The little band of Saints who had been in the far western outpost of Independence, Missouri, for eight months, were having difficulties. That their problems might be better understood, it may be well to try and imagine what western Missouri was like in 1831. There were only twenty-four states in the United States of America at that time. Most of the land west of the Mississippi River was Indian country, where few European Americas had ever been. Independence was a very small village at the very western edge of civilization. There were no railroads or automobiles; no electricity, radios, televisions, telephones, daily newspapers, or electrical appliances. Stoves and furnaces were as rare as are long cabins today, and many homes had no glass in the windows. Homes were lighted by hand-dipped candles, oil lamps, or a saucer of lard with a piece of rag for a wick. Each home had two spinning wheels, one for spinning wool and one for flax. A woman’s main job was making clothing for the family. Men usually wore buckskin clothing with fringe at the seams. Shoes were made to order by shoemakers and both shoes were alike—no left or right. The pioneers professed almost no religion and were very rough. Physical courage was much admired. If two men quarreled, they fought it out. Anyone who refused to fight was considered a coward. If a pioneer refused a drink, most pioneers did not get drunk, one was considered a prude. Schooling was not considered important to pioneer Missourians. Some of the wisest judges in western Missouri at that time could neither read nor write. The only schoolhouses, when they could be found, were crude log cabins, usually without any board floor. The only window was a hole cut in the wall with no glass. This hole was covered at night to keep out the wild animals. Some schools were furnished with but two logs. The teacher sat on one and the pupils on the other. #RandolphHarris 1 of 23

The settlers did not have to raise meat. There were many buffalo, bear, deer, and wild turkey. Bread was made of corn which was the only grain. Their corn was ground in a crude grinder. Sometimes when it was ground between two stones, tiny pieces of grit would get in the flour, and it was not pleasant to eat the bread made from this flour. While some people in the East had a slave or two, no one there had so many slaves as did the people in Missouri. Slaves were the most valuable asset of these people. (The interesting thing about adjusting for inflation is that these same goods and services would still cost more than they did back in the 19^th century, possible due to supply and demand.) A good horse might be worth $25 (2022 inflation adjusted $815.28), a cow and a calf $7.50 (2022 inflation adjusted $244.58), and a sow with five pigs was valued at $1.50 (2022 inflation adjusted $48.92). However, a good slave was easily worth $500 (2022 inflation adjusted $16,305.52), and little children slaves were worth $100 (2022 inflation adjusted $3,261.10). Those who had several slaves were very careful to protect their investments. Accordingly, the laws were made to insure this protection. It was against the law for slaves to be out after dark for fear they might run away. Any slave seen on the street at night without a pass was beaten soundly. A slave could not carry a gun, or go hunting, without a pass from his owner. He could not even carry a club. Anyone who believed slaves should be free was considered to be an enemy, and the Missourians thought anyone who did not have slaves of his own was an enemy also, because they were fearful lest he might be in favor of freeing them (remember we talked yesterday about militia groups enforcing traditions?). Into this pioneer country came the people from the East who were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Saints were trying to achieve the high standard of conduct which the Lord had set for them. Worship of God was important to them and they spent much time in prayer. #RandolphHarris 2 of 23

The Saints contributed materially to the growth of Independence, and had the two groups been congenial with each other the contributions of the Saints would have benefited both groups. The Saints built one of the first schoolhouses in Jackson County. Two of the Saints were tailors and were kept busy making fashionable garments for the “gentlemen.” Joseph Knight and his sons had been millers in the East, and soon after their arrival they began to operate a mill. Many of the Missourians traded with them. The Saints brought the first printing press and printed the first newspaper in Jackson County. The Saints brought with them their religion—a belief that God talks to his people today, that through his power they would be blessed, that they were a chosen people, and that the land of Zion was to be their inheritance. To pioneer Missourians such beliefs were wicked. To assume that God speaks, to supposed that God had chosen them above all others, to suggest that there were such things as miraculous healings were plain blasphemies to these Westerners. The Saints brought a touch of the East, a bit of refinement, and a love of God to this far western outpost. These things both benefited the pioneer Missourians and irritated them—arousing their jealousy, distrust, and hate. Friction between the Saints and the Missourians mounted, and news of this reached Joseph Smith in Kirtland. There the Saints prayed for the welfare of those in Zion, and the authorities appointed Orson Hyde and Hyrum Smith to write to the Saints in Zion. In their letter, dated January 11, 1833, these two men called upon the people in Zion to red the Book of Mormon and the revelations and obey them, to humble themselves and be diligent and faithful, for they did not go to Zion to sit down in idleness, neglecting the things of God. They called upon the Saints in Zion to repent saying: “We know the judgments of God hang over her (Zion), and will fall upon her except she repent and purify herself before the Lord, and put away from her every foul spirit.” #RandolphHarris 3 of 23

