As Mr. Keynes once remarked, “In the long run we are all dead,” and, as the line in the ballad says, everything is born to die. Repeated shocks will give you anxiety, and anxiety is the enemy of identity, and without identity there is no serenity. Some people can make money in the market by anticipating the business cycle. The great mature American companies do not increase their profits every year. When business is good, they make a lot of money, and when it is not so good, they make less. How well this game is played depends on perspicacity in evaluating economic intelligence. Let us say that we have had two disappointing automobile years. By determining the scrappage rates, the average age of cars on the road, the disposable personal income, the number of new buyers coming into certain age brackets, the average length of credit paper outstanding on existing cars, and a few other factors, we can have a pretty good guess that next year may be better for automobiles if the economy turns up or holds up. Some people can make money by anticipating the swings in interest rates. There is a whole group of sticks which are sensitive to fluctuations in the bond markers and to the course taken by the Federal Reserve, in which you anticipate whether money is getting cheaper or dearer. Nice profits can be made in bank stocks, finance company stocks, savings and loans, and utilities by those whose fingertips are sensitive to this sort of thing. The swings in these stocks are frequently greater than those in the base companies which are so thoroughly a part of the business cycle, but you have to know not only the anticipated actions of interest rates but the degree to which these moves have been discounted. #RandolphHarris 1 of 16

Speaking of World changing events, the possibility of a humanly meaningful survival after a nuclear war are remote. Yet a dependence on deterrence for safeguarding peace rests, at the very best, on guesses and nothing more. Thre is a conviction that the continuation of the arms race will inevitably doom humanity is bound to produce pressures for unilateral disarmament and therefore remove any incentive for serious negotiations on the part of the Communists. First, facts are facts; if one is convinced—as a great number of experts are—that nuclear war would doom us, how can one not have an attitude of despair if negotiations to end the arms race fail? Some believe that the answer is for universal controlled disarmament, and not for unilateral disarmament. A faction of Americans are proponents of multilateral disarmament. People around the World realize that 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. It is believed by some that only an unreasonable person can be fearless of war in our day. However, has anyone one every consider that perhaps reasonable people want the conflict to stop and at any cost? Even God was tired of the sinful nature of life on Earth when he flooded the planet. One cannot say that God is unreasonable. It takes a being with great wisdom and maturity to create a World. #RandolphHarris 2 of 16

Now, the idea of universal, unilateral disarmament is often confused with that of arms control. “Arms control” is considered by many to be the first step to disarmament, and if this were the essential function of arms control, there would be no serious objection to it. However, the fact is that most of the arms control theorists do not look at it as a real step to universal disarmament but as a substitute for disarmament. Actually, arms control can be viewed as being related to the strategy of the invulnerable deterrent. Once both sides are invulnerable, it is in the interests of both to limit stockpiles and to keep other countries from obtaining atomic weapons. Yet for the military thinkers, proposals for even such modest arms control are made not without qualms. Moreover, a feeling of despair should arms control prove unattainable would also be factually wrong. Without arms control stability will be more difficult to achieve. However, if can probably be achieved even then. In the equation of retaliatory forces, advances in mobility will probably promote a degree of invulnerability even without a negotiated agreement. It is clear that most military experts see arms control as part of a theory of armament, not disarmament. In terms of the dangers of war, arms control represents defeatism and the full acceptance of the risks of total way, even though most of the arms control theorists, like Mr. Morgenstern, recognize that there can be no victors, perhaps few survivours, if the deterrent fails. In terms of national policy and its effect on the American people, the arguments for arms control aim toward another result, that of lulling us into a feeling of false security. A feeling of despair should arms control fail, we are told, would be “factually wrong.” #RandolphHarris 3 of 16

As we have seen, to work at all, arms control-like the invulnerable deterrent—demands that we and our opponents act with a super-rationality, as though we were in a game. As one of the leading arms control theorists, Thomas Schelling, put it: “Threats and responses to threats, reprisals and counter-reprisals, limited war, arms races, brinkmanship, surprise attack, trusting, and cheating can be viewed either cool-headed. Rather it is asserted that the assumption of rational behaviour is a productive one in the generation of systematic theory. If the behaviour were actually cool-headed, valid and relevant theory would probably be easier to create than it actually is. If we view our results as a bench mark for further approximation to reality, not as a fully adequate theory, we should manage to protect ourselves from the worst results of biased theory. Arms control and strategic actions can be analyzed from the model of games, even though there are differences between games and these situations. It is the very nature of a game that each player, while one likes to win, is willing to accept the possibility of losing with equanimity; the loss is, by the very nature of the game, easily bearable, and far from being a threat to the existence of the players. The very thrill of the game lies, in fact, in the possibility of losing without having to fear that the loss will be devastating. If I were to put my entire future on a throw of the dice, or on the turn of a roulette wheel, I would not be playing a game—I would be a desperate man. For this very reason, the game theory can be satisfied with calculations that require plausibilities, probabilities, reasonable guesses. #RandolphHarris 4 of 16

In matters of life and death, whether it is medicine or peace, one can not rely on guesses, because the consequences are too serious. The premise here is the very contrary to that of the game theory, namely that loss (which means an all-destructive war) is unacceptable, hence, here the game theory is not applicable. However, even in the unlikely case that the continuation of the arms race, controlled or not, could prevent a nuclear war within the next five years, what is the like future of the social character of humans in a bilateral or multilateral armed World, where, no matter how complex the problems or how full the satisfactions of any particular society, the biggest and most pervasive reality in any humans’ life is the poised missile, the humming data processor connected to it, the waiting radiation counters, and seismographs, the over-all technocratic perfection (overlying the nagging but impotent fear of its imperfection) of the mechanism of holocaust? To live for any length of time under the constant threat of destruction creates certain psychological effects in most human beings—fright, hostility, callousness, a hardening of the heart, and a resulting indifference to all the values we cherish. Such conditions will transform us into barbarians—though barbarians equipped with the most complicated machines. If we are serious in claiming that our aim is to preserve freedom (that is, to prevent the subordination of the individual under an all-powerful state), we must admit that this freedom will be lost, whether the deterrent works or does not work. #RandolphHarris 5 of 16

A similar idea is expressed by Charles E. Osgood. “I have come to the somber conclusion,” Mr. Osgood writes, “that we would not be able to maintain a favorable position in this race without giving up our way of life as rapidly as possible. Then we could be able to channel the energies of our people into military preparation, order our young people into training in the physical sciences, and make decisions and changes in strategy without democratic processes.” George Kennan has expressed his ideas about the results of the continuation of the arms race in his Reith Lectures delivered over the BBC in England. “But beyond this,” Mr. Kennan states, “what sort of a life is it to which these devotees of the weapons race would see us condemned? The technological realities of this competition are constantly changing from month to month and from year to years. Are we to flee like haunted creatures from one defensive device to another, each more costly and humiliating than the one before, cowering underground one day, breaking up our cities the next, attempting to surround ourselves with elaborate electronic shields on the third, concerned only to prolong the length of our lives while sacrificing all the values for which it might be worth while to live at all? If I thought that this was the best the future held for us, I should be tempted to join those who say ‘Let us divest ourselves of this weapon altogether; let us stake our safety on God’s grace and our own good consciences and on that measure of commonsense and humanity which even our adversaries possess; but then let us at least walk like men, with our heads up, so long as we are permitted to walk at all.’ #RandolphHarris 6 of 16

“We must not forget that this is actually the situation in which many of the peoples of this World are obliged to live today; an while I would not wish to say that they are now more secure than we are, for the fact that they do not hold these weapons, I would submit that they are more secure than we would be if we were to resign ourselves entirely to the negative dynamics of the weapons race, as many would have us do. The beginning of understanding rests, in this appalling problem, with the recognition that the weapon of mass destruction is a sterile and hopeless weapon which may for a time serve as an answer of sorts to itself and as an uncertain sort of shield against utter cataclysm, but which can not in any way serve the purposes of a constructive and hopeful foreign policy. The true end of political actions is, after all, to affect the deeper convictions of men; this weapon renders it unsuitable both as a sanction of diplomacy and as the basis of an alliance. Such a weapon is simply not one with which one can usefully support political desiderata; nor is it one with which one readily springs to the defense of one’s friends. There can be no coherent relations between such weapons and the normal objects of national policy. A defense posture built around a weapon suicidal in its implications can serve in the long run only to paralyze national policy, to undermine alliances, and to drive everyone deeper and deeper into the hopeless exertions of the weapons race.” #RandolphHarris 7 of 16

