it in others or in oneself. One thus takes revenge on life for negating itself to one. Compensatory violence is precisely that violence which has its roots in and which compensates for impotence. The human who cannot create wants to destroy. In creating and in destroying one transcends one’s role as a mere creature. Mr. Camus expressed this idea succinctly when he had Mr. Caligula say: “I live, I kill, I exercise the rapturous power of a destroyer, compared with which the power of a creator is merest child’s play.” This is the violence of the cripple, of those to whom life has denied the capacity for any positive expression of their specifically human powers. They need to destroy precisely because they are human, since being human means transcending thing-ness. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Closely related to compensatory violence is the drive for complete and absolute control over a living being, animal or human. This drive is the essence of sadism. In sadism the wish to inflict pain on others is not the essence. All the different forms of sadism which we can observe go back to one essential impulse, namely, to have complete mastery over another person, to make of one a helpless object of our will, to become one’s god, to do with one as one pleases. To humiliate one, to enslave one, are means toward this end, and the most radical aim is to make one suffer, since there is no greater power over another person than that of forcing one to undergo suffering without one’s being able to defend oneself. The pleasure in complete domination over another person (or other animate creature) is the very essence of the sadistic drive. Another way of formulating the same thought is to say that the aim of sadism is to transform a human into a thing, something animate into something inanimate, since by complete and absolute control the living loses one essential quality of life—freedom. Only if one has fully experienced the intensity and frequency of destructive and sadistic violence in individuals and in masses can one understand that compensatory violence is not something superficial, the result of evil influences, bad habits, and so on. It is a power in humans as intense and strong as one’s wish to live. It is so strong precisely because it constitutes the revolt of life against its being crippled; humans have a potential for destructive and sadistic violence because one is human, because one is not a thing, and because one must try to destroy life if one cannot create it. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

The Colosseum in Rome, in which thousands of impotent people got their greatest pleasure by seeing men devoured by beasts, or killing each other, is the great monument to sadism. From these considerations follows something else. Compensatory violence is the result of unlived and crippled life, and its necessary result. It can be suppressed by fear of punishment, it can even be deflected by spectacles and amusements of all kinds. Yet it remains as a potential in its full strength, and whenever the suppressing forces weaken, it becomes manifest. The only cure for compensatory destructiveness is the development of the creative potential in humans, one’s capacity to make productive use of one’s human powers. Only if humans cease to be crippled will one cease to be a destroyer and a sadist, and only conditions in which humans can be interested in life can do away with those impulses which make the past and present history of humans so shameful. Compensatory violence is not, like reactive violence, in the service of life. It is the pathological substitute for life; it indicates the crippling and emptiness of life. However, in its very negation of life it still demonstrates humans’ need to be alive and not to be a cripple. One who stops one’s ears at the cry of the needy, shall one day cry oneself, and shall not be answered. 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. There is nothing better than a human who rejoices in one’s work. The Sacramento Fire has been proudly serving the community since 1851, they are not receiving all of their resources, please show your support by making donations. This will help the community survive. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Millhaven Homes

Going Beyond the Build means exceeding client expectations. Our team of professionals specialize in every aspect of a Design + Build experience.

The Millhaven Difference

• Unique approach, end to end services in-house
• Transparency, organization and communication
• Live and accurate budget monitoring, no financial surprises
• High standards of quality & proven trade partners
• Clearly defined systems of execution and expectations
• 8 person team of professionals assigned to each project
• Customized software for total project management
• Going BEYOND the BUILD in every way

There are many who believe that men are sheep; there are other who believe that men are wolves. Both sides can muster good arguments for their positions. Those who propose that men are sheep have only to point to the fact that men are easily influenced to do what they are told, even if it is harmful to themselves; that they have followed their leaders into wars which brought them nothing but destruction; that they have believed any kind of nonsense if it was only presented with sufficient vigor and supported by power—from the harsh threats of priests and kings to the soft voices of the hidden and not-so-hidden persuaders. It seems that the majority of men are suggestible, half-awake children, willing to surrender their will to anyone who speaks with a voice that is threatening or sweet enough to sway them. Indeed, he who has a conviction strong enough to withstand the opposition of the crowd is the exception rather than the rule, an exception often admired centuries later, mostly laughed at by his contemporaries. It is on this assumption—that men are sheep—that the Great Inquisitors and the dictators have built their systems. More than that, this very belief that men are sheep and hence need leaders to make the decisions for them, has often given the leaders the sincere conviction that they were fulfilling a moral duty—even though a tragic one—if they have man what he wanted: if they were leaders who took away from him the burden of responsibility and freedom. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

However, if most men have been sheep, why is it that man’s life is so different from that of sheep? His history has been written in blood; it is a history of continuous violence, in which almost invariably force has been used to bend his will. Did Talaat Pasha alone exterminate millions of Armenians? Did Mr. Hitler alone exterminate millions of Jewish people? Did Mr. Stalin alone exterminate millions of political enemies? These men were not alone; they had thousands of men who killed for them, tortured for them, and who did so not only willingly but with pleasure. Do we not see man’s inhumanity to man everywhere—in ruthless warfare, in murder and rape, in the ruthless exploitation of the weaker by the stronger, and in the fact that the sighs of the tortured and suffering creature have so often fallen on deaf ears and hardened hearts? All these facts led thinkers like Hobbes to the conclusion that homo homini lupus (man is a wolf to his fellow man); they have led many of us today to the assumption that man is vicious and destructive by nature, that he is a killer who can be restrained from his favorite pastime only by fear of more powerful killers. Yet the arguments of both sides leave us puzzled. It is true that we may personally know some potential or manifest killers and sadists as ruthless as Mr. Stalin and Mr. Hitler were; yet these are the exceptions rather than the rule. Should we assume that you and I and most average men are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that our “true nature” will become apparent once we rid ourselves of those inhibitions which until now have prevented us from acting like beasts? #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