This letter was read by the elders to the Saints in Zion, but the words feel upon the ears of people who had not yet reached the standards the Lord desire them to reach. At the heart of significant reform is language education. Of all the popular prejudices nurtured by academics, one of the most enduring is their vigorous contempt for the subject of education and especially for educationists, a word often pronounced with an unmistakable hiss. As I consider myself an educationist, I have had to endure the burden of this prejudice for many years, and, as a consequence, have given some considerable thought to its origins. The prejudice is peculiar, of course, because many of the World’s most esteemed philosophers have written extensively on education and may properly be called educationists. Indeed, Confucius and Plato were what we would call today curriculum specialists. Confucius and Plato, but he too was an educationist if we may take that word to mean a person who is seriously concerned to understand how learning takes place and what part of schooling plays in facilitating or obstructing it. In this sense, Quintilian was an educationist, and so were Erasmus, John Locke, Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson. The great English poet John Milton was so moved by the prospect of writing an essay on education that he called the reforming of education one of “the greatest and noblest designs to be thought on.” One might even say that just as it is natural for a physicist upon reaching his deepest understanding to be drawn toward religion, so it is natural for a mature philosopher to turn toward the problem of education. Why, then, this persistent prejudice against the subject and those who make a profession of its study? Definitive answers await a rich and extensive research project to which sociologist, psychologists, historians, perhaps even anthropologist must contribute their perspectives. Anthropology is mentioned because of the intensity of the prejudice varies from culture to culture. #RandolphHarris 4 of 23

There are places—China, for example—where the prejudice may not exist at all. However, if we confine ourselves to the West, we are almost sure to find that it is in the United States of America that the prejudice is maintained in its most active states. There are great universities in America—Yale, for example—where a student cannot major in the subject. There are even universities where the subject is held in such low esteem that it is possible for a student to major in, of all things, Business Administration but not Education. Of course, Business Administration alumni are usually better positioned to give large gifts to a university than are Education alumni, but this fact by itself cannot explain the pervasiveness of the prejudice. After all, in many universities where the subject of education is considered a side issue, if considered at all, students may major in such subject as Social Work and Nursing, neither of which promises its graduates the wherewithal to bestow large gifts on Alma Mater. No, I do not think the economics of universities will tell us very much. My own attempts to look into the matter have led in another direction, and by following that path, I believe I have found a way of reversing the prejudice entirely. Even better, I believe my inquiries point toward a solution to a more formidable problem; namely, how to increase our own self-respect. The usual reason given by standard-brand academics for their distaste for the subject of education is that it is trivial. The equal distribution of ignorance among a university faculty, however, invites a question whose answer opens the way to a solution that can free us both of the prejudice and some of our own inadequacies. Is there anything worse about an ignorant professor of education than an ignorant professor of economics, political science, or psychology? Yes. All professors are ignorant, but not all ignorances are of equal importance. And there is nothing worse than ignorance on the subject of education. (By the way, it really helps to physically go to college and have professors, they will teach you techniques and tools you will use later in life. Such as, your first reference book or facts you discovered may not be the best choice. Always consult more than one source. I think a lot of college students are smarter than me, they seem to learn fast. And Mr. Crosby was right, I could and did do better because he was so strict, and someone like me needs that kind of interaction and structure and far less socialization to do well in school.) #RandolphHarris 5 of 23

 The subject of education claims dominion over the widest possible territory. It purports to tell us not only what intelligence is but how it may be nurtured; not only what is worthwhile knowledge but how it may be gained; not only what is the good life but how one may prepare for it. There is no subject—not even philosophy itself—that casts so wife a net, and therefore no other subject that requires of its professors so much genius and wisdom. A professor of political science or economics who lacks insight and brilliance is far from contemptible; indeed, the deficiency may be hardly noticeable. However, without brilliance and insight, an educationist is a pitiful sight, bereft, fumbling, without clothing looking stupid in a way that can never appear as obviously negligent in other subjects. Without intellectual power, in additional to no spiritual strength, seems arrogant and makes the garden-variety educationist an object of pity and ridicule. The deeper one digs into the science of neuroplasticity and the progress of intellectual technology, the clearer it becomes that the Internet’s import and influence can be judged only when viewed in the fuller context of intellectual history. As revolutionary as it may be, the Net is best understood as the latest in a long series of tools that have helped mold the human mind. The news of what science can tell us about the actual effects that Internet use is having on the way of our minds work is even more disturbing than many had suspected. We will begin to discuss a few aspects of this problem today. Dozens of studies by psychologists, neurobiologist, educators, and Web designers point to the same conclusion: when we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning. It is possible to think deeply while surfing the Net, just as it is possible to think shallowly while reading a book (sometimes as I am reading a book, the material makes me drift away and think about things as I am reading, and I think I need medication to make me focus better, but remember mind over matter and books are supposed to help one use one’s imagination) but that is not the typing of thinking the technology encourages and rewards. #RandolphHarris 6 of 23