It is true that the aim of universal controlled disarmament is exceedingly difficult to reach; maybe it is unrealistic, as its opponents say. However, to believe that a strategy of mutual threats with ever-more destructive weapons can, in the long run, prevent a nuclear war, and that a society following this road could preserve its democratic character, is a great deal more unrealistic. It is, indeed, one of the irrationalities of human nature that we are prone to seek for easier, short-term solutions because we are afraid of the difficulties of the fundamental and real solution. However, individual or in social life, it is the logic of facts that determines reality, not the logic of wishful thinking. People say that those who are pro war are necrophilous. However, often the only way to achieve peace is war. Many times, the necrophilous orientation is in conflict with opposite tendencies, so that a peculiar balance is achieved. An outstanding example of this type of necrophilous character was C.G. Jung. In his posthumously published autobiography, he gives ample evidence for this. His dreams are mostly filled with corpses, blood, killings. As a typical manifestation of his necrophilous orientation in real life, I will mention the following: While Dr. Jung’s house in Bollingen was being built, the corpse of a French soldier was found who had been drowned 150 years earlier at the time when Napoleon invaded Switzerland. Dr. Jung took a picture of the corpse and hung it on his wall. He buried him and fired three shots over his grave as a military salute. #RandolphHarris 8 of 16

On the surface this action may appear slightly odd but otherwise as not having any significance. Yet it is one of those many “insignificant” actions which express an underlying orientation more clearly than the intentional, important acts do. Dr. Freud himself noticed Dr. Jung’s death orientation many years earlier. When he and Dr. Jung were embarking for the United States of America, Dr. Jung spoke a great deal about the well-preserved corpses which had been found in the marshes near Hamburg. Dr. Freud disliked this kind of talk, and told Dr. Jung that he spoke so much of the corpses because unconsciously he was filled with death wishes against him (Dr. Freud). Dr. Jung denied this indignantly, yet some years later, around the time of his separation from Dr. Freud, he had the following dream. He felt that he (together with a black native) had to kill Siegfried. He went out with a rifle, and when Siegfried appeared on the crest of a mountain he killed him. He then felt horror-stricken and frightened that his crime might be discovered. However, fortunately a heavy rain fell which washed away all traces of the crime. Dr. Jung woke up thinking that he must kill himself unless he could understand the dream. After some thought he came to the following “understanding”: killing Siegfried means killing the hero within himself, and thus expressing his own humility. The slight change from Sigmund to Siegfried was enough to enable a man whose great skill was the interpretation of dreams, to hide the real meaning of this dream from himself.  #RandolphHarris 9 of 16

If one asks oneself the question how such intense repression is possible, the answers is that the dream was a manifestation of his necrophilous orientation, and since this entire orientation was intensely repressed, Dr. Jung could not afford to be aware of the meaning of this dream. It fits into the picture that Dr. Jung was fascinated by the past, and rarely by the present and the future; that stones were his favourite material, and that as a child he had a fantasy about God dropping a big turd on a church and thus destroying it. His sympathies for Mr. Hitler and his racial theories are another expression of his affinity with death-loving people. However, Dr. Jung was an unusually creative person, and creation is the very opposite of necrophilia. He solved the conflict within himself by balancing his destructive powers against his wish and ability to cure, and by making his interest in the past, in death and destruction, the subject matter of his brilliant speculations. It is true that divergent features manifest in the necrophilous person, such as the wish to kill, the worship of force, the attraction to death and dirt, sadism, the wish to transform the organic into the inorganic through “order,” are all part of the same basic orientation. Yet as far as individuals are concerned, there are considerable differences with regard to the strength of these respective trends. Any one of the features mentioned here may be more pronounced in one person than in another; furthermore, the degree to which a person is necrophilous in comparison with his biophilous aspects, and finally the degree to which a person is aware of the necrophilous tendencies or rationalizes them, varies considerably from person to person. #RandolphHarris 10 of 16

Yet the concept of the necrophilous type is by no means an abstraction or summary of various disparate behaviour trends. Necrophilia constitutes a fundamental orientation; it is the one answer to life which is in complete opposition to life; it is the most morbid and the most dangerous among the orientations to life of which humans are capable. It is the true perversion: while being alive, not life but death is loved; not growth but destruction. If one dares to be aware of what one feels the necrophilous person expresses the motto of his life when he says, “Long live death!” Now, if the believer in the slightest degree is tempted to treat sin lightly, or attribute it to evil spirits when it is from oneself, one is equally on false ground, and lays oneself open to the old fallen nature regaining mastery over one with redoubled force. The warfare against the Ultimate Negative must be accomplished with a vigorous, unflinching warfare against sin. Any known sin must not be tolerated for a moment. Whether it be from the fallen nature of from evil spirits forcing it into the human, it must be cast off and put away, on the basis of Romans 6.6 and 12. Two misconceptions which give great advantage to the watching enemy are the thoughts in many believers’ minds that if a Christian commits sin one will at once know it oneself, or that God will tell one. They therefore expect God to tell them when they are right or wrong, instead of seeking light and knowledge according to John 3.21. Believers seeking victor over all the deceptions of the enemy must take an active part in dealing with sin. #RandolphHarris 11 of 16

Based upon wrong conception of “death,” they may have thought that God would remove sin out of their lives for them—with the result that they have failed actively to co-work with Him in dealing with evil within and in their environment: in others and in the World. For a life perpetual victory over the Ultimate Negative as Accuser, it is very important that the believer should understand and detect any inconsistency between the attitude of the will and the actions in one’s life. One should judge oneself from one’s actions as well as from one’s will and motives. For instance, a person is charged with doing a certain thing, which one at once denies, because the action does not agree with one’s will-attitude; and therefore, one says, it is impossible that one should have acted or spoken in the way stated. The believer is judging oneself by one’s own actions as well as by one’s will (1 Corinthians 11.31). On the Godward side, the cleansing power of the blood of Christ (1 John 1.7) is needed continuously for those who seek to walk in the light, cleansing themselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (a Corinthians 7.1). The Ultimate Negative as an accuser also works indirectly through others, inciting them to make accusations which one wants the human to accept as true, and thus open the door to the Ultimate Negative to make them true. Or one accused the believer to others by “visions” or “revelations” about one, which cause them to misjudge one. In any case, whatever may come to the believer from human or the Ultimate Negative, LET ONE MAKE USE OF IT FOR PRAYER, and by prayer turn all accusations into steps to victory. #RandolphHarris 12 of 16

The non-historical presupposed that the running ahead of historical time has no aim either within or above history, but that history is the place in which individual beings live their lives unaware of an eternal telos of their personal lives. This non-historical view appears in several versions: the tragic, the mystical, and the mechanistic. The tragic interpretation is best exemplified by the Greek view of history as an eternal cycle of genesis, greatness, and decay. The whole cycle is determined by fate, and there is no hope of an ultimate fulfilment. The mystical interpretation is more common to the East. It affirms that one must live in history, but that history itself is barren, its ambiguities unconquerable, and its motion aimless. Consequently, although characterized by a deep compassion for the universality of suffering, it retreats from a reality which it feels powerless to transform. By mystical union with the ultimate it overcomes not reality, but is own involvement in reality. The last version of non-historical interpretations is the mechanistic, a kind of “reductionistic naturalism.” Physical time is more important to it than historical time, and it ambitions to control nature through science and technology. History is the story of humans, but humans are merely the supreme challenge to its power of control. Positive, Historical Interpretations: The historical interpretation of history as opposed to the non-historical asserts that history is running toward an end which is fulfilled within history itself. It, too, comes in three versions: the progressivistic, the utopian, and the transcendental. #RandolphHarris 13 of 16

The symbol of progress includes the decisive element of historical time, its running ahead toward an aim. Thus it interprets history in a genuinely historical way. However, progressivism as the belief in progress as progress without a definite end is the product of certain nineteenth-century philosophies. Its inadequacy was swiftly revealed by the World tragedies of the twentieth century, by the emphasis upon existential meaninglessness, and by insights into the non-progressive nature of freedom which begins anew in every individual. The second inadequate historical interpretation is utopianism. It is progressivism with a definite aim: arrival at that stage of history in which the ambiguities of life are conquered. Utopianism was a child of the Renaissance, but it has been adopted by revolutionary movements up to the present day. Its fatal error is demonization that ends in idolatry, for it gives the quality of ultimacy to something preliminary. A future historical situation, by the very fact that it is historical, that is, within history, remains conditioned, and hence cannot assume the dignity of the unconditional. The transcendental type is found in historical interpretation in the early church up to Augustine and in orthodox Lutheranism. According to the transcendental view, once saving revelation appears in history, nothing new can be expected until the afterlife. The difficulty with this interpretation is that salvation is for the individual alone, and the political aspect of the history-bearing group is completely ignored. Moreover, it considers the end of history as a static supranatural order into which individuals enter after their death, thus effectively severing culture as well as nature from the fulfilling process of history. #RandolphHarris 14 of 16