This assumption is hard to disprove, yet it is not entirely convincing. There are numerous opportunities for cruelty and sadism in everyday life in which people could indulge without fear or retaliation; yet many do not do so; in fact, many react with a certain sense of revulsion when they meet cruelty and sadism. Is there, then, another and perhaps better explanation for the puzzling contradiction we deal with here? Should we assume that the simple answer is that there is a minority of wolves living side by side with a majority of sheep? The wolves want to kill; the sheep want to follow. Hence the wolves get the sheep to kill, to murder, and to strangle, and the sheep comply not because they enjoy it, but because they want to follow; and even then the killers have to invent stories about the nobility of their cause, about defense against the threat to freedom, about revenge for bayoneted children, raped women and men, and violated honor, to get the majority of the sheep to act like wolves. This answer sounds plausible, but it still leaves many doubts. Does it not imply that there are two human races, as it were—that of wolves and that of sheep? Furthermore, how is it that sheep can be so easily persuaded to act like wolves if it is not in their nature to do so, even providing that violence is presented to them as a sacred duty? Our assumption regarding wolves and sheep may not be tenable; is it perhaps true after all that wolves represent the essential quality of human nature, only more overtly than the majority show it? Or, after all, maybe the entire alternative is erroneous. Maybe man is both wolf and sheep—or neither wolf nor sheep? #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

The answer to these questions is of crucial importance today, when nations contemplate the use of the most destructive forces for the extinction of their “enemies,” and seem not to be deterred even by the possibility that they themselves may be extinguished in the holocaust. If we are convinced that human nature is inherently prone to destroy, that the need to use force and violence is rooted in it, then our resistance to ever increasing brutalization will become weaker and weaker. Why resist the wolves when we are all wolves, although some more so than others? The question whether man is wolf or sheep is only a special formulation of a question which, in its wider and more general aspect, has been one of the most basic problems of Western theological and philosophical thought: Is man basically evil and corrupt, or is he basically good and perfectable? The Old Testament in the Christan Bible does not take the position of man’s fundamental corruption. Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God are not called sin; nowhere is there a hint that this disobedience has corrupted man. On the contrary, the disobedience is the condition for man’s self-awareness, for his capacity to choose, and thus in the last analysis this first act of disobedience is man’s first step toward freedom. It seems that their disobedience was even within God’s plan; for, according to prophetic thought, man just because he was expelled from Paradise is able to make his own history, to develop his human powers, and to attain a new harmony with man and nature as a fully developed individual instead of the former harmony in which he was not yet an individual. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

The Messianic concept of the prophets certainly implies that man is not fundamentally corrupt and that he can be saved without any special act of God’s grace. However, it does not imply that this potential for good will necessarily win. If man does evil, he become more evil. Thus, Pharaoh’s heart “harden” because he keeps doing as of right-doing, and does not exempt even exalted figure like King David from the list of evil doers. The Old Testament view is that man has both capacities—that of good and evil, blessing and curse, life and death. Even God does not interfere in his choice; he helps by sending his messengers, the prophets, to teach the norms which lead to the realization of goodness, to identify the evil, and to warn and to protest. However, this being done, man is left alone with his “two strivings,” that for good and that for evil, and the decision is his alone. The Christian development was different. In the course of the development of the Christian Church, Adam’s disobedience was conceived as sin. In fact, as a sin so severe that it corrupted his nature and with it that of all his descendants, and thus man by his own effort could never rid himself of this corruption. Only God’s own act of grace, the appearance of Jesus as Christ, who died for man, could extinguish man’s corruption and offer salvation for those who accepted Christ. However, the dogma of original sin was by no means unopposed in the Church. Pelagius assailed it but was defeated. The Renaissance humanists within the Church tended to weaken it, even though they could not directly assail or deny it, while many heretics did just that. Mr. Luther, had, if anything, an even more radical view of man’s innate evilness and corruption, while thinkers of the Renaissance and later of the Enlightenment took a drastic step in the opposite direction. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The latter claimed that all evil in man was nothing but the result of circumstances, hence that man did not really have to choose. Change the circumstances that produce evil, so they thought, and man’s original goodness will come forth almost automatically. This view also colored the thinking of Mr. Marx and his successors. The belief in man’s goodness was the result of the tremendous economic and political progress which started with the Renaissance. Conversely, the moral bankruptcy of the West which began with the First World War and led beyond Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin, Coventry and Hiroshima to the present preparation for universal extinction, brought forth again the traditional emphasis on man’s propensity for evil. This new emphasis was a healthy antidote to the underestimation of the inherent potential of evil in man—but too often it served to ridicule those who has not lost their faith in man, sometimes by misunderstanding and even distorting their position. As one whose views have often been misrepresented as underestimating the potential of evil within man, I want to emphasize that such sentimental optimism is not the mood of my thought. It would be difficult indeed for anyone who has had a long clinical experience as a psychoanalyst to belittle the destructive forces within man. In severely sick patients, he sees these forces at work and experiences the enormous difficulty of stopping them or of channeling their energy into constructive directions. It would be equally difficult for any person who has witnessed the explosive outburst of evil and destructiveness since the beginning of the First World War not to see the power and intensity of human destructiveness. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

Yet there exists the danger that the sense of powerlessness which grips people today—intellectuals as well as the average man—with ever increasing force, may lead them to accept a new version of corruption and original sin which serves as a rationalization of the defeatist view that war cannot be avoided because it is the result of the destructiveness of human nature. Such a view, which sometimes prides itself on its exquisite realism, is unrealistic on two grounds. First, the intensity of destructive strivings by no means implies that they are invincible or even dominant. The second fallacy in this view lies in the premise that wars are primarily the result of psychological forces. It is hardly necessary to dwell long on this fallacy of “psychologism” in the understanding of social and political phenomena. Wars are the result of the decision of political, military, and business leaders to wage war for the sake of gaining territory, natural resources, advantages in trade; for defense against real or alleged threats to their country’s security by another power; or for reason of the enhancement of their own personal prestige and glory. These men are not different from the average man: they are selfish, with little capacity to renounce personal advantage for the sake of others but they are neither cruel nor vicious. When such men—who in ordinary life probably would do more good than harm—get into positions of power where they can command millions of people and control the most destructive weapons, they can cause immense hard. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

In civilian life they might have destroyed a competitor; in our World of powerful and sovereign states (“sovereign” means not subject to any moral law which restricts the action of the sovereign state), they may destroy the human race. The ordinary man with extraordinary power is chief danger for mankind—not the fiend or the sadist. However, just as one needs weapons in order to fight a war, one needs the passions of hate, indignation, destructiveness, and fear in order to get millions of people to risk their lives and to become murderers. These passions are necessary conditions for the waging of war; they are not its causes, any more than guns and bombs by themselves are causes of wars. Many observers have commented that nuclear war differs in this respect from traditional war. The man who will press the buttons sending off missiles with nuclear charges one of which may kill hundreds of thousands of people, will hardly have the experience of killing anybody in the sense in which a soldier has this experience when he used his bayonet or a machine gun. Yet, even though the act of launching nuclear weapons is consciously nothing more than faithful obedience of an order, there remains a question of whether or not in deeper layers of the personality there must exist, if not destructive impulses, yet a deep indifference to life, to make acts possible. Three phenomena form the basis of most vicious and dangerous s form of human orientation; these are love of death, malignant narcissism, and symbiotic-incestuous fixation. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