Sometimes I even read things twice, once at night, and again in the morning. I take seven books to bed at night, take notes on what I read, then go over the material the next day and find information I may have missed while in bed reading, or other things that I did not consider significant actually are. One thing is very clear: if, knowing what we know today about the brain’s plasticity, you were set out to invent a medium that would rewire our mental circuits as quickly and thoroughly as possible, you would probably end up designing something that looks and works a lot like the Internet. It is not just that we tend to use the Net regularly, even obsessively. It is that the Net delivers precisely the kind of sensory and cognitive stimuli—repetitive, intensive, interactive, addictive—that have been shown to result in strong and rapid alterations in brain circuits and functions. With the exception of alphabets and number systems, the Net may well be the dingle most powerful mind-altering technology that has ever come into general use. At the very least, it is the most powerful that has come along since the book. As we go though the motions of accessing the Web through our various devices, the Net delivers a steady stream of inputs to our visual, somatosensory, and auditory cortices. There are the sensations that come through our hands and fingers as we click and scroll, type and touch. There are the many audio signals delivered through our ears, such as the chime that announces the arrival of a new e-mail or instant message and the various ringtones that our mobile phones use to alert us to different events. And, of course, there are the myriad visual cues that flash across our retinas as we navigate the online World: not just the ever-changing arrays of text and pictures and videos but also the hyperlinks distinguished by underlining or colored text, the cursors that change shape depending on their functions, the new e-mail subject lines highlighted in bold type, the virtual buttons that call out to be clicked, the icons and other screen elements that beg to be dragged and dropped, the forms that require filling out, the pop-up ads and windows that need to be read or dismissed. The Net engages all of our sense—expect, so far, those of smell and taste—and it engages them simultaneously. #RandolphHarris 7 of 23

The Net also provides a high-speed system for delivering responses and rewards—“positive reinforcements,” in psychological terms—which encourage the repetition of both physical and mental actions. When we click a link, we get something new to look at and evaluate. When we do an Internet search of a keyword, we receive, in the blink of an eye, a list of interesting information to appraise. When we send a text or an instant message or an e-mail, we often get a reply in a matter of seconds or minutes. When we use Facebook, we attract new friends or form closer bonds with the old ones. When we send a tweet through Twitter, we gain new followers. When we write a blog post, we get comments from readers or links from other bloggers. The Net’s interactivity gives us powerful new tools for finding information, expressing ourselves, and conversing with others. It also turns us into lab rats constantly pressing levers to get tiny pellets of social or intellectual nourishment. The Net commands our attention with far greater insistency than our television or radio or morning newspaper ever did. Watch a kid texting his friends or a college student looking over the roll of new messages and requests on one’s Facebook page or a business person scrolling through one’s e-mail on one’s Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G (which is the phone many of the rich people in Asia are using)—or consider yourself as you enter keywords into Google’s Internet search box and begin following a trail of links. What you see is a mind consumed with a medium. When we are online, we are often oblivious to everything else going on around us. The real World recedes as we process the flood of symbols and stimuli coming through our device. The interactivity of the Net amplifies this effect as well. Because we are often using our computers in a social context, to converse with friends or colleagues, to create “profiles” of ourselves, to broadcast our thoughts through blog posts on WordPress or Instagram updates, our social standing is, in one way or another, always in play, always at risk. The resulting self-consciousness—even, at times, fear—magnifies the intensity of our involvement with the medium. #RandolphHarris 8 of 23

Teenagers and young adults have a terrific interest in knowing what is going on in the lives of their peers, coupled with a terrific anxiety about being out of the loop. If they stop sending messages, they risk becoming invisible. Our use of the Internet involves many paradoxes, but the one that promises to have the greatest long-term influence over how we think is this one: the Net seizes our attention only to scatter it. We focus intensively on the medium itself, on the flickering screen, but we are distracted by the medium’s rapid-fire delivery of competing messages and stimuli. Whenever and wherever we log on, the Net presents us with an incredibly seductive blur. Human beings want more information, more impressions, and more complexity. We tend to seek out situations that demand concurrent performance or situations in which we are overwhelmed with information. If the slow progression of words across printed pages dampened our craving to be inundated by mental stimulation, the Net indulges it. It returns us to our native states of bottom-up distractedness, while presenting us with far more distractions than our ancestors ever had to contend with. Not all distractions are bad. If we concentrate too intensively on a tough problem, as most of us know from experience, we can get stuck in a mental rut. Our thinking narrows, and we struggle vainly to come up with new ideas. However, if we let the problem sit unattended for a time—if we “sleep on it”—we often return to it with a fresh perspective and a burst of creativity. Such breaks in our attention give our unconscious mind time to grapple with a problem, bringing to bear information and cognitive processes unavailable to conscious deliberation. If we shift our attention away from a difficult mental challenge for a time, we usually make better decisions. Our unconscious thought process does not engage with a problem until we have clearly and consciously defined the problem. If we do not have a particular intellectual goal in mind, unconscious thought does not occur. #RandolphHarris 9 of 23