We simply have no organ for knowing, for “truth”: we “know” (or believe, or imagine) just as much as maybe useful in the interests of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called “utility” is the end only a faith, something imagined, and perhaps precisely the most disastrous stupidity that will one day do us in. Our new “infinite.” –How far the perspectival character of existence extends, or even whether it has any other character; whether an existence without interpretation, without “sense,” does not become “nonsense”; whether, on the other hand, all existence is not essentially an interpreting existence—that cannot be decided, even by the most industrious and scrupulously conscientious analysis and self-examination of the intellect: for in that very analysis the human intellect cannot avoid seeing itself under its perspectival forms, and only in them. We cannot see around our own corner—it I a hopeless curiosity to want to know what other kinds of intellects and perspectives there could be: for example, whether some creature can experience time backward, or alternatively forward and backward (which would be given along with another direction of life and another concept of cause and effect). However, today, I think, we are at least beyond the laughable immodesty of decreeing from our corner that one is allowed perspectives only from our corner. The World has instead become “infinite” for us once again inasmuch as we cannot deny the possibility that it includes in itself infinite interpretations. #RandolphHarris 15 of 16

Once again the great shiver goes down our spine—but who would want to go on to deify this monstrosity of an unknown World in the same old way? And henceforth worship the unknown as “The Unknown”? Oh, there are too many ungodly possibilities of interpretation bound up with this unknown, too much devilry, stupidity, foolishness of interpretation—our own human, even all too human foolishness, which we know. The Kingdom of God has a double character: It has an inner-historical and a transhistorical side. As inner-historical, it participates in the dynamics of history; as transhistorical, it answers the question implied in the ambiguities of the dynamics of history. The Kingdom of God, thus conceived, has for connotations which render it an apt symbol for the aim of history. First, it is political and so corresponds to the political character of history-bearing groups; but it is also transformed into a cosmic symbol by the extension of the ruling power of God. Secondly, “Kingdom” has a social connotation of peace and justice, thus meets legitimate utopian expectations. However, it is also “of God,” and with this addition the impossibility of an Earthly fulfilment is implicitly acknowledged. Thirdly, there is the personalistic connotation, for in the Kingdom of God no individual is obliterated by identity with the ultimate, but humanity is fulfilled in every human being. Lastly, the Kingdom of God is universal in that it embraces all realms of finite being according to the multidimensional unity of life. In the New Testament the “transcendent-universal” aspects emerges more clearly as a political vision is replaced by a cosmic vision that will be realized not by historical developments, but by divine interference. In a word, the Kingdom of God is both in history and above history. #RandolphHarris 16 of 16

The Winchester Mystery House

Victorians were not so many years removed from manual farm labour that they did not realize they were getting out of shape. They threw themselves into exercise body and soul. However, throughout the nineteenth century, many men and women prized pale, unburned skin. During the very late nineteenth century, there even arose a fashion for taking a particular poison (which I shall not name). Small quantities of the poison would not kill the fashionable young woman but would give her complexion a refined, blue-white pallor that simply reeked of class. For women in the 1840s and ‘50s, the Greek mode was widely favoured. A slight figure with a small bosom and narrow hips was considered very elegant. Hair parted in the center and worn close to the head forming curls or flaps in the back was the latest in Grecian fashion. Empire-waisted dresses were light, sometimes to the point of transparency, and necklines could be very low.

For further information about tours, including group tours, weddings, school events, birthday party packages, facility rentals, and special events please visit the website: https://winchestermysteryhouse.com/

Please visit the online giftshop, and purchase a gift for friends and relatives as well as a special memento of The Winchester Mystery House. A variety of souvenirs and gifts are available to purchase.  https://shopwinchestermysteryhouse.com/

In the second half of the fifteenth century, ambitious monarchs coming to power in France, England, and Spain sought social order and political stability in their kingdoms. Louis XI in France, Henry VII in England, Isabella of Castile, and Ferdinand of Aragon all created armies and bureaucratic state machinery strong enough to quell internal conflict, such as the English War of the Roses, and to raise taxes sufficient to support their regimes. In these countries, and in Portugal as well, economic revival and the reversal of more than a century of population decline civil disorder nourished the impulse to expand beyond known frontiers. This impulse was also fed by Renaissance culture. Ushering in a new, more secular age, the Renaissance (Rebirth) encouraged freedom of thought, richness of expression, and an emphasis on human abilities. Beginning in Italy and spreading northward through Europe, the Renaissance peaked dramatically in the late fifteenth century when the age of exploration began. The exploratory urge had two initial objectives: to circumvent Muslim traders by finding an eastward oceanic route to Asia and to tap the African gold trade at its source. Since the tenth century, Muslim middlemen in North Africa had brought the precious metal to Europe from Guinea. Now the possibility arose of bypassing these non-Christian traffickers. Likewise, Christian Europeans dreamed of eliminating Muslim traders from the commerce with Asia. Since 1291, when Marco Polo returned to Venice with tales of Eastern treasures—spices, silks, perfumes, drugs, and jewels—Europeans had bartered with Asia. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

However, the difficulties of the long eastward overland route through the Muslim World kept alive the hope of Christian Europeans that an alternative water route existed. Eventually, Europe’s mariners would find that they could voyage to Cathay by both eastward and westward water routes, but this took two more centuries to discover. In the meantime, what are some ways that the Christians could avoid war with the Muslims? One way is deterrence. To be effective, deterrence has four requirements: The implementation of the deterrent threat must be sufficiently credible to preclude its being taken as a bluff. The potential aggressor must understand the decision to resist attack or pressure. The opponent must be rational, id est, one must respond to one’s self-interest in a manner which is predictable. In weighing one’s self-interest, the potential aggressor must reach the conclusion the “deterrer” is seeking to induce. In other words, the penalties of aggression must outweigh its benefits. They key concept here is one that assumes rationality on the part of both opponents. The proponents of the invulnerable deterrent must propose this, for where there is the possibility of such destruction, the danger is not worth risking unless one can trust people to act rationally. How valid are these assumptions? Now, in modern times, even if we had an invulnerable deterrent (and what an invulnerable deterrent is, always depends on the latest progress in the development of weapons), this would not protect at least half of the American population from being destroyed, provide the enemy is not deterred. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

The only safe way of deterring would be to show the other nations our military installations, so that their fear of our retaliatory power does not depend on a guess which can be wrong, but on solid knowledge. This procedure, while desirable, would at the same time give the opponent such knowledge of the location of our missile bases as to make such a procedure impractical. Furthermore, even with the invulnerable deterrent, all the possibilities for an unwanted war give one more time to wait for confirmation of an attack, since there would not be the chance that an attack could seriously cripple our retaliatory capacity. On the other hand, the decentralization of the units of deterrents (submarines, planes in the air, et cetera) actually increases the chances of irrational actions. The invulnerable deterrence theorists are forced to base all their hopes on mutual knowledge and rationality between the United States of America and Russia. This is in one sense ironic, since these same experts usually deny any possibility of understanding or rational agreement between the United States of America and Russian when it is a question of disarmament. In fact, if there is any agreement for rational actions, it is exactly the reverse of the argument of the deterrent theorist. In times of peace, one might assume that people have sufficient rationality to arrive at solutions which are beneficial for both sides. If this were not the case then, indeed, it is not likely that people would show this rationality of thought when threatened with the immediate extinction of a large part of their population or after even “only” one city with several million people has been pulverized. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

However, this may be, it is the common assumption of most “invulnerable deterrent” strategists that they do not see any alternative to the efficacy of deterrence. If the deterrent would not work them, indeed, the United States of America would cease to exist. Defense against these weapons is practically nonexistent; indeed, it is now impossible. It exists only in the fertile imagination of some men, not in physical reality. However, in contrast with this wide, is another view which claims that the deterrent does not necessarily preclude war, but thermonuclear war would by no means have to be as catastrophic as the nuclear pacifists on the one hand. Perhaps even more pertinent is this question, “How happy or normal a life can the surviours and their descendant hope to have?” Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, objective studies indicate that even though the amount of human tragedy would be greatly increased in the postwar World, the increase would not preclude normal and happy lives for the majority of survivours and their descendants. It is only a squeamishness which keeps experts from facing the possibilities of a total war. If we assume that people could survive the long-term effects of radiation, what would the standard of living in their postwar World be like? Would the survivours live as Americans are accustomed to living—with Ultimate Driving Machines, television, ranch house, freezers, and so on? No one can say, but I believe there is every likelihood that even if we make almost no preparations for recuperation except to buy radiation meters, write and distribute manuals, train some cadres for decontamination and the like, and make some other minimal plans, the country would recover rather rapidly and effectively from the small attack. This strong statement is contrary to the beliefs of many laymen, professional economists, and war planners. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

