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

Although Joseph Stalin was considered a tyrant and slave driver by many, he is the reason for much of Russia’s current and past economic prosperity, success, recognition, and beauty. The White Sea-Baltic Canal is a testament to the genius of Mr. Stalin and Soviet engineering and to the hardiness of its workers. It stretches 141 miles from the White Sea in far northern Russia, traverses through the dense forest along the shores of Lake Onega, and empties into the Gulf of Finland at the eastern edge of the Baltic Sea. The canal was built to make sure that Moscow would not suffer from drought. Much of it was actually constructed by men and women, which includes the digging, and pouring of concrete. The project took for years to build. Construction on the Moscow Canal started in 1932 and was completed by 1936. An estimated of 100,000 inmates worked in frigid waters to create this waterway. It also contributed to economic success by allowing ships to important and export supplies. The Mayakovskaya Metro Station opened in 1938 and was also built by the Stalinist Empire. It is considered one of the most beautiful subway stations in the World being constructed of marble, with marble columns, u marble floors. The ceiling contains beautiful mosaic tiles, there are gorgeous circular lamps which gives the impression of a magnificent chandelier. The Moscow Metro Subway is one of the biggest and busiest systems in the World today. Mr. Stalin’s place was to sit atop the subway system. It was to be a skyscraper over 650 feet tall, with 42 floors, in a Gothic architecture style and on top there was going to be a giant 328-foot statue of Mr. Stalin. Construction on the building started, but it was never completed because World War II broke out and the steel was, instead, used to make tanks. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

Another one of Mr. Stalin’s masterpieces is the seven towering skyscrapers known as The Seven Sisters. They are one of the leading architectural legacies of the Stalinist period. After World War II, the Communists had to rebuild large portions of their cities and villages. The Seven Sisters skyscrapers were built in Moscow between 1947 and 1957. Their construction was not just functional, but had ideological and political importance. They were intended to show the accomplishment and regeneration of the USSR in the post-war period, and provide exclusive residence for the Soviet and elite and international visitors. The Soviet Baroque architecture of the Seven Sisters are characterized by their wedding-cake shape intricate architectural and decorative details, and luxurious interiors. The Seven Sisters reflected the modernity, ambition and triumph of Soviet Russia. For years the tallest buildings in Europe, these seven commanding skyscrapers are significant monuments of architecture and urban planning which draws the eyes of admirers from all over the World. Many people compare President Trump to Mr. Stalin. They believe that he could achieve the same kind of prosperity for America because he loves the country and believes that he can “Make American Great Again.” President Trump has many prestigious infrastructure plans for the future, which even include affordable housing and brining manufacturing back to America so that America can again become a prosperous creditor nation, which no longer needs to borrow from China. Mr. Stalin also had ambitions plans to dominate the World. Cuba is no better proof of Russian plans to dominate the World. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

The Cuban revolution was neither instigated by Moscow nor by the Cuban Communists, who had been collaborating with Batista until his downfall was near. Mr. Castro was never a Communist, but he planned a revolution which transcended the purely political limits of freeing the country from dictatorship. He started a social revolution, expropriating land owners and industry. United States of America’s government and public opinion started to turn against him, and forced Mr. Castro step by step to seek help, economically and politically, from the Soviet Union, and to accept the help of the Cuban Communist Party which had been held in contempt by the Castristas because of its obvious opportunism and corruption. Mr. Khrushchev threatened once to defend Cuba with nuclear bombs against American military intervention, when he knew quite well that the United States of America would not intervene in such a direct fashion. To make sure, he later withdrew this threat by declaring it was meant only symbolically. He has given only the minimum assistance and loans to the Cubans, and it seems that he exercised a restraining influence on Castro, which, after Mr. Guevara’s return from Moscow, led to repeated—though rejected—bids for a “new beginning” in Cuban-American relations. In Cuba too, Mr. Khrushchev has to cope with Chinese competition, which deprives him of some freedom of action. However, the total picture shows that Mr. Castro’s alliance with the Soviet Union was furthered more by United States of America’s action than by Mr. Khrushchev’s wish to penetrate Latin America. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