The three orientations, when combined, form the “syndrome of decay,” that which prompts men to destroy for the sake of destruction, and to hate for the sake of hate. In opposition to the “syndrome of decay,” there is the “syndrome of growth”; this consists of love of life (as against love of death), love of man (as against narcissism), and independence (as against symbiotic-incestuous fixation). Only in a minority of people is either one of the two syndromes fully developed. However, there is no denying that each man goes forward in the direction he has chosen: that of life or that of death; that of good or that of evil. The United States of America and China have one of the World’s most important and complex bilateral relationships. The history of the relationship between China and Russia has also gone through many phases. Since 1920-21 when the hopes for a revolution in Europe were fading, the hope for revolutions in Asia became an important point on the agenda of communism. Even then there existed a conflict within the ranks of communism. Mr. Lenin thought in terms of support for, and alliance with, the national revolutions of the Chinese bourgeoisie against the Western powers, while the Indian, Roy, emphasized the necessity for a workers’ and peasants’ revolution against their own bourgeoisie. The victory of the Chinese Communists was almost entirely a Chinese accomplishment, with almost no help from Russia. Mr. Stalin supported the Kuomintang, Chiang, Kaishek’s government, and there is good reason to assume that the very weakness of the Kuomintang regime suited him well. This is borne out by the fact that in the Yalta agreement Mr. Stalin succeeded in re-establishing Russia’s rights in Manchuria, and after the war he pressed the Kuomintang to surrender its former sovereignty over Outer Mongolia. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

When the Kuomintang government had to relinquish Nanking, Mr. Stalin instructed the Soviet ambassador to accompany the Chiang Kai-shek government to Canton, while most of the other ambassadors remained in Nanking to await the Communists. Even after the success of the Chinese Communists, economic help from Russian was quite limited. Chinese investments were virtually all made with internal savings, while financial assistance from the Soviet Union was not substantial. From 1950 to 1956 the Soviet Union promised technical and financial aid to 211 projects. The financial aid consisted of leans and not grants; it was enough only to pay for about one third of the equipment needed for the Russian-sponsored projects, and during 1952 to 1957 the amount of Russian credit available for new investment constituted merely 3 percent of the total state investments. This limited financial aid, nevertheless, does not alter the fact that the technical assistance that the Russians gave by sending specialists was of great importance, and the first Five Year Plan could hardly have been accomplished without such aid. However, even as far as technical assistance is concerned, one must not forget that Chou En-Lai wrote in the People’s Daily in October 1959, that the “Soviet Union has sent over 10,800 experts to the East European satellites, over 1500 to China during the previous decade,” and furthermore that most Russian experts left China in 1960. The ambiguity of Russian-Chinese relations developed into a manifest antagonism only since 1959, although all the elements of the conflict existed and were occasionally mentioned before. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

The main point of contention between Russia and China is: the question 1) of peaceful coexistence with the West, 2) of peaceful methods to achieve the victory of communism in various countries, 3), of atomic armament for China, and 4) of whether the Russian or the Chinese way is the more correct path to communism. The main question from the standpoint of Western foreign policy, undoubtedly, is the conflict between the Russian position in favor of coexistence, and the Chinese policy which is less hesitant to risk the possibility of war. This conflict seems to have broken out during Mr. Khrushchev’s visit to Pekin on the tenth anniversary of the Chinese revolution in 1959. While the speeches during the celebration emphasized peaceful coexistence, Mr. Khrushchev left Peking without even signing the usual friendly communique together with Mr. Mao. What had happened? “We must assume,” says Mr. Halpern, “that Khrushchev, on arrival in Pekin, notified the Chinese leaders that he was satisfied that a mutual accommodation with the West was both desirable and attainable and that he intended to enter into serious negotiations. He probably dictated to them some limits on their future military development. He almost certainly demanded at least a modified style of behavior in foreign affairs, and more likely some substantive policy changes. He probably also assured them that he would not negotiate away their interests, but at the same time urged them to be prepared for less than their maximum demands. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

After some meditation, it seems that the Chinese agreed that their method of dealing with South and Southeast Asia had not been successful, but with regard to the policy toward the West (and the other problems mentioned above) their attitude hardened increasingly. They adopted the thesis of an inevitable and permanent conflict between the two camps, and they took the position that American “peace gestures” were nothing but a smoke screen for the United States of America’s wish for World domination. The Russian position on the other hand, remained clearly one of “peaceful coexistence.” The following statements represented the two positions quite succinctly: Khrushchev: “Let us not approach the matter commercially and figure out the losses this or the other side would sustain. War would be a calamity for all the peoples of the World. Imagine what will happen when bombs begin to explode over cities. These bombs will not distinguish between Communists and non-Communists….No, everything alive can be wiped out in the conflagration of nuclear explosions. Only an unreasonable person can be fearless of war in our day.” On the other hand, this is the Chinese position according to Mao Tse-tung: “If the imperialists insist on unleashing another war, we should not be afraid of it….World War I was followed by the birth of the Soviet Union with a population of 200 million. World War II was followed by the emergence of the socialist camp with a combined population of 900 million. In the imperialists insist on launching a third World War, it is certain that several hundred million more will turn to socialism.” Considering the difference between the Russian and the Chinese attitudes toward war and peace, two questions arise. First, whether these differences are as real as they appear to be or whether, as some people are prepared to believe, Mr. Khrushchev was using his “soft” line only in order to create a favorable climate for the summit meeting. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