What are the proper preparations which will secure relatively harmless consequences of nuclear war? If the United States of America had a system of fall-out shelters all over the country, plus a system of blastproof shelters (plus arrangements for rapid entry), plus thirty to sixty minutes of warning, plus strategic evacuation of cities (that is, several days before an attack), the estimated casualties would be “only” 10,200,000 in an attack on one hundred and fifty cities; on the other hand, if none of these preparations ware made it is assumed the causalities would be 320,000,000. The actual figure between these two extremes will lie according to the degree of preparation. For example, with nothing else but fallout shelters plus arrangements for tactical evacuation, losses could be held to 170,000,000 people, given thirty to sixty minutes warning. What about these figures? In the first place, some of the conditions are completely unrealistic, such as the thirty to sixty minutes’ warning, when missiles from submarines or from Earth satellites would give practically no warning time other than a fifteen-minute alarm. In addition, tactical evacuation into blastproof shelters, even if there were a fifteen-minute warning, could only give people enough time to trample one another to death before they entered the shelters. If the warning time is in minutes only, as it will be at best, almost no one will reach the few shelters in large cities if these come under attack. People would be hijacking planes, killing to get on planes, and the people who did make it to the shelter would have to worry about chaos inside of the shelter and them being overrun by people who discover their location. There is also a small chance of contamination. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

Whether or not all Americans will be destroyed still depends on other factors. On the other hand, even with the assumed shelter systems, heavier casualties and more extensive destruction are also conceivable. Unless U.S.A. active offenses and active defenses can gain control of the military situation after only a few exchanges, an enemy could, by repeated strikes, reach almost any level of death and destruction one wished. If all fifty-three large metropolitan areas in the United States of America were completely destroyed, still one-third of the United States of America’s population and one-half of the wealth of the United States of American, being left outside, would be spared. From this point of view, the above destruction does not seem to be a total economic catastrophe. It may simply set the nation’s productive capacity back a decade or two, plus destroying many “luxuries.” There is also another possibility of limitless destruction of the United States of America, unless we can win the war militarily. Or, in the long run, a purely military approach to the security problem can lead to disaster for civilization, and by long run, I mean decades, not centuries. However, there are flaws in this reasoning, which ignores a number f essential fact. First, the whole balance sheets of deaths is based on the shelter idea. However, it is generally recognized that within a few years there will be bombs many times more destructive than the Tsar Bomb of 50 megatons, which is ten times more powerful than all of the ordnances exploded during tht whole of World War II, would be invented, and then shelters will be useless, even if we all live underground. It is easier to increase the striking power of nuclear weapons than to increase the safety factors of shelters and hardened bases. #Randolphharris 6 of 19

Hardening imposes a greater burden on a country than the burden the opponent has to assume in order to raise one’s striking power with which to offset the effects of hardening. It follows that despite all the optimistic figures, if the arms race goes on for five years more, we, the Russians, the Chinese, the Middle East, Mexico, Japan, Germany, and a large part of the World are threatened with much higher losses than previous calculations assume, if not with extinction. Also, keep in fact that the figures focus on attacks all happening within a few days, then stopping. However, in past years, these shocks were spread over many years. While many normal personalities would disintegrate under hardships spread over a period of years, the habits of a lifetime cannot be changed for most people in a few days. If you have to take it at all, then from the viewpoint of character stability it is better to take this kind of shock in a short time rather than in a long one. To a psychologist, it is much more likely tht sudden destruction, and the threat of slow death to a large part of the American population or the Russian population or large parts of the World will create such a panic, fury, and despair, as could only be compared with the mass psychosis that resulted from the Black Death in the Middle Ages. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

Duration of the fall-out shelters determines the length of time it is necessary to remain in shelters. These small and cramped; people will develop claustrophobia, run out of food and water or fall ill. In short, the point may be reached where in despair they prefer to venture outside, only to succumb to radiation sickness, probably to die. One can barely imagine the psychological situations that would arise and the problems the occupants of the shelter would have to solve for themselves. In the minds of the persons in the shelters would be the shattering knowledge of being involved in the greatest disaster the human race has ever seen. This would indeed be so: the Black Death, the massacres by the Mongol hordes, or any other large misfortunes either have been spread out over many years, or have involved isolated, widely separated cities, small by modern standards. Here disaster would cover great areas, be concentrated in tie and still last indefinitely, if the enemy so chose. The traumatic effects of such a catastrophe would lead to a new form of primitive barbarism, the resurgence of the most archaic elements that are still potentialities in every man and of wish we have had ample evidence in the terror systems of Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin. It is unlikely that human beings could cherish freedom, respect for life—in short, what we call democracy—after having witnessed and participated in the unlimited cruelty of man against man which thermonuclear war would mean. There is no evading of the fact that brutality has a brutalizing effect on the participants, and that total brutality leads to total brutalization. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

Even in the event of only partial destruction—from one and twenty to one hundred and sixty million causalities in America (and corresponding numbers in other countries) one thing is definite: after such an event there will be no democracy left anywhere, only ruthless dictatorships and gangs organized by the survivours in a half-destroyed World. The only question posed is how many of us will be killed; the moral problem of killing millions of fellow human beings—men, women, children—hardly is mentioned. After wholesale slaughters, the survivours are supposed to live a reasonably happy life. One asks oneself from what kind of moral or psychological position these assumptions are made. One comes to a rather shocking suspicion when one understands war is horrible. There is no question about it. But so is peace. And it is proper, with the kind of calculations we are making today, to compare the horror of war and the horror of peace and see how much worse it is. When people forming life into a balance sheet of life and death, the horrors of war are minimized because peace—and that is life—is felt to be only a little less horrible than death. We are dealing here with one of the most crucial problems of our age—the transformation of men into numbers on a balance sheet; one thinks it is a reasonable calculation to weigh the death of one- to two-thirds of the nation, provided the economy will soon recover. Indeed, there have always been wars; there have always been people who have sacrificed their own lives or killed other humans—out of love of liberty or in mere drunken orgies of hate. What is so new and shocking about the contributions of our age is the cold-blooded use of bookkeeping methods to encompass the destruction of millions of human beings. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

Mr. Stalin did this with millions of peasants. Mr. Hitler did its with millions of Jews. He was motivated by an unknown source, but for many of his subordinates it was simply a bureaucratic measure; regardless of the motives, once the order had been given, millions of human beings were liquidated systematically, economically and totally. Yet, another consideration is one cannot discuss the question of what might happen as a result of unilateral disarmament—or, for that matter, of any mutual disarmament—without examining some psychological arguments. The most popular one is that China, the Middle East, Russia, and Mexico cannot be trusted. If “trust” is meant in a moral sense, it is unfortunately true that political leaders can rarely be trusted. The reason lies in the split between private and public morals: the state, having become an idol, justifies any immortality if committed in its interest, while the very same political leaders would not commit the same acts if they were acting in behalf of their own private interests. However, there is another meaning to “trust in people,” a meaning which is much more relevant to the problem of politics: the trust that they are sane and rational beings, and that they will act accordingly. If I deal with an opponent in whose sanity I trust, I can appreciate his or her motivations and to some extent predict them, because there are certain rules and aims, like that of survival or that of commensurateness between aims and means, which are common to all sane people. Mr. Hitler could not be trusted because he was lacking in sanity, and this very lack destroyed both him and his regime. It seems quite clear that the Russian leaders of today are sane and rational people; therefore, it is important not only to know what they are capable of, but also to predict what they might be motivated to do. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