No doubt Mr. Khrushchev wanted to keep the Communist Parties in Latin America alive for their nuisance value against the United States of America. He had to give some support to them because of his position as a leader in the Communist camp, (especially in view of the Chinese competition), but there is no evidence that Mr. Khrushchev had a serious wish to destroy all possibilities of an understanding with the United States of America by trying to make Latin America part of his empire. The cliché of the Soviet offensive against the United States of America in Berlin, Laos, the Congo, and Cuba was not based on reality but was rather a convenient formula to support further armament and the continuation of the cold war. It corresponds to the Chinese cliché that pictures the United States of America as seeking World domination by the support of Chiang Kai-shek, by the domination of Southern Korea and Okinawa, by the SEATO pact, et cetera. All these mutual accusations could not stand up to sober and realistic analysis. Mr. Kissinger expressed the view that it did not really matter whether the Soviet Union wanted to undermine all non-Communist countries for reasons of security the result would have been the same. Such a view led from the realm of analysis of political reality to the realm of fantasy. It remains a mystery why, considering the relative equality of power now, the Soviet Union would have to conquer the rest of the World in order to be secure, especially when it was clear that before she took the first steps on that road a nuclear war would break out which would be the end of all “security.” #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

Considering the Soviet Union’s very limited form of imperialism, several considerations must be considered. It has become customary to prove the Soviet Union’s unlimited imperialism by counting China with her 600,000,000 inhabitants (at the time) as another proof of Russian aggrandizement. Anybody familiar with the facts knows, of course, that this is sheer nonsense. The Chinese revolution was authentically Chinese; it triumphed in spite of Mr. Stalin’s conviction that it could not do so, and China received only a limited amount of assistance from Russia, even after the Communists had won. The Chinese-Russian alliance was logical for both sides, but it had also its serious problems, especially for the Russians. To consider China a “conquest” of Russia was nothing but a demagogic formula. What about the attitude of the Soviet Union toward the Communist Parties and toward national revolutions in the underdeveloped countries other than the nations we have already discussed? As far as the Communist Parties in the underdeveloped countries are concerned, part of their function is to serve as auxiliary forces for Russian foreign policy just as the Communist Parties do in the West. However, as far as revolutions in the underdeveloped countries are concerned, there is a considerable difference. While Mr. Stalin definitely did not want Communist revolutions in the West, he, just as Mr. Khrushchev was, was in favour of national revolutions in Asia and Africa. These national revolutions in underdeveloped countries are not a threat to the conservative Soviet regime, as Western workers’ revolutions would be. However, they are a very important political support for the Soviet policy, since they bring to power regimes that are not part of the Western Camp. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

The West, and especially Great Britain, have now to pay for past mistakes. They often supported the reactionary upper-class regimes in Asia and Africa. The result is that now, whenever such a regime is overthrown, the new rulers will take an anti-British and often an anti-Western attitude. Naturally, the Soviet Union exploits this fact to her own advantage by playing the role of the anti-colonialist power for which it has the ideological tools. It does not, however, insist that the new powers become integrated into the Soviet bloc and are stratified with their neutrality. The encouraging trend in the Kennedy administration is that it also tends to accept neutrality as a satisfactory stance; there is no doubt that the United State of America has more of a historical tradition behind the ideas of anti-colonialism and national independence than the Soviet Union. What happened to socialism? The Cold War era saw a renaissance in the scientific study of parapsychology—clairvoyance, Extra Sensory Perception (ESP), second sight, and parakinesis, among other phenomena. By the latter half of the 1950s, the field was being rapidly institutionalized in West Germany, as in other parts of Europe and the United States of America. Socialism eventually succumbed to the spirit of capitalism which it had wanted to replace. Instead of understanding it as a movement for the liberation of man, many of its adherents and its enemies alike understood it as being exclusively a movement for the economic improvement of the working class. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