Considering the prolonged and intense ideological argument going on between the two blocs, an argument that was resolved by a compromise solution (after three weeks of negotiations) almost completely in favor of Mr. Khrushchev’s position in the declaration of the 81 Communist Parties in Moscow, 1960, it does not make sense to assume that the Chinese would put up all this violent ideological opposition if they knew or assumed that Mr. Khruschev was making a point only for short term tactical reasons. To answer that the whole Chinese opposition is only part of a fine plot which wants to make it appear as if Mr. Khrushchev is serious is no longer realistic political analysis, but paranoid thinking. The other question is why the Chinese take such a stand on thermonuclear war, of which they seem to be much less afraid than are the Russians. One obvious reason has often been mentioned. With their lack of centralization and their much larger population, they may think that thermonuclear war would bring to their system a much smaller degree of destruction than would be the case for the Soviet Union or the United States of America, and hence leave them the strongest power in a postwar World. Whatever their views on this topic are, one must not forget that the Chinese leaders have an evangelistic fervor, which the Russians lack for reasons that were discussed earlier. However, whether these considerations mean that the Chinese want war and that their course is, under all circumstances, an unchangeably aggressive one, is another question to which we shall return in a little while. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

The will to truth, which still leads us on to many a venture, that famous truthfulness of which all philosopher hitherto have spoken with such reverence—what question has this will to truth put to us! What wondrous, wicked, questionable questions! That is already a long story—and yet it seems as if it has hardly begun. Is it any wonder that we finally become suspicious, lose patience, turn away impatiently? That we ourselves are also learning from this Sphinx how to pose questions? Who here is really asking us questions? What in us really wants “the truth”?—In fact, we paused for a long time before the question concerning the cause of this will—until, at least, we came to a complete standstill before an ever more fundamental question. We asked about the value of this will. Granted, we want truth. Why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?—The problem of the value of truth confronted us—or was it we who confronted it? Which of us here is a mythical figure? Which the Sphinx? It is a rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks. And, incredible though it may seem, it strikes us that the problem has never been put—that we were the first ones to have seen it, to have our eye on it, to venture it. For it is a venture, and perhaps there is none greater. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

In this hyperinflation economy, many Americans are struggling and one topic that is really being pursued right now if the implement of the guaranteed income. Generally speaking, we must change our system from one of maximal to one of optimal consumption. This would mean: A vast change in industry from the production of commodities for individual consumption to the production of commodities for public use: schools, theaters, libraries, parks, hospitals, public transportation, housing; in other words an emphasis on the production of those things that are the basis for the unfolding of the individual’s inner productiveness and activity. It can be shown that the voraciousness of homo consumnes refers mainly to the individual consumption of things he “eats” (incorporates while the use of free public services, enabling the individual to enjoy life, do not evoke greed and voraciousness. Such a change from maximal to optimal consumption would require drastic changes in production patterns, and also a drastic reduction of the appetite-whetting, brainwashing techniques of advertising, et cetera. It would also have to be combined with a drastic cultural change: a renaissance of the humanistic value of life, productivity, individualism, et cetera, as against the materialism of the “organization man” and manipulated ant heaps. These consideration lead to other problems that need to be studied: Are there objectively calid criteria to distinguish between rational and irrational, between good and bad needs, or is any subjectively felt need of the same value? (Good is defined here as needs that enhance human aliveness, awakeness, productivity, sensitivity; bad, as those needs that weaken or paralyze these human potentials.) #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

It must be remembered that in the case of drug addiction, overeating, alcoholism, we all make such a distinction. The study of these problems would lead to the following practical considerations: what are the minimum legitimate needs of an individual? (For instance: one room per person, so much clothing, so many calories, so many culturally valuable commodities such as a radio, books, et cetera.) In a relatively abundant society such as that of the United States of America today, it should be easy to figure out what the cost for a decent subsistence minimum is, and also what the limits for maximal consumption should be. Progressive taxation on consumption beyond a certain threshold could be considered. It seems important to me that slum conditions should be avoided. All this would mean the combination of the principle of a guaranteed income with the transformation of our society from maximal to optimal individual consumption, and a drastic shift from production for individual needs to production for public needs. It is important to add to the idea of a guaranteed income another one, which ought to be studied: the concept of free consumption of certain commodities. One example would be that of bread, then milk and vegetables. Let us assume, for a moment, that everyone could go into any bakery and take as much bread as he liked (the state would pay the bakery for all bread produced). As already mentioned, the greedy would at first take more than they could use, but after a short time this “greed-consumption” would even itself out and people would take only what they really needed. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

Such free consumption would create a new dimension in human life (unless we look at it as the repetition on a much higher level of the consumption pattern in certain primitive societies). Man would be freed from the principle “he who does not work shall not eat.” Even this beginning of free consumption might constitute a very novel experience of freedom. It is obvious even to the noneconomist that the provision of free bread for all could be easily paid for by the state, which would cover this disbursement by a corresponding tax. However, we can go a step further. Assuming that not only all minimal needs for food were obtained free—bread, milk, vegetables, fruit—but the minimal needs for clothing (by some system everybody could obtain, without paying, say one suit, three shirts, six pairs of socks, et cetera, per year); that transportation was free, requiring, of course, vastly improved systems of public transportation, while private cars would become more expensive. Eventually one could imagine that housing could be solved in the same way, by big housing projects with sleeping halls for the young, one small room for older, or married couples, to be used without cost by anybody who chose. This leads to the suggestion that another way of solving the guaranteed-income problem would be by free minimal consumption of all necessities, instead of through cash payments. The production of these minimum necessities, together with highly improved public services, would keep production going, just as guaranteed-income payments would. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

It may be objected that this method is more radical, and hence less acceptable, than the one proposed by others. However, must not be forgotten that, on the one hand, this method of free minimal services could theoretically be arranged within the present system while on the other hand, the idea of a guaranteed income will not be acceptable to many, not because it is not feasible, but because of the psychological resistance against the abolishment of the principle “He who does not work shall not eat.” One other philosophical, political, and psychological problem has to be studied: that of freedom. The Western concept of freedom was to a large extent based on the freedom to own property, and to exploit it, as long as other legitimate interests were not threatened. This principle has actually been punctured in many ways in Western industrial societies by taxation, which is a form of expropriation, and by state intervention in agriculture, trade, and industry. At the same time, private property in the means of production is becoming increasingly replaced by the semi-public property typical of giant corporations. While the guaranteed-income concept would mean some additional state regulations, it must be remembered that today the concept of freedom for the average individual lies not so much in the freedom to own and exploit property (capital) as in the freedom to consume whatever he likes. Many people today consider it as an interference with their freedom if unlimited consumption is restricted, although only those on the top are really free to choose what they want. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