This question of the leaders’ and the people’s sanity leads to another consideration which affects us as much as it does other nations. In the current discussion on armament control, many arguments are based on the question of what is possible, rather than on what is probable. The difference between these two modes of thinking is precisely the difference between paranoid and sane thinking. The paranoiac’s unshakable conviction in the validity of one’s delusions rests upon the fact that it is logically possible, and, so, unassailable. It is logically possible that his wife, children, and colleagues hate him and are conspiring to kill him. The patient cannot be convinced that his delusion is impossible; one can only be told that it is exceedingly unlikely. While the latter position requires an examination and evaluation of the facts and also a certain amount of faith in life, the paranoid position can satisfy itself with the possibility alone. Our political thinking suffers from such paranoid trends. We should be concerned, not with the possibilities, but rather with the probabilities. This is the only sane and realistic way of conducting the affairs of national as well as of individual life. Again on the psychological plane, there are certain misunderstandings of the radical disarmament position which occur in many of the discussions. First of all, the position of unilateral disarmament has been understood as one of submission and resignation. On the contrary, the pacifists as well as the humanist pragmatists believe that unilateral disarmament is possible only as an expression of a deep spiritual and moral change within ourselves: it is an act of courage and resistance—not one of cowardice or surrender. Forms of resistance differ in accordance with the respective viewpoints. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

On the other hand, Gandhists and men like King-Hall advocate nonviolent resistance, which undoubtedly requires the maximum of courage and faith; they refer to the example of Indian resistance against Britain or Norwegian resistance against the Nazis. Thus, we dissociate ourselves from the basically selfish attitude that has been miscalled pacifism, but that might be more accurately described as a kind of irresponsible antimilitarism. We dissociate ourselves also from utopianism. Though the choice of nonviolence involves a radical change in humans, it does not require perfection. We have tried to make it clear that readiness to accept suffering—rather than inflict it on others—is the essence of the nonviolent life, and that we must be prepared if called upon to pay the ultimate price. Obviously, if humans are willing to spend billions of treasure and countless live in war, they cannot dismiss the case for nonviolence by saying that in a nonviolent struggle people might be killed! It is equally clear that where commitment and the readiness to sacrifice are lacking, nonviolent resistance cannot be effective. On the contrary, it demands greater discipline, more arduous training, and more courage than its violent counterpart. Some think of armed resistance, of men and women defending their lives and their freedom with Winchester Rifles, pistols, or knives. It is not unrealistic to think that both forms of resistance, nonviolent or violent, might deter an aggressor from attacking. At least, it is more realistic than to think that the use of thermonuclear weapons could lead to a “victory for democracy.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

The proponents of “security by armament” sometimes accuse us of having an unrealistic, flatly optimistic picture of the nature of man. They remind us that this “perverse human being has a dark, illogical, irrational side.” They even go so far as to say that “the paradox of nuclear deterrence is a variant of the fundamental Christian paradox. In order to live, we must express our willingness to kill and to die.” Apart from this crude falsification of Christian teaching, we are by no means oblivious of the potential evil within man and of the tragic aspects of life. Indeed, there are situations in which man must be willing to die in order to live. In the sacrifices necessary for violent or nonviolent resistance, I can see an expression of the acceptance of tragedy and sacrifice. However, there is no tragedy or sacrifice in irresponsibility and carelessness; there is no meaning or dignity in the idea of the destruction of mankind and of civilization. Man has in himself a potential for evil; his whole existence is beset by dichotomies rooted in the very conditions of his existence. However, these truly tragic aspects must not be confused with the results of stupidity and lack of imagination, with the willingness to stake the future of mankind on a gamble. Finally, to take up one last criticism, directed against the position of unilateral disarmament: that it is “soft” on communism. Our position is precisely based on the negation of the Russian principle of the omnipotence of the state. Just because the spokesmen for unilateral disarmament are drastically opposed to the supremacy of the state, they deny the right of the state to make decisions which can lead to the destruction of a great part of humanity and can doom future generations. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

If the basic conflict between Russia’s system and the democratic World is the question of the defense of the individual against the encroachment of an omnipotent state, then, indeed, the position for unilateral disarmament is the one which is most radically opposed to the Russian principle. No one must deny that there are risks involved in a limited form of unilateral action. Consider that we could easily be tricked into disarming ourselves and being attacked by others, we are caught in a position with little chance of survival without our weapons, unless we want to take refuge in hopes. Even if we make all the provisions, including shelters, warning and strategic evacuation of cities, and if the United States of America’s active offenses and active defenses can gain control of the military situation after only a few exchanges, we might only have 10,200,000 people killed. However, if these conditions do not materialize, an enemy could, by repeated strikes, reach almost the destruction of 320,000,000 Americans. In other words, any level of death and destruction he or she wished. (And, I assume, the same threat exists for other nations.) In such a situation, when nations are poised at the last moment when an agreement appears possible to end the risk of horrifying war, unleashed by fanatics, lunatics, or humans of ambition, it is imperative to shake off the inertia of our accustomed thinking, to seek for new approaches to the problem, and above all, to see new alternatives to the present choices that confront us. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

Adolf Eichmann was fascinated by bureaucratic order and death. His supreme values were obedience and the proper functioning of the organization. He transported Jewish people as he would have transported coal off to exterminations camps. That they were human beings was hardly within the field of his vision, hence even the problem of whether he hated or did not hate his victims is irrelevant. However, examples of the necrophilous character are by no means to be found only among the inquisitors, the Hitlers, the Eichmanns. There are any number of individuals who do not have the opportunity and the power to kill, yet whose necrophilia expresses itself in other and, superficially seen, more harmless ways. An example is the parent who will always be interested in one’s child’s sickness, in one’s failures, in morbid prognoses for the future; at the same time one will not be impressed by a favourable change; one will not respond to the child’s joy; one will not notice anything new that is growing within one. We might find that one’s dreams for the child deals with sickness, death, corpses, blood. One does not harm the child in any obvious way, yet one may slowly strange one’s joy of life, one’s faith in growth, and eventually the parent will infect that child with their own necrophilous orientation. It is fashionable today to talk about the inherent evil quality of human beings, which, allegedly, stamps optimism for a better future as sinful pride. However, if we were really so evil, our cruelty would at least be human. However, the bureaucratic indifference toward life is a symptom of a new and terrible form of inhumanity, one in which humans have been transformed into things. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

Indeed, an individual’s decision to give one’s life for the sake of a fellow man’s life, or his own integrity and his own convictions, is one of the greatest moral achievements man or woman is capable of. However, it is a moral achievement only if it is the result of an individual’s decision, a decision not motivated by vanity, depression, or masochism, but by devotion to another person’s life or to an idea. Few people have the courage and conviction to make this supreme sacrifice for the sake of an idea. The majority are not even willing to risk a job for the sake of their convictions. However, if this decision is made not individually but nationally, it loses its ethical significance. It is not an authentic decision made by one person, but a decision made for millions by a few leaders who, in order to get the individuals to accept the “ethical” decisions, have to make them drunk with passions of hate and fear. The ultimate negative very quickly becomes an accuser even if it does not succeed in getting a person to yield to one’s temptations. Psychopathological offenders can cause apparent conduct disorder to be manifested to the consciousness of a believer, and then will lash and accuse the human for their own workings. They counterfeit some sin, which may be called with sadness with sadness “my besetting sin,” in the believer’s life; and as long as it is believed to be sin from the evil nature, no “confessing” or seeking victory over it will cause it to pass away. They can also hide behind real sin. A sense of guiltlessness does not necessarily lead to absolute happiness, for even with the peace of conscious innocence there may be suffering, and the suffering may have its source in some sin which is not known. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

Walking by known light and measuring guiltlessness by one’s cognizance of sin, is very dangerous for anyone who desires a fathomless peace, for it leads only to superficial rest—which may be disturbed at any moment by the attack of the Accuser, who will one’s darts at ta joint in the armour of peace which is hidden from the believer’s view. For obtaining victory over the Deceiver’s accusing spirits, spiritual believers should, therefore, understand clearly whether any consciousness of sin is the result of real transgression or is caused by evil spirits. If the believer accepts the consciousness of sin as from oneself when it is not, one at once leaves one’s position of being “dead to sin” and reckons oneself alive to it. This explains why many who have truly known victory over sin by the “reckon” of Romans 6.11 later surrender their basis and lose the position of victory—because the Accuser has counterfeited some manifestation of “self” or “sin” and then accused the man of it, with the taunt that “Romans 6 does not work.” This can cause one to fall into confusion and condemnation, as into a pit of miry clay and darkness. Every document reporting the past—legends, myths, chronicles, records, or scholarly history books—contains an interpretation of history which consciously or unconsciously wrestles with the meaning of existence and its ambiguities. What is the significance of history for the meaning of existence in general? In what way does history influence our ultimate concern? Because of the subject-object structure of history, a detached, objective answer is impossible: historical activity is the key to understanding history. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