The humanistic aims of socialism were forgotten, or only paid lip service to, while, as in capitalism, all the emphasis was laid on the aims of economic gain. Just as the ideals of democracy lost their spiritual roots, the idea of socialism lost its deepest root—the prophetic-messianic faith in peace, justice, and the brotherhood of humans. Thus socialism became the vehicle for the workers to attain their place within the capitalistic structure rather than transcending it; instead of changing capitalism, socialism was absorbed by its spirit. The failure of the socialist movement became complete when in 1914 its leaders renounced international solidarity and chose the economic and military interests of their respective countries as against the ideas of internationalism and peace which had been their program. The misinterpretation of socialism as a purely economic movement, and of nationalization of the means of production as its principal aim, occurred both in the right wing and in the left wing of the socialist movement. The reformist leaders of the socialist movement in Europe considered it their primary aim to elevate the economic status of the worker within the capitalist system, and they considered as their most radical measures the nationalization of certain big industries. Only recently have many realized that the nationalization of an enterprise is in itself not the realization socialism, that to be managed by a publicly appointed bureaucracy is not basically different for the worker than being managed by a privately appointed bureaucracy. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

The leaders of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union interpreted socialism in the same purely economic way. However, living in a country much less developed than western Europe and without a democratic tradition, they applied terror and dictatorship to enforce the rapid accumulation of capital, which in western Europe had occurred in the nineteenth century. They developed a new form of state capitalism which proved to be economically successful and humanly destructive. They built a bureaucratically managed society in which class distinction—both in an economic sense and as far as the power to command other is concerned—is deeper and more rigid than in any of the capitalists societies of today. They define their system as socialistic because they have nationalized the whole economy, while in reality their system is the complete negation of all that socialism stands for—the affirmation of individuality and the full development of humans. In order to win the support of the mases who had to make unendurable sacrifices for the sake of the fast accumulation of capital, they used socialistic, combined with nationalistic, ideologies, and this gained them the grudging cooperation of the governed. Thus far the free-enterprise system is superior to the communist system because it has preserved one of the greatest achievements of modern humans—political freedom—and with it a respect for the dignity and individuality of humans, which links us with the fundamental spiritual tradition of humanism. It permits possibilities of criticism and of making proposals for constructive social change which are practically impossible in the Soviet police state. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

It is to be expected, however, that once the Soviet countries have achieved the same level of economic development that western Europe and the United States of America has achieved—that is, once they can satisfy the demand for a comfortable life—they will not need terror, but will be able to use the same means of manipulation which are used in the West: suggestion and persuasion. This development will bring about the convergence of twenty-first century capitalism and twenty-first century communism. Both systems are based on industrialization; their goal is ever-increasing economic efficiency and wealth. They are societies run by a managerial class and by professional politicians. They are both thoroughly materialistic in their outlook, regardless of lip service to Christian ideology in the West and secular Messianism in the East. They organize the masses in a centralized system, in large factories, in political mass parties. In both systems, if they go on in the same way, the mass-man, the aliened man—a well-fed, well-clothed, well-entertained automaton-man governed by bureaucrats who have as little a goal as the mass-man has—will replace the creative, thinking, feeling man. Things will have the firs place, and man will be dead; he will talk of freedom and individuality, while he will be nothing. Where do we stand today? Capitalism and a vulgarized, distorted socialism have brought human to the point where one is in danger of becoming a dehumanized automaton; one is losing one’s sanity and stands at the point of total self-destruction. Only full awareness of one’s situation and its dangers and a new vision of a life which can realize the aims of human freedom, dignity, creativity, reason, justice, and solidarity can save us from almost certain decay, loss of freedom, or destruction. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