The competition between different brands of the same commodities and different kinds of commodities creates the illusion of personal freedom, when in reality the individual wants what he is conditioned to want. A new approach to the problem of freedom is necessary, only with the transformation of homo consumens into a productive, active person will man experience freedom in true independence and not in unlimited choice of commodities. The full effect of the principle of the guaranteed income is to be expected only in conjunction with: (1) a change in habits of consumption, the transformation of homo consumens into the productive, active man (in Mr. Spinoza’s sense); (2) the creation of a new spiritual attitude, that of humanism (in theistic or nontheistic forms); and (3) a renaissance of truly democratic methods (for instance, a new Lower House by the integration and summation of decisions arrived at by hundreds of thousands of face-to-face groups, active participation of all members working in any kind of enterprise, in management, et cetera). The danger that a state that nourishes all could become a mother goodness with dictatorial qualities can be overcome only by a simultaneous, drastic increase in democratic procedure in all spheres of social activities. (The fact is that even today the state is extremely powerful, without giving these benefits.) Together with economic research in the field of the guaranteed income, other research must be undertaken: psychological, philosophical, religious, education. The great step of a guaranteed income will succeed only if it is accompanied by changes in other spheres. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

It must not be forgotten that the guaranteed income can succeed only is we stop spending 10 percent of our total resources on economically useless and dangerous armaments; if we can halt the spread of senseless violence by systematic help to the underdeveloped countries, and if we find methods to arrest the population explosion. Without such changes, no plan for the future will succeed, because there will be no future. This is why people need to curb their temptations. “Temptation” is a scheme or a plot, or compulsion on the part of the tempter to cause another to do evil, whether consciously or unconsciously; but an attack is an onslaught on the person, either in life, character or circumstances: for example, the ultimate negative made an onslaught on the ultimate concern through the villagers when they sought to hurl the Lord over the brow of the hill (Luke 4.29); when His family brought a charge of insanity against Him (Mark 3.21); and when He was charged with demon possession by His enemies (John 10.20; Matt. 12.24). Temptation, moreover, means suffer, as we see again in the life of Christ, for it is written, “He suffered being tempted” (Hebrews 2.18), and believers must not think they will reach a period when they will not feel the suffering of temptation; this is a wrong conception, which gives ground to the enemy for tormenting and attacking them without cause. 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. From Thee, O Lord, comes our wealth, and from Thine own, do we give unto Thee. Please keep the Sacramento Fire Department in your hearts and minds this holiday season and make a donation to help support them in keeping our communities safe, for they work hard and risk their lives and are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Millhaven Homes

BEYOND
THE BUILD

When building a custom home, your experience is just as vital as the final product you live in. Whether you’re building a custom home in Utah or another state, we can help. Our team at Millhaven goes beyond the build with our full-service approach to each project. https://millhavenhomes.com/

Do not give away all your money, then become a poor borrower. China has been growing extremely rapidly for a long time, but an important shift in its growth pattern occurred at the time of global financial crisis. During the six years up to 2007, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average rate of 11 percent, with investment equaling 41.5 percent of GDP. The current account surplus was rising in this period, reaching over 10 percent of GDP. In 2023, China’s GDP is 5.3 percent. Beijing has unveiled a raft of measures, including more public works spending, interest rate cuts, property easing and efforts to shore up the private sector, after growth momentum in the World’s second-largest economy dropped. The government’s ability to spur growth has been hamstrung by fears over debt risks and a fragile yuan. These and other characteristics of Chinese communism, however, can be properly understood only if we look at Chinese communism as a whole, and then compare it with the Soviet Russian system. What is characteristic, first of all, of the Chinese revolution, is the fact that it is primarily a peasant revolution, and not a workers’ revolution. It has been often remarked that this very fact alone shows that it is not a revolution in the Marxist sense. The Chinese leaders had a tough job to find the theoretical formula to bridge this obvious contradiction, and there is no need here to follow the fine points of their argument. The revolution followed an increasing course of collectivization in the agrarian sector, which in 1958 culminated in the Constitution of the Communes. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

In order to appreciate China’s agricultural problem one has to consider the fact that while the United States of America has at least 600,000 square miles of land under cultivation, with a population of 325,000,000, China has only 425,000 square miles of cultivated land with a population of about 1.1 trillion. However, while there is little prospect of increasing this area to any considerable extent, there is a possibility of increasing the production of food by means of irrigation and fertilization, which would add minerals to the soil. (One must note here what could be done here if part of America’s surplus food, for the storage of which we pay more than the cost of our entire economic assistance from Asia, could be given to China on terms of inexpensive and long-term credits.) Aside from the insufficient arable land, China suffers from her primitive agricultural techniques. This can be seen most clearly from the following figures: in the United States of America it takes 1.2 man-days to cultivate and harvest an acre of wheat, while it China it takes 26 man-days. It seems that in the first Five Year Plan, collectivization did not do ore than increase the annual output by 2.65 percent, which is little more than the population increase of 2.2 percent. (The official Chinese statistic claim 5.7 percent in output.) The relative smallness of China’s agricultural base is still more aggravated by the fact that China exports a considerable amount of foodstuffs to pay for her industrialization. This results in a very poor diet for her peasants. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

However, there seems to be a reason to assume that China can obtain a much better food supply for her peasants once her industrial output permits her to produce tractors, fertilizers, and irrigation facilities, and to buy foodstuffs from other parts of the World, especially from Southeast Asia. Having this in view the Chinese government has put the whole emphasis on the industrialization of the country. So far, even if one does not fully accept the Chinese figures, the results of the process of industrialization are quite impressive. A recent Western estimate of China’s gross national product for 2023, as stated above is 5.3 percent, their economy is valued at $17.73 trillion USD, and in 2022 China accounted for 19 percent of global output. If one compares them with the rate of growth in other Asiatic countries, these figures are all the more impressive. The Indian GDP for 2023 is 6.4 percent, and the economy is valued at $3.18 trillion. If this development continues in the same fashion, it hardly needs to be emphasized that the Chinese example will prove to be so attractive for India and other developing countries that their population may become willing to pay the price of regimentation and loss of freedom in exchange for economic improvement, hope, and the satisfaction of national pride. It is interesting to compare the Chinese and the Indian figures with those of Japan, which is 1.03 percent GDP, while her economy is valued at $4.23 trillion. The performance of the Japanese indicates that it is possible for a non-Communist country to make rapid economic progress without resorting to totalitarian methods, but Japan is no longer an underdeveloped country, and it is in comparison with other nations around the World that Communist China’s rate of growth takes on a particular significance. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