The constant distractedness that the Net encourages—the state of being distracted from interruption by interference is very different from the kind of temporary, purposeful diversion of our mind that refreshes our thinking when we are weighing a decision. The Net’s cacophony of stimuli short-circuits both conscious and unconscious thought, preventing our minds from thinking either deeply or creatively. Our brains turn into simple signal-processing units, quickly shepherding information into consciousness and then back out again. The Internet’s power to cause not just modest alternations but fundamental changes in our mental makeup is profound. Our brain is modified on a substantial scale, physically and functionally, each time we learn a new skill or develop a new ability. The Internet is a series of modern cultural specializations that contemporary humans can spend millions of “practice” events at [and that] the average human a thousand years ago had absolutely no exposure to. Our brains are massively remodeled by this exposure. When culture drives changes in the ways that we engage our brains, it creates different brains. Our minds strengthen specific heavily-exercised processes. While acknowledging that it is now hard to imagine living without the Internet and online tools like the Google Internet search engine, their heavy use has neurological consequences. When online, what we are not doing also have neurological consequences. Just as neurons that fire together wire together, neurons that do not fire together do not wire together. As the time we spend scanning Web pages crowds out the time we spend reading books, as the time we spend exchanging bite-sized text messages crowds out the time we spend composing sentences and paragraphs, as the time we spend hopping across links crowds out the time we devote to quiet reflection and contemplation, the circuits that support those old intellectual functions and pursuits weaken and begin to break apart. The brain recycles the disused neurons and synapses for other, more pressing work. We gain new skills and perspectives but lose old ones. #RandolphHarris 10 of 23

We have seen how the natural environment has been transformed into secondary, artificial and abstracted forms. This process has been described as though it happened by accident, without purpose. It is true that no small group could successfully plot to dominate social and technological processes that take millennia to evolve. Yet at any one moment, some people may benefit considerably more than others from particular forms of social organization and the technologies that accompany them. These will be the people who sit at the hub of the most critical institutions at any given time. They will naturally seek to consolidate their own position by concentrating their control while widening its effect. In this way, a tendency that may have been going on for hundred of years or longer, beyond the range of human conspiracy, gains power over time. And so the tendency, the social and technological line of development, becomes more monolithic, more dominant, more difficult to stop. Take, for example, the growth and centralization of energy production systems during the last few hundred years. No single human could have planned to reap the great benefits that some have gained from the evolution of wood-burning stoves into coal-burning stoves into electric utilities, gigantic power companies with nuclear facilities and multinational oil companies. Each technology grew out of the pervious one. At each stage, a small number of people occupied key spots and were able to guide change in ways that would concentrate the direct benefits in their hands. By now, the energy technologies and the institutions that serve them are so large, they dominate virtually all the life and even our political and social systems, while an exceedingly small number of people have come to control them. Meanwhile, other technological systems have also become larger and more monolithic at the same time. #RandolphHarris 11 of 23

Transportation systems, for example, have advanced from horses to horses and buggies to railroad to the BMW E60 M5 S85 V10 and BMW iX xDrive40 and Ford Maverick trucks on the freeways to Supersonic transport (SSTs). Long-distance communication systems have gone from telegraph to mobile telephone to radio to television to satellite to the Net. As these technologies grow, their power and influence grows with them, but the number of people who control them shrinks. In a capitalist, free-enterprise economy, that the controllers of the communications system should become personally acquainted with the controllers of the energy systems, the transportation systems and so on and eventually begin to cooperate with each other ought to be obvious and predictable. The fact that it is not obvious to most of us, at least not so obvious that we act to stop it, has allowed matter to “pop” organically into still larger and more monolithic patterns of domination and control at each turn of the cycle, affecting human lives and political organizations. As some point we begin to call this a conspiracy. Humans get together and discuss how best to help each other concentrate power. However, the human conspiracy did not begin the process. It resulted from another, less personal though more basic, conspiracy: a conspiracy of technological form. The patterns of life, the social and political systems, the narrowing styles of thinking about the World and the technologies that both result from and foster these trends are the ground upon which the conspiracy can grow. In transforming natural environments into artificial form, the United States of America is the most advanced country in the World. This is not an accident. It is inherent in our economic system. To the capitalist, profit-oriented mind, there is no outrage so great as the existence of some unmediated nook or cranny of creation which has not been converted into a new form that can then be sold for money. This is because in the act of converting the natural into the artificial, something with no inherent economic value becomes “productive” in the capitalist sense. #RandolphHarris 12 of 23