One cannot stand back from the flood of history, the better to see whither it is rushing; only by plunging into the stream can one feel the strength and direction of the current. However, what type of historical activity provides the key to history? More specifically, to which historical group should one be committed, which vocational consciousness should one adopt as the key to unlock the enigma of history as a whole? The option for a particular historical group and its vocational consciousness as the key to history supposes that one has already grasped the meaning of history or has been grasped by it. For “the key and what the key opens are experienced in one and the same act.” This is not a barren, circular argument, but the dialectic of the theological circle which operates on faith. For the Christian, the Kingdom of God is both the key and the answer to the problem of history. An interpretation of history explains more than merely the direction and dynamics of man’s spiritual creativity; historical time embraces all the dimensions of life. Consequently, “the answer to the meaning of history implies an answer to the universal meaning of being.” In terms of the Christian interpretation of history, the Kingdom of God embraces life in every dimension, everything in which the inner aim of history is operative, from sub-atomic particles of matter to the sublimest cultural creation. You can see that consciousness does not really belong to the individual existence of man but to his community or heard nature; that, consequently, it is finely developed only in relation to community and herd utility; and, consequently, that each of us, with the best will to understand ourselves as individually as possible, “to know ourselves,” will always only bring to consciousness precisely what is nonindividual in ourselves, what is “average”; that our thoughts themselves are constantly overruled by the character of consciousness—by the “genius of the species” dominating them—and translated back into the herd perspective. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

All our actions are at bottom incomparably personal, unique, endlessly individual, there is no doubt; but as soon as we translate them into consciousness, they no longer seem so…This is genuine phenomenalism and perspectivism, as I understand it: the nature of animal consciousness is such that the World we can be conscious of is only a World of surfaces and signs, a World generalized, made common—that everything that becomes  conscious thereby becomes flat, thin, relatively unenlightened, general, a sign, a herd signal; that all coming to conscious involves a vast and thoroughgoing corruption, falsification, superficialization, and generalization. Heightened consciousness is ultimately a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious individuals knows moreover that it is a sickness. May the day soon dawn, we pray, that day of liberty, when every shackle forged by man is loosed to set him free, when serfdom’s yoke is broken, every politician humbled low, when man shall take his brother’s hand and lovingkindness show, when all are able to achieve the American Dream, and all are free from fear, and all are free to worship Thee and to Thy Law adhere. Then nevermore the wanderer’s staff, and nevermore the sword, for all Thy children everywhere shall live in true accord. O may we never weary grow, and may we never cease to work for such a blessed World where men shall be at peace. 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. Every man shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make him afraid. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

The Winchester Mystery House

There is a strange story, from December 2007, a caretaker, was waiting in the mansion for more Christmas decorations to arrive. All the doors were fast locked, and everyone else had gone home for the night, when the front doors suddenly burst open, a shadowy figure came silently in and walked through the foyer. The caretaker followed the shadow as he passed through the Venetian Dining Room and straight through the glass doors to the courtyard. The caretaker went and fastened the doors and sat down again and waited for the Christmas decorations, but in a few minutes the same thing happened again. And this was really odd. At this time, the doors to The Winchester Mansion were never opened, in honor of Mrs. Winchester having sealed them off in the past, due to angry spirits. However, the door burst open, and the shadowy man passed through the house, then in the glass doors from the courtyard, and out the front. All through that night, as often as the lad shut the doors, the same thing happened over and over again. And he never dared speak to the strange visitor, for “he took it to be an angry sprit.”

For further information about tours, including group tours, weddings, school events, birthday party packages, facility rentals, and special events please visit the website: https://winchestermysteryhouse.com/

Please visit the online giftshop, and purchase a gift for friends and relatives as well as a special memento of The Winchester Mystery House. A variety of souvenirs and gifts are available to purchase.  https://shopwinchestermysteryhouse.com/

In the American colonies, people gathered in three main places: churches, courthouses, and taverns. Of the three, taverns attracted people on the daily basis, especially in towns, whereas churchgoing was a weekly duty and courthouse-going was customarily a monthly affair. Taverns were centers of social, political, economic and judicial activity. Following militia musters, men of all ages would mingle at the local tavern. Local political meetings, as well as state dinners, would meet at the public houses, as taverns were called. Merchants and retailers would gather at taverns to cut deals, settle bills, and even hold slave auctions. Local courts met quarterly in taverns in an era where courthouses had often not yet been built. Anyone wishing to see a traveler or visitor knew exactly where to find him—at the local tavern, for the public houses were also the eighteenth-century equivalent of today’s hotels and motels. Every ordinary craftsman and farmer knew that by frequenting the closet tavern, he could put himself in touch with the World beyond his immediate neighbourhood. Seeking heat and light as well as alcoholic beverages and sociability, people of every colonial community repaired to the nearest tavern. In most towns, they did not have to go far. In Boston, for example, at least 177 taverns dispensed cheer by 1737—one tavern for every 20 adult males. In other cities, where the regulation of tavernkeepers was more lax, one could find one tavern for every ten adult males. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

As centers of ritual and recreational life and as modes of communication, taverns were instrumental in promoting face-to-face contact, though mainly for men. When the community gathered in churches, the people assembled formally to listen and pray. By contrast, people gathering in taverns engaged in informal fellowships, which blurred the lines of social hierarchy as people of different occupations and status exchanged local news, gossiped, traded rumor, told tales, loosened their tongues and inhibitions, and exhibited their manliness and aggressiveness. Colonial minister railed against tavern-haunting and excessive drinking, but most colonial Americas were sermon-proof when it came to limiting their tavern-going. Along the way, they began to erode the lines of authority that they had inherited from England. In the coming of the American Revolution, the taverns were a vital part of a silent current that was converting ordinary people from postures of defence to postures of defiance. It was in taverns, especially in the cities, where the Revolution was spawned, that ordinary men learned to shed customary restraints on their political behaviour. Lubricated rum, ale, and other spirits, ordinary town dwellers heard the local news read aloud from newspapers, argued over English policies, and fortified their willingness to criticize, ridicule, and even plot against leaders to whom they have earlier deferred. War by Calculation [or miscalculation]. By this, we refer to the possibility that after due study, a nation might decide that going to war would be the least undesirable of its choices, either in the form of a preventative war, or a pre-emptive war. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

The case of the pre-emptive war or “anticipatory retaliation” is not really a decision to attack. One side would strike only because it is convinced that the other side is ready to attack. This is clearly a situation in which each side has nothing to fear but fear, yet the knowledge that the other side is afraid fully justifies that fear. Many things could touch off a reciprocal fear of surprise-attack situation. Escalation. Part of the strategy of the general view f deterrence is that it allows limited war to take place without fear that the limits will be violated—since both sides could then destroy each other. However, under the stress of an actual crisis or limited war, accident or miscalculation might at any time trigger a full-scale cataclysm. This could occur either because the limits of a limited war are not being observed, or because more parties are being drawn into it, or because the issues themselves become fraught with significances that did not initially exist, or because of some unauthorized or accidental behaviour by subordinates. It is difficult to supply a plausible reason for escalation, when it is to everybody’s interest to control things, yet almost everybody considers that it can and perhaps will happen. Catalytic War. By this last possibility, we refer to either an ambitious third nation, or a desperate third nation which might force one of the two main powers who themselves do not want war to make an attack nevertheless. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

The type of catalytic war which is much more likely and important than one resulting from the schemes of an ambition nation may occurs when a desperate third nation thinks it has a problem which can be solved only by war. Let us imagine a war between India and China which the Indians are losing. The Indians might also feel that if they induced the United States of America to strike at China and Russia, this would solve their problem, and any method they used to achieve this end was as good as any other. Conversely, let us imagine a situation in which the Chinese felt hard pressed (possibly over Formosa) and told the Russians, “We are going to strike the United States of America tomorrow, and you might as well come along with us, for they will undoubtedly strike you, even if you do not do so.” As stated, the situation may seem somewhat implausible. One may wish to broaden the definition of catalytic war. Any method by which a nation uses military or diplomatic power to embroil larger nations or increase the scope of the conflict could be called catalytic. By this definition, World War I was a catalytic war, set off by Serbia and Austria, which also had some overtones of reciprocal fear of surprise attack and self-fulfilling prophecy, because the side which mobilized first was likely to win. It meant that even a defensive mobilization (by the Russians) touched off a defensive-offensive mobilization (by the Germans) in much the same way some believe that a badly designed, quick-reacting force can be touched off by defensive moves by the other side. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