We are not forced to choose between a managerial free-enterprise system and a managerial communist system. There is a third solution, that of democratic, humanistic socialism which, based on the original principles of socialism, offers the vision of a new, truly human society. Once upon a time there was a little boy who lived in Chicago named Max Palevsky. His father had come to this country because the streets were paved with gold, but the were not, and so to support his family he became a painter. Houses, not canvas. Max grew up and went to the University of Chicago and studied philosophy. His father said, “Philosophy?” Max did not know, but he wanted to study philosophy, and so he went right on studying philosophy. In graduate school he was still studying philosophy, notably logic. After eleventy-seven years in graduate school he got a bit fatigued with the academic environment, and so one day he went to work for Bendix as a logician. Bendix was trying its hand at computers and Max was there to tell the computer how to think, since the computer did not know what was logical. One day Max moved on to Packard-Bell, which was also trying its hand at computers, and one day after that Max decided to start his own company. IBM dominates the computer field, but even IBM cannot do absolutely everything well at all times, and Max thought there was a niche in the computer field that IBM was not covering, in the area of small computers. So Max got together with Art Rock, who had some money and some friends at Hayden, Stone. Art had moved to San Francisco and formed a firm, Davis and Rock, to invest venture capital in ideas such as Max’s. Max put up $80,000 and Art Rock’s people put up $920,000, and from a sheet of yellow paper Scientific Data Systems was born. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

The idea was right and people were able and Scientific Data Systems began to make money on its small computers. A group of underwriters sold some stock to the public and the market on the first day capitalized—id est, decided—that the earnings of SDS were worth a paper value of $50 million. That made Max’s piece worth a little less than $10 million. At the time, after some notable triumphs, the market said SDS was worth about $540 million, and that made Max’s price worth about $50 million. You cannot do that in the stock market unless you start with a lot in the first place and have trusted financial advisors. One spring evening I was sitting in Max’s hotel room on Central Park South and we were watching the lights go on in Central Park and I asked him what difference the $50 million made. Max thought for s minute and then he said it had not made any difference. He still lived in the same house and had the same friends. He did have a problem, because every once in a while, his children would read in the paper that their father had $50 million and he did not want them to grow up with any false values. And of course, he did have the fund and the satisfaction of creating a company and beating IBM. Then he added one footnote. “It has made one difference,” he said. “It made my father happy. My father said, ‘I did the right thing. I was right after all.’” And Max said, ‘I did the right thing. I was right after all.’” And Max said, “Right about what?” And his father said, “I was right what I thought before I came, about the streets, and the gold.” #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

So if we are talking about real big money, forget the stock market. Max’s story, in varying degrees, of course, has been duplicated by the principals of a hundred other companies. That $240 million may be a paper value, but if you own a piece of it, you can trade the paper in for all the nice tangible thing you can think of, and even after they get the carpeting in on your yacht, you will have a lot left. Engineers know this well; they follow the trial of the stock options. You have stock and as long as there are buyers for it that currency is just as good as greenbacks. You can whisk engineers out of RCA and Sperry Rand and General Electric because the engineers there are too far from the top and if they have options, they are small in relation to the size of the company. So if you have a device or a process for which there is a ready market, and you can corral some engineers, that is the way to big money. If an individual realized one self by spontaneous activity and thus relates oneself to the World, one ceases to be an isolated atom; one and the World become part of one structuralized whole; one has one’s rightful place, and thereby one’s doubt concerning oneself and the meaning of life disappears. This doubt sprang from one’s separateness and from the thwarting of life; when one can live, neither compulsively nor automatically but spontaneously, the doubt disappears. One is aware of oneself as an active and creative individual and recognizes that there is only one meaning of life: the act of living itself. If the individual overcomes the basic doubt concerning oneself and one’s place in life, if one is related to the World by embracing it in the act of spontaneous living, one gains strength as an individual and one gains security. This security, however, differs from the security that characterizes the preindividualist state in the same way in which the new relatedness to the World differs from that of the primary ties. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

The new security is not rooted in the protection which the individual has from a higher power outside oneself; neither is it a security in which the tragic quality of life is eliminated. The new security is dynamic; it is not based on protection, but on humans’ spontaneous activity. It is the security acquired each moment by humans’ spontaneous activity. It is the security that only freedom can give, that needs no illusions because it has eliminated those conditions that necessitate illusions. Positive freedom as the realization of the self implies the full affirmation of the uniqueness of the individual. Humans are born equal but they are also born different. The basis of this difference is the inherited equipment, physiological and mental, with which they start life, to which is added the particular constellation of circumstances and experiences that they meet with. This individual basis of the personality is as little identical with any other as two organisms are ever identical physically. The genuine growth of the self is always a growth, the unfolding of a nucleus that is peculiar for this one person and only for one. The development of the automaton, in contrast, is not an organic growth. The growth of the basis of the self is blocked and a pseudo self I superimposed upon this self, which is—as we have seen—essentially the incorporation of extraneous patterns of thinking and feeling. Organic growth is possible only under the condition of supreme respect for the peculiarity of the self of other persons as well as of our own self. This respect for and cultivation of the uniqueness of the self is the most valuable achievement of human culture and it is this very achievement that is in danger today. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

The uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of equality. The thesis that humans are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all humans are alike. Such a concept of equality is derived from the role that the individual plays in one’s economic activities today. In the relation between the human who buys and the one who sells, the concrete differences of personality are eliminated. In this situation only one thing matters, that the one has something to sell and the other has money to but it. In economic life one man is not different from another; as real persons they are, and the cultivation of their uniqueness is the essence of individuality. Positive freedom also implies the principle that there is no higher power than this unique individual self, that humans are the center and purpose of one’s life; that the growth and realization of humans’ individuality is an end that can never be subordinated to purposes which are supposed to have greater dignity. This interpretation may arouse serious objections. Does it not postulate unbridled egotism? Is it not the negation of the idea of sacrifice for an ideal? Would its acceptance not lead to anarchy? These questions have actually already been answered, partly explicitly, partly implicitly, during our previous discussion. However, they are too important for us not to make another attempt to clarify the answers and to avoid misunderstanding. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

To say that humans should not be subject to anything higher than oneself does not deny the dignity of ideals. On the contrary, it is the strongest affirmation of ideals. It forces us, however, to a critical analysis of what an ideal is. One is generally apt today to assume that an ideal is any aim whose achievement does not imply material gain, anything for which a person is ready to sacrifice egotistical ends. This is a purely psychological—and for that matter relativistic viewpoint—concept of an ideal. From this subjectivist viewpoint a Fascist, who is driven by the desire to subordinate oneself to a higher power and at the same time to overpower other people, has an ideal just as much as the human who fights for human equality and freedom. On this basis the problem of ideals can never be solved. We must recognize the difference between genuine and fictitious ideals, which is just as fundamental a difference as that between truth and falsehood. All genuine ideals have one thing in common: they express the desire for something which is not yet accomplished but which is desirable for the purposes of the growth and happiness of the individual. We may not always know what serves this end, we may disagree about the function of this or that ideal in terms of human development, but this is no reason for a relativism which says that we cannot know what furthers life or what blocks it. We are not always sure which food is health and which is not, yet we do not conclude that we have no way whatsoever of recognizing poison. In the same way we can know, if we want to, what is poisonous for mental life. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

We know that poverty, intimidation, isolation, are directed against life; that everything that serves freedom and furthers the courage and strength to be oneself is for life. What is good or bad for humans is not a metaphysical question, but an empirical one that can be answered on the basis of an analysis of humans’ nature and the effect which certain conditions have on one. However, what about “ideals” like those of the Fascists which are definitely directed against life? How can we understand the fact that humans are following these false ideals as fervently as others are following true ideals? The answer to this question is provided by certain psychological considerations. The phenomenon of masochism shows us that humans can be drawn to the experiencing of suffering, submission, or suicide is the antithesis of positive aims of living. Yet these aims can be subjectively experienced as gratifying and attractive. This attraction to what is harmful in life is the phenomenon which more than any other deserves the name of a pathological perversion. Many psychologists have assumed that the experience of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the only legitimate principle guiding human actions; but dynamic psychology can show that the subjective experience of pleasure is not a sufficient criterion for the value of certain behaviour in terms of human happiness. The analysis of masochistic phenomena is a case in point. Such analysis shows that the sensation of pleasure can be the result of a pathological perversion and proves as little about the objective meaning of the experience as the sweet taste of a poison would prove about its function for the organism. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