An uninhabited desert is “nonproductive” unless it can be mined for uranium or irrigate for farms or covered with tracts of homes. A forest of uncut trees is nonproductive. A piece of land which has not been built upon is nonproductive. Coal or oil that remain in the ground is nonproductive. Animals living wildly are nonproductive. Virtually any land, any space, any material, any time that remains in an original, unprocessed, unconverted form is an outrage to the sensibilities of the capitalist mind. Iron, tungsten, trees, oil, sulphur, jaguars and open space are searched out and transformed because transformation creates economic benefits for the transformers. In economics this transformation has a name: “value added.” Value added derives from all the processes that alter a raw material from something which has no intrinsic economic value to something which does. Each change in form, say, from iron ore in the ground to iron or steel to car to care which is heavily advertised adds value to the material. The only raw materials which have intrinsic economic value before processing are gold and silver. This is only because people have agreed on these values in order to define a value for paper money, which certainly has no intrinsic value. It is, then, the nature of profit seeking to convert as much as possible of what has not been processed and exists in its own right into something which has the potential for economic gain. A second element in the creation of commercial value is scarcity, the separation of people from whatever they might want or need. In artificial environments, where humans are separated from the sources of their survival, everything obtains a condition of relative scarcity and therefore value. There is the old story of the native living on a Pacific Island, relaxing in a Cresleigh Home on the beach, picking fruit from the tree and spearing fish in the water. #RandolphHarris 13 of 23

A businessman arrives on the island, buys all the land, cuts down the trees and builds a factory. Then he hires the native to work in it for money so that someday the native can afford canned fruit and fish from the mainland, a nice little cinder-block house near the beach with a view of the water, and weekends off to enjoy it. The moment people move off land which has directly supported them, the necessities of life are removed from individual control. The things people could formerly produce for their survival must now be paid for. You may be living on the exact sport where a fruit tree once fed people. Now the fruit comes from five hundred miles away and costs five-dollars apiece. It is in the separation that the opportunity for profit resides. When the basic necessities are not scarce—in those places where food is still wild and abundant, for example—economic value can only be applied to new items. Candy bars, bottled or chemical milk, canned tune, electrical appliances and Coca-Cola have all been intensively marketed in countries new to the market system. Because these products had not existed in those places before, they are automatically relatively scarce and potentially valuable. I doubt, despite Thrasher, that there is a nondelinquent “gang.” The gang begins like the primitive fraternity of boys who live in the boys’ house; but in the primitive culture this is done by social sanction, whereas the defining property of the gang, as we customarily use the term, is that it is a community abruptly cut off from the adults and their sanction. The full-blown gang suits its members not as a fraternity in which to learn growing up, but essentially in s far as they are “grown up” or have ceased to grow: it is a sharing of a common conceit. The members consider it their identity, they appoint themselves to it. However, since it is only a conceit, it is vulnerable, and therefore all the more must be protected by strict conformity of behavior and opinions, it does not tolerate individual interests or wandering off by oneself. #RandolphHarris 14 of 23

Existing instead of the adult society, the gang is in principle an extraterritorial enclave in society, and therefore it has developed a feud Code. It is this extraterritorial loyalty that is powerfully cemented by the shared danger of the delinquencies: all are in the same boat of having participated in punishable deeds; anyone who would get out is tacitly or explicitly blackmailed. However, this does not follow from this that the gang is delinquent-to-get-caught. On the contrary. Finding one’s gang is a haven from the fatalistic drive toward disaster. One is caught by the gang; the gang provides a supportive structure; it is not so necessary to provoke the old authority. (But of course, as we have seen, running with the adolescent gang accidentally increases the certainty of getting caught. Adult criminal gangs have learned the ropes.) it could be said that belonging to the gang diminished the delinquent behavior of the members of the gang. The chief activity of the gang becomes war against other groups; it is no longer a struggle for the growth of the self by forbidden acts. And correspondingly, the persisting “delinquencies” of the gang members begin to look very much like crime, war against society. They are no longer merely incidents of growing up, but self-conscious acts of responsible achieved-identity. Some such analysis as this is necessary to explain the puzzling predominance suddenly assumed by gang fighting. Adolescent gang wars are not, as such, delinquent, any more than international wars are. Gang wars are significant nowadays mainly because of the technological improvement of the weapons, which used to be mainly sticks and stones. (The same could be said of the international wars.) If the rest of society did not exist, the gang wars would continue as the absorbing interest of these youths. Since the rest of society exists, it becomes a background for plunder—as an any lives on the land. Irate magistrates, trained in Hobbes and on Leviathan, are impatient at having to deal with young punks is they were citizens of a foreign power with its war chief and other grand viziers and it territorial rights. The Youth Board, as we have seen, accepts the situation as it is and tries to win over the youth’s allegiance. #RandolphHarris 15 of 23