Closely related to China’s industrial progress is, of course, the growth of her military strength. Needless to say that China is not lacking in manpower, and for that matter, in a disciplined one, instilled with national pride and fanaticism. However, in addition China can increasingly produce her own military equipment. Estimates are of course quite unreliable on this score, but China has been able to manufacture her own atomic and thermonuclear weapons. The latest assessment from the Defense Department said China had increased its arsenal of operational nuclear warheads from an estimated 400 in 2021 to more than 500 as of May of 2023. The most important point for American foreign policy is, not only to understand the nature of the Chinese Communist regime, but to appreciate its differences with Russia and the conflicts between the two regimes which follow from these differences. Until not so long ago, Soviet Russia and Communist China were treated as if they were twins. (This kind of approach is still to be found in the press and in many utterances of the less informed politicians.) What is deceptive about the relations between the Soviet Union and China is the fact that they have the same ideological system and a political alliance. For those who can not see the differences between ideologies and facts, this means that the two systems are more or less identical. The truth is, however, that the reality of the two systems is radically different in spite of their ideological similarity. The Soviet Union has changes from a revolutionary workers’ and peasants’ state to a politically conservative industrial managerialism. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

Soviet Russia is the last of the great European states arriving at a full industrialization, and is in the process of becoming one of the richest most powerful “have” states in the World. Its ideology is still that of revolution, Marxism, et cetera, but this ideology is increasingly wearing thin, as far as its effective influence on the minds and hearts of people is concerned. The ideology of a society with equality, brotherliness, and classlessness, of the withering away of the state, is more and more in contrast to the reality of a society built along rigid class differences. Communist China, as of today, is one of the “have” nations so much so that the United States of America is now borrowing from China. And as the United States of America continues to send billions of dollars to other developing nations, they are also putting them in the position to become the next China and compete with America for World supremacy, as the American standard of living declines. China is awakening under the leadership of gifted, resolute, and uncorrupt men, the very same men who started and won the revolution. They are nationalistic, proud, and sensitive to any kind of slight from the West. They have decided to transform China into a powerful industrialized state, and to become one of the leading powers in the World. There is (so far) little corruption. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

The Chinese leaders have a concept of communism which is in radical opposition to that of Mr. Marx. While his system of communism aimed at the emancipation and the full unfolding of the individual, the Chinese Communists attempt to the collectivization of individuals in order to make them indistinguishable members of a collective; they suppress individuality for the sake of society. Consequently they believe that their system of “communes,” in which the vast majority of all Chinese are already organized, is a step toward the realization of communism. They are creating a new form of religion, a peculiar mixture of enlightenment ideology blended with the cultivation and exploitation of guilt and shame. Different as their system is from anything Mr. Marx meant by socialism (or by communism), it is equally different from the Russian industrial managerialism. It is only slightly exaggerated to say that the Chinese, the “blue ants” as they are often called in Russia, appeared to the West in 1917 to 1920. Even though Soviet Russia and China were and still are allied by their common antagonism to the West, and by their common ideology, there is an increasing schism between the two powers. This conflict rests upon several factors. The most important one is probably the fact that Russia is today part of the rich status quo World of the West, and China has become a major lender to the United States of America. This is a conflict of a very different nature than the one between Russia and the West. The latter is a battle between two blocs which have much more in common economically than Russia has with China; China, in her effort to become the leader of the colonial revolution, to bring communism to India, Indonesia, America, the Middle East, and Latin America, is as much or more of a potential threat to the Soviet Union than to the United States of America. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

If China wanted new territory for her ever-increasing population, thinly populated Siberia would be more tempting than the densely populated part of Southern and Southeastern Asia. In addition to the potential threat as the leader of the colonial revolution, the Chinese leadership constitutes another threat to the Soviet Union’s position as the leader of the Communist World. The Chinese Communist, since coming to power, have stated that their own revolution is a “classic example” and the model for other revolution in Asia and all other underdeveloped countries. Since they started the commune system, the Chinese leaders claim that the Russians are behind them on the road to a Communist society. China today is a rich society striving for control over America with tremendous force as America’s politicians can be bought by the highest bidder. These are not the same people that built this nation from the ground up, so they have less pride in America than their ancestors did, therefore, they are willing to sell her out. These politicians have not spilled blood for this land and many of them look down on veterans as if they are their pieces on a chess board to fight their wars while they get rich. Russia is a rich society trying to develop and to preserve what she has. While the World seems on the verge of a Third World War, America is also going through a silent revolution. With the cost of living being so high, many people are fighting for the guaranteed income. The most important reason for the acceptance of the concept is that it might drastically enhance the freedom of the individual. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

Until now in human history, man has been limited in his freedom to act by two factors: the use of force on the part of the rulers (essentially their capacity to kill the dissenters), and, more importantly, the threat of starvation against all who were unwilling to accept the conditions of work and social existence that were imposed on them. Whoever was not willing to accept these conditions, even if there was no other force used against one, was confronted with the threat of starvation. The principle prevailing throughout most of human history in the past and present (in capitalism as well as in the Soviet Union) is “He who does not work shall not eat.” This threat forced man not only to act in accordance with what was demanded of him, but also to think and to feel in such a way that he would not even be tempted to act differently. The fact that past history is based on the principle of the threat of starvation has, in the last analysis, its source in the fact that, with the exception of certain primitive societies, man has lived on the level of scarcity, both economically and psychologically. There were never sufficient material goods to satisfy the needs of all; usually a small group of “directors” took for themselves all that their hearts desired, and the many who could not sit at the table were told that it was God’s or Nature’s law that this should be so. However, it must be noted that the main factor in this is not the greed of the “directors,” but the low level of material productivity. A guaranteed income, which becomes possible in the era of economic abundance, could for the first-time free man from the threat of starvation, and thus make him truly free and independent from any economic threat. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