We thus come to define a genuine ideal as any aim which furthers the growth, freedom, and happiness of the self, and to define as fictitious ideals those compulsive and irrational aims which subjectively are attractive experiences (like the drive for submission), but which actually are harmful to life. Once we accept this definition, it follows that a genuine ideal is not some veiled force superior to the individual, but that it is the articulate expression of utmost affirmation of the self. Any ideal which is in contrast to such affirmation proves by this very fact that it is not an ideal but a pathological aim. Those enormous beams and planks of concepts to which humans cling needily one’s whole life to save oneself are for the liberated intellect merely a scaffolding and plaything for its most daring feats; and in smashing it, mixing it up, reassembling it ironically, combining the most alien elements and separating those most closely connected, it demonstrates that it has no need of such makeshifts of neediness and will from now on be led not by concepts but by intuitions. There is no regular path leading from those intuitions into the land of ghostly schemata, of abstractions: there are no words for them; humans fall silent when one sees them or speaks in strictly forbidden metaphous and egregious combinations of concepts in order to correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition, at least by demolishing and ridiculing the old conceptual restraints. There are ages in which the rational humans and the intuitive humans stand side by side, the one fearful of intuition, the other scornful of abstraction; the latter as irrational as the former is inartistic. Both desire to rule over life: the former by knowing how to meet the most pressing needs with foresight, intelligence, and regularity, the latter, as an “over-joyous hero,” by not seeing those needs and regarding life as real only when it feigns semblance and beauty.  #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

Where the intuitive human, as, for instance, in ancient Greece, brandishes one’s weapons more formidably and victoriously than one’s opponent, in favourable conditions a culture can emerge and art can establish dominion over life; all outward manifestations of that life are accompanied by that dissimulation, that denial of neediness, the radiance of metaphorical intuitions, and, above all, the immediacy of deceit. Neither such a humans’ house nor one’s way of walking nor one’s clothing nor one’s earthen jug look as if they were invented by need; everything in them seems to express a sublime happiness and an Olympian clear blue—and yet a playing at seriousness. Whereas the human led by concepts and abstractions uses them merely to ward off misfortune, deriving no happiness from the abstractions and seeking out the greatest possible freedom from misery, the intuitive human, standing in the midst of a culture, reaps from one’s intuitions not only a defense against evil but a continuous influx of illumination, cheerfulness, redemption. Of course, when one suffers, one suffers more intensely; one even suffers more often, since one does not know how to learn from experience and keeps falling into the same ditch one has fallen into before. One is then just as irrational in one’s sorrow as one is in one’s happiness; one cries out and has no consolation. How different things are for the Stoic suffering the same misfortune, instructed by experience and ruling oneself by means of concepts! Usually aspiring only to sincerity, truth, freedom from deception, and protection against beguiling attack, now, in misfortune, one delivers one’s masterpiece of dissimulation, just as the human of intuition did in happiness; one’s visage is not a wincing and expressive human face but like a mask with features of dignified symmetry; one does not cry out or even change one’s time of voice. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

If a dark storm cloud bursts upon one, one wraps oneself up in one’s cloak and slowly walks out from under it. Consciousness of appearance.—How wonderful and new and yet how eerie and ironic my knowledge makes me feel toward the whole of existence. I have discovered for myself that the old humanity and animality, indeed the entire primal age and past of all sentient beings, goes on composing, loving, hating, inferring—I awoke suddenly in the midst of this dream, but only to the consciousness that I am still dreaming and that I must go on dreaming in order not to perish: just as the sleepwalker must go on dreaming in order to keep from falling down. What is “seeming” (Schein) to me now! Certainly not the opposite of some kind of being (Wesen)—what could I possibly say of any such being, other than the predicates of its seeming! Certain not a dead mask that one could put on some unknown X, and indeed take off! For me, seeming is what is truly effective and alive, going so far in its self-mockery as to make me feel that here there is seeming and ghost lights and spirits dances, and nothing more—that among all those dreaming, I, too, the “knower,” dance my dance; that one who knows is a means of drawing out the Earthly dance and in this way belongs among the masters of ceremony of existence; and that the sublime consistency and interconnectedness of all knowledge is and will be perhaps the highest means of sustaining the universality of dreaming and the understanding all these dreamers have among themselves, and so, too, even the duration of the dream. This holiday season, please open your hearts, and donate to the Sacramento Fire Department, for the are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

Millhaven Homes

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/