In this framework of analysis, it is clear why the gangs war on one another. The entire structure, and most of the loyalty, of each gang is grounded in the vulnerable conceit of its members, now socialized and immeasurably strengthened by the gang name, uniform, and territory. So there at once begins to operate, on the gang level, what Dr. Freud beautifully called the “narcissism of small differences”: that is the smallest difference from one’s own self-image of grandeur and perfection that is most threatening and most arouses rage. Living on the other block is quite sufficient to make an enemy. Being a slightly different color is guaranteed. We must remember that the gang has almost no real social or cultural resources to support its tight structure and intense loyalty; it has to make everything out of “points of honor,” out of the formal fact tht its territory has been invaded. (Thus, if it is publicly acknowledged that Allan is no longer a member of the Dragons, he can safely walk to Pocket Road.) Into this formal insult pours all the accumulated real frustration, the undischarged stimulation, the thwarted growing up, and the natural insult that is endemic in our society. In our truly remarkable and unexampled civil peace, where there are rarely fist fights; where no one is born, is gravely ill, or dies; where meat is eaten but no one sees an animal slaughtered; where scores of millions of cars, trains, elevators, and airplanes go their scheduled way and there is rarely a crash; where an immense production proceeds in orderly efficiency and the shelves are duly cleared—and nevertheless none of this comes to joy or tragic grief or any other final good—it is not surprising if there are explosions. They occur at the boundaries of the organized system of society: in juvenile gang fights, in prison riots, in foreign wars. These conditions are almost specific for the excitement of primary masochism. There is continual stimulation and only partial release of tension, an unbearable heightening of the unaware tensions—unaware because people do not know what they want to know, nor how to get it. #RandolphHarris 16 of 23

The desire for final satisfaction, for climax, is interpreted as the wish for total self-destruction, It is inevitable, then, that there should be a public dream of universal disaster, with vast explosions, fires, and electric shocks; and people pool their efforts to bring this apocalypse to an actuality. At the same time all overt expressions of destructiveness, annihilation, anger, combativeness, is suppressed in the interests of civil order. Also, the feeling of anger is inhibited and even repressed. People are sensible, tolerant, polite, and co-operative in being pushed around. However, the occasions of anger are by no means minimized. On the contrary, when the larger movements of initiative are circumscribed in the competitive routines of offices, bureaucracies, and factories, there is petty friction, hurt feelings, being crossed. Smaller anger is continually generated, never discharged; big anger, that goes with big initiative, is repressed. Therefore the angry situation is projected afar. People must find big distant causes to explain the pressure of anger that is certainly not explicable by petty frustrations. It is necessary to have something worthy of the hatred that is unaware felt for oneself. In brief, one is angry with the Enemy. Contrary to the popular prejudice that America is the nation of unintellectual and anti-intellectual people, where ideas are at best means to ends, America is actually nothing but a great stage on which theories have been played as tragedy and comedy. This is a regime founded by philosophers and their students. All the recalcitrant matter of the historical is gave way here before the practical and philosophical out to be, as the raw natural givens of this wild continent meekly submitted to the yoke of theoretical science. Other peoples were autochthonous, deriving guidance from the gods of their various places. When they too decided to follow the principles we pioneered, they hobbled along awkwardly, unable to extricate themselves gracefully from their pasts. #RandolphHarris 17 of 23

Our story is the majestic and triumphant march of the principles of freedom and equality, giving meaning to all that we have done or are doing. There are almost no accidents; everything that happens among us is a consequence of one or both of our principles—a triumph over some opposition to them, a discovery of fresh meaning in them, a dispute about which of the two has primacy, etcetera. Now we have arrived at one of the ultimate acts in our drama, the informing and reforming of our most intimate private lives by our principles. Gender and its consequences—love, marriage, and family—have finally become the theme of the national project, and here the problem of nature, always present but always repressed in the reconstruction of man demanded by freedom and equality, becomes insistent. In order to intuit the meaning of equality, we have no need for the wild imaginative genius of Aristophanes, who in The Assembly of Women contrives the old hags entitled by law to satisfaction in pleasures of the flesh from handsome young males, or of Plato, who in the Republic prescribed unclothed exercises for men and women together. If we have eyes to see, we only have to look around us. The change in relations involving pleasures of the flesh, which now provide an unending challenge to human ingenuity, came over us in two successive waves in the last two decades. The first was the revolution of pleasures of the flesh; the second feminism. The revolution of pleasures of the flesh marched under the banner of freedom; feminism under that of equality. Although they went arm in arm for a while, their differences eventually put them at odds with each other, as Tocqueville said freedom and equality would always be. This is manifest in the squabble over adult films, which pits liberated desire for pleasures of the flesh against feminist resentment about stereotyping. We are presented with the amusing spectable of adult films clad in armor borrowed from the heroic struggles for freedom of speech, and using Miltonic rhetoric, doing battle with feminism, newly draped in the robes of community morality, using arguments associated with conservatives who defend traditional gender roles, and also defying an authoritative tradition in which it was taboo to suggest any relation between what a person reads and sees and one’s practices involving pleasures of the flesh. In the background stand the liberals, wiring their hands in confusion because they wish to favor both sides and cannot. #RandolphHarris 18 of 23