Nobody would have to accept conditions of work merely because he otherwise would be afraid of starving; a talented or ambitious man or woman could learn new skills to prepare himself or herself for a different kind of occupation. A woman could leave her husband, an adolescent his family. If they did not have to fear hunger, people would learn to be no longer afraid. (This holds true, of course, only if there is also no political threat that inhibits man’s free thought, speech, and action.) Guaranteed income would not only establish freedom as a reality rather than a slogan, it would also establish a principle deeply rooted in Western religious and humanist tradition: man has the right to live, regardless! This right to live, to have food, shelter, medical care, education, et cetera, is an intrinsic human right that cannot be restricted by any condition, not even the one that he must be socially “useful.” The shift from a psychology of scarcity produces anxiety, envy, egotism (to be seen most drastically in peasant cultures all over the World). A psychology of abundance produces initiative, faith in life, solidarity. The fact is that most men are still geared psychologically to the economic facts of scarcity, when the industrial World is in the process of entering a new era of economic abundance. However, because of this psychological “lag” many people cannot even understand new ideas as presented in the concept of a guaranteed income, because traditional ideas are usually determined by feelings that originated in previous forms of social existence. A further effect of a guaranteed income, coupled with greatly diminished working hours for all, would be that the spiritual and religious problems of human existence would become real and imperative. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

Until now man has been occupied with work (or has been too tired after work) to be too seriously concerned with such problems as “What is the meaning of life?” “What do I believe in?” “What are my values?” “Who am I?” et cetera. If he ceases to be mainly occupied by work, he will either be free to confront these problems seriously, or he will become half mad from direct or compensated boredom. From all this it would follow that economic abundance, liberation from fear of starvation, would mark the transition from a prehuman to a truly human society. Balancing this picture, it is necessary to raise some objection against, or questions about, the concept of a guaranteed income. The most obvious question is whether a guaranteed income would not reduce the incentive for work. Aside from the fact that there is already no work for an ever-increasing sector of the population, and hence that the question of incentive for these people is irrelevant, the objection is nevertheless a serious once. I believe, however, that it can be demonstrated that material incentive is by no means the only incentive for work and effort. First of all there are other incentives: pride, social recognition, pleasure in work itself, et cetera. Examples of this fact are not lacking. The most obvious one to quote is the work of scientists, artists, et cetera, whose outstanding achievements were not motivated by the incentive of monetary profit, but by a mixture of various factors: most of all, interest in the work they were doing; also pride in their achievements, or the wish for fame. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

However, obvious as this example may seem, it is not entirely convincing, because it can be said that these outstanding people could make extraordinary efforts precisely because they were extraordinarily gifted, and hence they are no example for the reactions of the average person. This objection does not seem to be valid, however, if we consider the incentives for the activities of people who do not share the outstanding qualities of the great creative persons. What efforts are made in the field of all sports, of many kinds of hobbies, where there are no material incentives of any kind! To what extent interest in the work process itself can be an incentive for working was clearly demonstrated for the first time by Professor Mayo in his classic study at the Chicago Hawthrone Works of the Western Electric Company. The very fact that unskilled women workers were drawn into the experiment work productivity of which they were the subjects, the fact that they became interested and active participants in the experiment, resulted in increasing productivity, and even their physical health improved. The problem becomes even clearer when we consider older forms of societies. The efficiency and incorruptibility of the traditional Prussian civil service were famous, in spite of the fact that monetary rewards were very low; in this case such concepts as honour, loyalty, duty, were the determining motivations for efficient work. Still another factor appears when we consider preindustrial societies (like the medieval European society, or half-feudal societies in the beginning of this century in Latin America.) In these societies the carpenter, for instance, wanted to earn enough to satisfy the needs of his traditional standard of living, and would refuse to work more in order to earn more than he needed. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

Secondly, it is a fact that man, by nature, is not lazy, but on the contrary, suffers from the results of inactivity. People might prefer not to work for one or two months, but the vast majority would bed to work, even if they were not paid for it. The fields of child development and mental illness offer abundant data in this connection; what is needed is a systematic investigation in which the available data are organized and analyzed from the standpoint of “laziness as disease,” and more date are collected in new and pertinent investigations. However, if money is not to be the main incentive, then work in its technical or social aspects would have to be sufficiently attractive and interesting to outweigh the unpleasure of inactivity. Modern, alienated man is deeply bored (usually unconsciously), and hence has a yearning for laziness, rather than for activity. This yearning itself is, however, a symptom of our “pathology of normalcy.” Presumably misuse of the guaranteed income would disappear after a short time, just as people would not overeat on sweets after a few weeks, assuming they would not have to pay for them. Another objection is the following: Will the disappearance of the fear of starvation really make man so much freer, considering that those who earn a comfortable living are probably just as afraid to lose a job that gives them, let us say $150,000 a year, as are those who might go hungry if they were to lose their jobs? If this objection is valid, then the guaranteed income would increase the freedom of the large majority, but not that of the middle and upper classes. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

In order to understand this objection fully we have to consider the spirit of contemporary industrial society. Man has transformed himself into a homo consumens. He is voracious, passive, and tries to compensate for his inner emptiness by continuous and ever-increasing consumption (there are many clinical examples for this mechanism in cases of overeating, overbuying, overdrinking, as a reaction to depression and anxiety); he consumes cigarettes, liquor, pleasures of the flesh, movies, travel, as well as education, books, lectures, and art. He appears to be active, “thrilled,” yet deep down he is anxious, lonely, depressed, and bored (boredom can be defined as that type of chronic depression that can successfully be compensated by consumption). Twenty-first century industrialism has created this new psychological type, homo consumens, primarily for economic reasons, id est, the need for mass consumption, which is stimulated and manipulated by advertising. However, the character type, once created, also influences the economy and makes the principles of ever-increasing satisfaction appear rational and realistic. Contemporary man has an unlimited hunger for more and more consumption. From this follow several consequences: if there is no limit to the greed for consumption, and since in the foreseeable future no economy can produce enough for unlimited consumption for everybody, there can never be true “abundance” (psychologically speaking) as long as the character structure of homo consumnes remains dominant. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

For the greedy person there is always scarcity, since he never has enough, regardless of how much he has. Furthermore he feel covetous and competitive with regard to everybody else; hence he is basically isolated and frightened. He cannot really enjoy art or other cultural stimulations, since he remains basically greedy. This means that those who lived on the guaranteed-income level would feel frustrated and worthless, and those who earned more would remain prisoners of circumstances, because they would be frightened and lose the possibility for maximum consumption. For these reasons I believe that guaranteed income without a change from the principle of maximal consumption would only take care of certain problems (economical and social) but would not have the radical effect it should. In bad markets, everybody is hungry and all the energies go into demanding that commissions be raised. One of our learned economists has described our economic system as “state socialism for the rich.” If socialism is the public ownership of the major institutions and industries of the nation, maybe we are just taking a unique way of getting there. It seems that all great things, in order to inscribe eternal demands in the heart of man, must first walk the Earth as monstrous and frightening masks: dogmatic philosophy was such a mask—for example, the Vedanta teaching in Asia, Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, though one must also admit that the worst, the most protracted and most dangerous of all errors hitherto was a dogmatic error, namely, Plato’s invention of pure spirit and of the Good in itself. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