The various possibilities mentioned here are all possibilities of war not provoked by the wish or the will of either of the two main power blocs to start an all-out nuclear war. Evern with only two nuclear powers and four nuclear nations in the World, there is a finite chance that all-out nuclear war could be triggered accidentally. This could be brought about as the result of either mechanical or human failure. No machine is perfect. No human being is free from the possibility of making errors of judgment. Already, for example, there have been several accidents involving American aircraft carrying nuclear bombs. Yet it is quite clear that very situation of two powers prepared to destroy each other, if and when necessary, creates a considerable probability for the decision to start a war by either side, even though both would refer to avoid it. The crucial point in these considerations lies in the fact that, once given certain constellations, the most conscientious and rational of military leaders on both sides will be forced to start an attack in spite of the fact that they do not want a war. With each new generation of weapons, the war nobody wants becomes more terrible in prospect, for the logic of deterrence demands continual build-up to be sure that no matter how many bombs the enemy sends, we will have some left to destroy him. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

There is also a possibility that a nation might wish to base it deterrence on a Doomsday Machine which would threaten to blow up the World along with the aggressor. Our normal military forces are frightening enough and they are improving rapidly. The most spectacular thing about the arms race is that it is a race and one that is being run with some celerity. Considering the sober and conservative assumptions which have been confirmed by many other sources, it would seem clear that the expectation that even a stable deterrent protects us from nuclear war is at best a hope or a guess, but by no means the kind of sage prediction which the general public takes it to be. There have been attempts by experts, especially those representing the Army and Navy to work out weapons systems that would eliminate or hold to a minimum the dangers of accident or miscalculation. These attempts are based on two assumptions. One is that danger of accident or pushing buttons too hastily can be minimized by an “invulnerable” deterrent, one which would survive no matter how strong the first strike might be; therefore there would be no ultimate advantage to surprise attack. The Polaris submarine missile system might serve this purpose, especially if Russia were also to have a similar deterrent. An effective invulnerable deterrent would be composed of atomic submarines and airplanes, which being mobile could not be destroyed by one surprise attack. If both sides adopt the Oceanic System, the most curious consequence is that both parties gain together: in making their deterrence effective they protect themselves against accidental war by enabling the opponents to verify signals of attack and to filter out the false one. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

Clear, an invulnerable force does not have to rise immediately when a signal of attack, which may be only a false alarm, is accepted as real. Even if the signal is true the retaliation can be spaced out over time giving all the favourable possibilities mentioned earlier. It is imperative for invulnerable deterrence strategy that each side know that the other is depending solely upon weapons designed for this strategy; that is, weapons of great destructiveness but relatively low accuracy, capable of destroying cities but not of pinpointing arms installations and holding undestroyed cities as hostages. If Russia, say, believes that we also have “counterforce” weapons and therefore the capacity to strike first, they will doubt our professions of purely punitive intent. In situations of tension they may fear that we will take the initiative, and so take it themselves—knowing that we can answer with our invulnerable city-buster but preferring to bank on their civil defense rather than on our good intentions. Thus, if the invulnerable deterrent is to deter, we must give up all accurate first-strike missilery, all intelligence activity that locates enemy missile bases (id est the weapons and activities championed by the Air Force), and even hold our invulnerable deterrence capacity down to a level where it cannot be used in large masses to make up for its inaccuracy so as to destroy missile bases as well as cities. For example, it is estimated that is we have more than forty-five Polaris submarines we are no longer convincingly incapable of destroying an enemy’s second-strike capacity, even with the uncertainties of aiming from a submarine. It is likely that in the coming all-out arms race we will voluntarily limit ourselves in this manner? And even if we do, how can we convince Russians that we have? #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

We could not show the Russians our military instillations to prove that we had only weapons of the “invulnerable” type, because the weapons, to be invulnerable, must have secret locations. Another assumption necessary for the invulnerable deterrent to work is that both sides act coolly and rationally, always aware of what the other side’s power is at any given time, and always waiting in a tense situation in other to make sure. A small fraction of people believe unilateral disarmament is the best deterrent to war. However, there is widely held fear in the United States of America, that Russia is out to conquer the World for communism and that, if the United States of America disarmed, Russia and other countries would be all the more eager to achieve their wishes for World domination. With Russian, for instance, this idea of Russian intensions is based on an erroneous appreciation of the nature of the president-day Russia. It is true that under Mr. Lenin and Mr. Trotsky the Russian Revolution was aimed at conquering the capitalistic World (or at least, Europe) for communis, partly because the communist leaders were convinced that there was no possibility of success for communist Russia unless the highly industrialized states of Europe (or at least Germany) joined their system, and partly because they were prompted by the belief that the victory of the communist revolution in the World would bring about the fulfillment of their secular-messianic hopes. The failure of these hopes and the ensuring victory of Mr. Stalin brought about a complete change in the nature of Soviet Communism. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

The annihilation of almost all the old Bolsheviks was only a symbolic act for the destruction of the old revolutionary idea. Mr. Stalin’s slogan of “socialism in one country” covered one simple aim—the rapid industrialization of Russia, which the Czarist system had not accomplished. Russia repeated the same process of accumulating capital which Western capitalism had gone through in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The essential difference is that, while in these centuries in the West the sanctions were purely economic, the Stalinist system now developed political sanctions of direct terror; in addition, it employed socialist ideology to sugar-coat the exploitation of the masses. The Stalinist system was neither a socialist nor a revolutionary system, but a state-capitalism based on ruthless methods of planning and economic centralization. The period of Khruschevism is characterized by the fact that capital accumulation has succeeded to a point where the population can enjoy a great deal more consumption and less forced to make sacrifices; as a result, the political terror can be greatly reduced. However, Khrushchevims has by no means changed the basic character of Soviet society in one essential respect: it is not a revolutionary nor a socialist regime, but one of the most conservative, class-ridden regimes anywhere in the Western World, humanly coercive, economically effective. While the aim of democratic socialism was the emancipation of man, the overcoming of his alienation, and the eventual abolition of the state, the “socialist” slogans used in Soviet Russia reflect empty ideologies, and the social reality is the very opposite of true socialism. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

The ruling class of the Soviet Union is no more revolutionary than the Renaissance popes were followers of the teachings of Christ. To try to explain Mr. Khrushchev by quoting Mr. Marx, Mr. Lenin, or Mr. Trotzky shows an utter failure to understand the historical development which has taken place in the Soviet Union and an incapacity to appreciate the difference between facts and ideologies. It should be added that our attitude is the best propaganda service the Russians could wish for. Against the fact, they try to convince the workers of Western Europe and the peasants in Asia that they represent the ideas of socialism, of a classless society, et cetera. The Western attitude, of falling for this propaganda, does exactly what the Russians want: to confirm these claims. (Unfortunately very few people except democratic socialist have sufficient knowledge of the difference between socialism and its distorted and corrupt form which calls itself Soviet socialism.) The role of Russia is still more emphasized by the fact that Russia feels threatened by a potentially expansionist China. Russia one day might be in the same position with regard to China as we believe we are in relation to Russia. If the threat to Russia from the United States of America were to disappear, Russia could devote her energy to coping with the threat from China, unless by universal disarmament this threat would cease to exist. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

The above-mentioned considerations indicate that the dangers which might arise if Russian were not to give up its armaments are more remote than they seem to many. Would the Soviet Union use her military superiority to try to occupy the United States of America or Western Europe? Aside from that fact that it would be exceedingly difficult, to say the least, for Russian’s agents to run the economic and political machines of the United States of America or Western Europe, and aside from the fact that there is no vital need for Russia to conquer these territories, it would be most inconvenient to try to do so—and for a reason which is generally not sufficiently appreciated. Even the procommunist workers in the West have no idea of the degree of coercion to which they would have to submit under a Soviet system. They, as well as noncommunist workers, would oppose the new authorities, who would be forced to use tanks and machine guns against the protesting workers. This would encourage revolutionary tendencies in the satellite states, or even within the Soviet Union, and be most undesirable to the Soviet rulers; it would especially endanger President Putin’s policy of liberalization, and hence his whole political position. Eventually Russian might try to exploit its military superiority for the penetration of Asia and Africa. This is doubtful whether the United States of America would really be willing to start a thermonuclear war in order to prevent the Russians from gaining certain advantages in the World outside of Europe and the America. As we see with the war in Ukraine, America is sending billions of dollars in aid, but otherwise staying out of it. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