Sir Isaac Newton was either a virgin or nearly lifelong celibate. His only great love affair was unconsummated and began quite late in life, when he was already well into his forties. His companion was Fatio de Duillier, an attractive, twenty-three-year-old Swiss mathematician. Mr. Fatio lived in London, share Mr. Newton’s passion for their common discipline, and reciprocated his affection. For six years the pair where inseparable. Then Mr. Fatio was struck by a serious illness. At the same time, he was shaken by unsettling news about his family and financial crises in Switzerland. For a time, it seemed he would have to return home. Mr. Newton was frantic at the thought and implored Mr. Fatio to move to Cambridge, where Newton had teaching appointments and would support him. For reasons that remain unknown, Mr. Fatio declined, and in 1693, he and Mr. Newton broke off their relationship. As a direct result, Mr. Newton plunged into delirious, delusional depression. He became paranoically suspicious and turned on his friend, accusing them of abandoning and betraying him. “Sir,” he wrote to John Locke, “being of opinion that you endeavored to embroil me with women and by other means, I was so much affected by it…’twere better if you were dead.” To Samuel Pepys he directed a missive terminating their friendship. After his friends reacted with kindness and understanding, Mr. Newton apologized, blaming sleeplessness for his unprovoked attacks. Mr. Newton endured eighteen months of severe depression. He recovered emotionally, but never regained his scientific creativity. Instead, he was appointed to the Royal Mint, first as warden, then master, with a large salary. Though the position was generally regarded as a sinecure, he chose to take it seriously. He saw himself as guardian of the nation’s currency and sought out and prosecuted counterfeiter with the same intensity of passion he had formerly invested in Mr. Fatio. A number of these criminal dies on the gallows as a direct result of Mr. Newton’s efforts, perhaps victims of the same smoldering rage he had earlier leveled at his friends. #RandolphHarris 19 of 23

For the rest of his life, Mr. Newton seemed immune to love. He and Mr. Fatio corresponded desultorily but never again rekindled the intensity of their former relationship. Mr. Newton was absentminded and ascetic. His austerities came about more from inattentiveness than principle, and he went hungry and sleepless simply because he forgot to eat, forgot to sleep. His celibacy was probably a combination of the same sort of asceticism and a literally burned-out capacity for live. He had met and fallen for Mr. Fatio relatively late in life, and for six years sustained an almost feverish passion for the young mathematician. When Fatio’s circumstances changed and their platonic affair ended, Mr. Newton was so brokenhearted that his life ground to a halt for well over a year. His recovery was only partial, for he was never again able to systematically apply his great scientific mind to the studies that had made him so famous. Instead, he went off on tangents, hectoring colleagues, tyrannizing the Royal Society, feuding with other scientists. Though he lived to the old age of eighty-four, he never again ventured into an affair of the heart. His obsessive love for Mr. Fatio had shattered his life and probably so seared his heat as to permanently disable it. Many of this have seen this before. Two guys are best friends, and then one of them has a group of friends who introduced one of the guys to a bunch of girls and they hangout and party and there is no more room for the best friend, so he leaves. He feels a little jilted because his best friend is all the sudden popular and prefers the company of women and his other friend over his. I guess one just has to consider what is most important, being popular or having a best friend. I guess Sir Isaac Newton knows the answer. Now, in light of the contributions of science, one might imagine that scientists, not just in the United States of America but around the world, would be held in high regard, as they once were. #RandolphHarris 20 of 23