Now that it has been overcome, however, now that Europe breathes free of this incubus and might at least enjoy a healthier—sleep, we whose task is precisely to be awake, are the heirs of all the strength fostered by the struggle against this error. Of course, it meant standing truth on its head and even denying perspective, the fundamental condition of all life, in speaking of spirit and the Good, as Plato did; indeed, like a physician, one might well ask, “How did such a disease manage to grow on the most beautiful plant of antiquity, on Plato? Did the evil Socrates corrupt him, after all? Could Socrates have been a corrupter of the youth, after all? And did he deserve the hemlock?—But the struggle against Plato or, to put it more intelligibly for “the people,” the struggle against Christian-ecclesiastical forces of millennia—for Christianity is Platonism for the “the people”—has created in Europe a magnificent tension of the spirit such as has never before existed on Earth: with such a tightly strung bow, we can now shoot at the most distant targets. Of course, European man feels this tension as a kind of need and distress; and twice already attempts have been made, in the grand style, to slacken the bow: once by Jesuitism, then a second time by democratic Enlightenment—which, with this assistance of freedom of the press and the reading of newspapers, just might bring it about that the spirit no longer feels itself in any kind of “need”! (The Germans invented gunpowder—all due respect there! However, then, they made up for it: they incented the printing press.) #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

However, we, we who are neither Jesuits nor democrats nor even sufficiently German, we good Europeans and free, very free spirits—we still have it, the full need of the spirit and the full tension of the bow! And perhaps the arrow, too, the task, who knows? The goal…those who thus, by prayer, bring to light these hidden workings are, by experience, widening their horizon in knowledge of one’s work as a tempter, and becoming better able to cowork with the Spirit of God in the deliverance of others from the powers of darkness, it is essential to be able to recognize what they are doing. Paul, on one occasion, did not say “circumstances” but “Satan hindered me” (1 Thessalonians 2.18), because he was able to recognize when circumstances, or the Holy Spirit (Acts 16.6), or Satan, hindered or restrained him in his life and service. There are degrees also in the results of temptation. After the wilderness temptation, which settled vast and eternal issues, the devil left Christ, but he returned to Him again and again with other degrees of temptation (John 12.27; Matt. 22.15), both direct and indirect. If Christology is intimately related to ecclesiology, so that the structure of the incarnation serves as a paradigm for the structure of the church, the question is not the union of God and man in Jesus the Christ, but the appearance in him of essential manhood under the conditions of existence. Similarly, the Spirit elevates man’s spirit to the transcendent unity of unambiguous life, that is, to an experiential realization this his humanity shares in essential manhood insofar as it is actualized. The actualization is fragmentary and the experience fleeting, but the impact of this revelation enkindles the courage to be what one should be. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

The distortions and ambiguities of existential life are not thereby banished, but one has glimpsed the New Being which alone is worthy of our ultimate concern. And the fact that all men participate in and are destined for the New Being—otherwise they would have given up the struggle to be—draws them together in the Spiritual Community. Through the New Being they are reunited to God, the ground of all being, and the power which flows from this reunion should permeate all their spiritual activities, so that, ideally, culturally is grounded in being-itself, and being-itself shines through all cultural forms. Unambiguous life in the Spiritual Community is theonomous life. The heart of the mystery of Christology is the undistorted appearance of essential manhood in Jesus the Christ under the conditions of existence. By way of contrast, Catholic theology, for example, describes the Christological problem as the union of God and man in Jesus, while the ecclesiological problem is the union of Jesus the Head with the all-too-human collectivity that is his body. The Second Vatican Council proposes this analogy between the mystery of the incarnation and the mystery of the church. It illustrates, first the paradoxical nature of the church which is, on the one hand, a hierarchically organized society and, on the other hand, the Mystical Body, visible and yet spiritual, Earthly and Heavenly, possessing a human factor and a divine factor. Secondly, it emphasized that the social whole which is the church acts as a channel for the Spirit of Christ, just as the human nature of Jesus serves as an instrument of salvation. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

Theonomy demands reunion with the ground of being, which is achieved by the ecstasy of faith in which one’s total, ultimate concern is directed toward the New Being. Thus is born the Spiritual Community of those who received the New Being in Jesus the Christ, either explicitly in the manifest church or by anticipation in the latent church. There is no mistaking the passionate concern of many to keep the Spiritual Community open to all who will yield themselves to the grasp of the Spirit. Believe me, you who are religious and Christian, it would not be worthwhile to teach Christianity, if it were for the sake of Christianity. And believe me, you who are estranged from religion and far away from Christianity, it not our purpose to make you religious and Christian when we interpret the call of Jesus for our time. We call Jesus the Christ not because He brought a new religion, but because He is the end of religion, above religion and irreligion, above Christianity and non-Christianity. We spread His call because it is the call to every man in every period to receive the New Being, that hidden saving power in our existence, which takes from us labour and burden, and gives rest to our souls. The Spiritual Community is not aimlessly adrift on the tides of history, for it follows where the Spirit blows. Whither does it tend, and when will it arrive? We must now consider the question of history and eschatology. The generous heart shall be enriched, and one that satisfies others shall be satisfied oneself. 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. And this the offering you shall take: God, silver, and copper. One who gives when well, one’s gift is gold; one who gives only when ill, one’s gift is silver; one who gives only in one’s will, one’s gift is copper. From Thee, O Lord, comes our wealth, and from Thine own, do we give unto Thee. Please open up your hearts and donate to the Sacramento Fire Depart. They work really hard to keep us safe and are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

Millhaven Homes

BEYOND THE BUILD

When building a custom home, your experience is just as vital as the final product you live in. Whether you’re building a custom home in Utah or another state, we can help. Our team at Millhaven goes beyond the build with our full-service approach to each project. https://millhavenhomes.com/

View Gallery

Contact Us