Instead, when medical researchers at the United States universities opened their mail a few years ago they found bare razor blades taped inside the envelope flaps—a warning from extremists in the animal rights movement to stop animal experimentation—or else. The “else” implied car bombs, arson, and other forms of intimidation or violence. A small percentage of Animal Rights Militia’s endorsed violence because some laboratory scientists themselves deal in violence and it is the only language they understand. Animal-rights fanatics are merely one branch of a broad anti-science coalition whose members are recruited from the farthest fringes of feminism, environmentalism, Marxism and other supposedly progressive activist groups. Backed by sympathizers in academia, in politics, and among media celebrities, they indict science and scientists for a lengthy list of what some of them regard as hypocrisy at best, currently and criminality at worst. They claim, for example, that pharmaceutical scientists sell their objectivity to the highest corporate bigger. (Some, no doubt, do, but lack of principle is hardly limited to a single profession.) Zooming in from another direction, neofeminist charge (all too accurately) that, in many countries, girls suffer from gender discrimination in education and women scientists face sexist barriers in hiring and promotion. This is certainly a worthy fight—such practices are stupid and unfair and deprive us all of half the human race’s brainpower. However, again, gender discrimination is not inherent in science, as such, and unfortunately it prevails in countless other professions as well. Science, meanwhile, is simultaneously besieged by radical environmentalists. Scientists, we are told, threaten to destroy entire populations with genetically modified foods. #RandolphHarris 21 of 23

Eco-extremists in Europe fed the media sensational stories about “Franken-foods” and joined forced with protectionist European governments seeking to block American agricultural imports. In turn, despite a crisis threatening mass starvation in Zimbabwe, some European nations pressured its government, under threat of trade sanctions, to reject food aid sent by the Untied States of America on grounds that it had been genetically modified. However, the genetically modified maize in question had been consumed literally billions of times with no ill effect. So if the concern is food safety, there was no scientific evidence to support that. The raging campaigns against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) severely damaged the Monsanto Corporation, a leader in the creation of genetically modified seeds. In Lodi, Italy, activists set fire to maize and soybean seeds in a Monsanto warehouse and painted “Monsanto Killers” and “no GMOs” on its walls. Campaigns like these have other companies, too, worrying about the dry-up of market science-linked products, over rigorous or ill-thought-though regulation, a switch of investment to other sectors and a decline in smart young people entering the field. Hostility to science slides truly strange partners under the same rumpled bedclothes, from left-wing social activists to Britain’s Prince Charles, who, in a BBC Reith Lecture of “Respect for the Earth,” attacked what he termed “impenetrable layers of scientific rationalism.” He had on an earlier occasion referred to science as trying to impose “a tyranny over our understanding.” In doing so, he echoed those environmentalists, New Agers and others who seek a returned to the supposedly “sacral.” Which takes us to yet another source of anti-science agitation—this from the hard-line, never-tiring religious creationists whose ferocious hostility to Darwin leads to campaigns against science textbooks, litigation over educational curricula and standards, and attacks on secularism in general, which they associate with science. #RandolphHarris 22 of 23

To al these anti-science combatants, we must add the occasional freelance warrior, sane or otherwise, ready to commit murder for the cause. The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, killed three and wounded twenty-three in a bombing spree in the 1990s. He blackmailed major newspapers into publishing his lengthy anti-science and anti-technology diatribe by threatening more killings is they did not (but many know newspapers will do anything for attention anyway, so Mr. Kaczynski probably did not have to threaten them). The popular rection was outrage. However, some academics leaped to raise the manifesto, and the Internet came alive with fan sites such as Chuck’s Unabomb page and alt.fan.unabomer. Overall, then we find a loose, diverse anti-science guerrilla movement that merges, as its outer reaches, with legions of believers in the paranormal and in little green me from outer space, not to mention practitioners of various forms of “alternative” medical quackery and Falun Gong levitators. The voices of this movement are amplified by Hollywood’s persistent presentation of the scientist as villain and by television’s endless exploitation of shows such as Ghost Whisperer (offering characters help to communicate with their dead) or Supernatural (offering to help save characters from the paranormal). So shrill has the anti-science chorus become in the United Kingdom that when a leading British reproductive biologist, Richard Gosden, left for a post in Canada, the British Royal Society feared that his going might unleash a flood of departures. Meanwhile, in France, the Sorbonne, after much protest, awarded a Ph.D. in astrology to a former Miss France who was the astrologer for a weekly TV magazine. Ironically, her defense of her dissertation took place before a crowd of glitterati in—where else?—the Universite Rene Descartes in Paris. We survived because of Moses who smashed the popular golden calf, because of Nathan who pointed a finger at his king, “Thou art the guilty man”; because of Elijah who thundered at his King, “Hast thou killed and also taken possession?” There was Amos who demanded, “Let justice well up as the waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.” We cannot all be Moses, Isaiahs, Elijahs, but we dare not forget that we are in the tradition. #RandolphHarris 23 of 23

Cresleigh Homes

Can a single story home really offer space and luxury enough for even the most selective homeowner? 🤔 We think so – certainly since we’ve seen the #Havenwood Model 3!

We’re talking 4 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and a three car garage – with a den or optional home office. 🤩

At anytime you like, step out onto the patio and enjoy the fresh air, grill brisket or lounge out in the den with a good novel. 

#CresleighHomes