There are some who are totally devoted to death, and these are insane. There are others who are entirely devoted to life, and these strike us as having accomplished the highest aim of which man is capable. In many, both the biophilous and the necrophilous trends are present, but in various blends. What matters here, as always in living phenomena, is which trend is the stronger, so that it determines man’s behaviour—not the complete absence or presence of one of the two orientations. Literally, “necrophilia” means “love of the dead” (as “biophilia” means “love of life”). The term is customarily used to denote a sexual perversion, namely the desire to possess the dead body (of an individual) for purposes of pleasures of the flesh, or a morbid desire to be in the presence of a dead body. However, as often the case, a sexual perversion presents only the more overt and clear picture of an orientation which is to be found without sexual admixture in many people. The person with the necrophilous orientation is one who is attracted to and fascinated by all that is not alive, all that is dead; corpses, decay, feces, dirt. Necrophiles are those people who love to talk about sickness, about burials, about death. They come to life precisely when they can talk about death. A clear example of the pure necrophilous type is Mr. Hitler. He was fascinated by destruction, and the smell of death was sweet to him. While in the years of his success it may have appeared that he wanted to destroy only those whom he considered his enemies, the days of the Gotterdammerung at the end showed that his deepest satisfaction lay in witnessing total and absolute destruction: that of the German people, of those around him, and himself. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

A report from the First World War, while not proved, makes a good sense: a solider saw Mr. Hitler standing in a trancelike mood, gazing at a decayed corpse and unwilling to move away. The necrophilous dwell in the past, never in the future. Their feelings are eseentially sentimental, that is, they nurse the memory of feelings which they had yesterday—or believe that they had. They are cold, distant, devotees of “law and order.” Their values are precisely the reverse of the values we connect with normal life: not life, but death excites and satisfies them. Characteristic for the necrophile is his or her attitude toward force. Force is the capacity to transform a man or woman into a corpse. Just as sexuality can create life, force can destroy it. All force is, in the last analysis, based on the power to kill. I may not kill a person but only deprive one of one’s freedom; I may want only to humiliate one or to take away one’s possessions—but whatever I do, behind all these actions stands my capacity to kill and my willingness to kill. The lover of death necessarily loves force. For one the greatest achievement of man is not to give life, but to destroy it; they use of force is not a transitory action forced upon one by circumstances—it is a way of life. This explains why the necrophile is truly enamored of force. Just as the lover of life the fundamental polarity in man is that between male and female, for the necrophile there exists another and very different polarity: that between those who have the power to kill and those who lack this power. For one there are only two “genders”: the powerful and the powerless; the killers and the killed. One is in love with the killers and despises those who are killed. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

Not rarely this “being in love with the killers” is to be taken literally; they are one’s objects of sexual attraction and fantasies, only less drastically so than in the perversion mentioned above or in the perversion of necrophagia (the desire to eat a corpse) a desire which can be found not rarely in the dreams of necrophilous persons. I know of a number of dreams of necrophilous persons in which they have sexual intercourse with elderly people by whom they are in no way physically attracted, but whom they fear and admire for their power and destructiveness. The influence of men like Mr. Hitler or Mr. Stalin lies precisely in their unlimited capacity and willingness to kill. For this they were loved by the necrophiles. Of the rest, many were afraid of them, and preferred to admire, rather than to be aware of their fear; many others did not sense the necrophilous quality of these leaders, and saw in them the builders, saviors, good fathers. If the necrophilous leaders had not pretended that they were builders and protectors, the number of people attacked to them would hardly have been sufficient to help them to seize power, and the number of those repelled by them would probably soon have led to their downfall. While life is characterized by growth in a structured, functional manner, the necrophilous person loves all that does not grow, all that is mechanical. The necrophilous person is driven by the desire to transform the organic life into the inorganic, to approach life mechanically, as if all living person were things. All living processes, feelings, and thoughts are transformed into things. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

Memory, rather than experience; having, rather than being, is what counts. The necrophilous person can relate to an object—a flower or a person—only if one possesses it; hence a threat to one’s passion is a threat to oneself; if one loses possession, one loses contact with the World. That is why we find the paradoxical reaction that one would rather lose life than possession, even though by losing life one who possesses has ceased to exist. One loves control, and in the act of controlling one kills life. One is deeply afraid of life, because it is disorderly and uncontrollable by its very nature. The woman who wrongly claims to be the mother of the child in the story of Solomon’s judgment is typical for this tendency; she would rather have a properly divided dead children than lose a living one. To the necrophilous person justice means correct division, and they are willing to kill or die for the sake of what they call justice. “Law and order” for them are idols-everything that threatens law and order is felt as a satanic attack against their supreme values. There are physical, soulish and spiritual “feelings.” Evil spirits can inject feeling into any of these departments. Their aim is to move the human by “feelings”—to substitute these for the actions of one’s mind, so that the believer is governed by the deceiving spirits through his or her feelings. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

The necrophilous person is attracted to darkness and night. In mythology and poetry one is attacked to caves, or to the depth of the ocean, or depicted as being blind. (the trolls in Mr. Ibsen’s Peer Gynt are a good example; they are blind, they live in caves, their only value is the narcissistic one of something “home brewed” or homemade.) All that is away from or directed against life attracts one. One wants to return to the darkness of the womb, and to the past of inorganic or animal existence. One is essentially oriented to the past, not to the future which one hates and is afraid of. Related to this is one’s craving for certainty. However, life is never certain never predictable, never controllable; in order to make life controllable it must be transformed into death; death, indeed, is the only certainty in life. The necrophilous tendencies are usually more clearly exhibited in a person’s dreams. These deal with murder, blood, corpses, skulls, feces; sometimes also with humans transformed into machines or acting like machines. An occasional dream of this type may occur in many people without indicating necrophilia. In the necrophilous person dreams of this type are frequently and sometimes repetitive. Also, one tends to substitute feelings for the conscience in its recognition of right and wrong. Then if one “feels” they can do a thing, they will do it without asking whether it be right or wrong—if it is not visibly sinful. So for victory over the deceitful enemy, it is essential that the children of God cease to be guided by “feelings” in their actions. Some believers in God also think that is they do some action that the devil wants them to do, that they will “feel condemned” at once, but they overlook the fact that Satan can give pleasant feelings. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

There are innumerable varieties of feelings caused by evil spirits; also countless sorts of attacks and false suggestions. These call forth all the spiritual discernment of the believer, and one’s understanding of spiritual things, in order to recognize them. No doubt, anyone who is truthful in that bold and ultimate sense presupposed by faith in science thereby affirms a World other than that of life, nature, and history; and insofar as one affirms this “other World,” must one not precisely thereby deny its counterpart, this World, our World? You will of course have grasped that it is still a metaphysical faith on which our faith in science rests—that even we knowing ones today, we godless ones and antimetaphysicians, still also take our fire from the flame ignited by a faith thousands of years old, that Christian faith that also was Mr. Plato’s faith, that God is truth, that truth is divine…However, what if just this were to become ever more unbelievable, if nothing else were ever to prove itself divine, only error, blindness, lie—if God Himself proved to be our longest lie? The notion of history is inseparably linked to the concept of time. Time is one of the ontological categories, a characteristic stamped on every finite being, but it is verified differently in different dimension of life. Thus, time remains time in the whole realm of finitude; but the time of the amoeba and the time of history are different. The common element which gives time its identity is the element of “after-each-otherness.” #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

The flow of “after-each-other-ness” is one-way traffic; it cannot be reversed, for there is no such thing as an exactly identical repetition. In the spiritual dimension, “after-each-other-ness” is manifest as the creation of new meaning. Historical time supplies the added element of direction, so that it is defined as “time running toward fulfilment.” Historical time does not return, nor repeat itself: it runs forward; it is always unique; it ever creates the new. There is within it a drive toward an end, unknown, never to be reached in time itself, always intended and ever fleeing. Time runs toward the “future eternal.” The aim of history is fulfilment and decision, that is, an unconditional, unambiguous fulfilment achieved through freedom, and free decision that ends in unconditional fulfilment. The goal of history, therefore, is transcendent to the ambiguities of time. Clock time is not historical time, for the ultimate stand equally close to and equally distant from each moment of history. Certain consequences follow from this transcendent quality of history: The meaning of history is untouched by the modes of past and future, by birth and death. Transcendence, therefore, can be defined neither as the beginning of time nor as the end of time, nor as the negation of time. It can be indicated only by the symbolic concepts of origin and ultimate, which do no mean either the first or the last moment of time, but something transcendent to which all modes of time are equally related. What this means in the concrete is that the theological symbols of creation and last judgement have nothing to do with the beginning and end of clock time. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

And the beginning of history is not the birth of the Universe, but the moment in which existence is experienced as unfulfilled and in which the drive toward fulfillment starts. In what sense can the march of historical time be called “progress”? Since every creative act is a step beyond the potential, history is progressive in the sense that it is in motion, always seeking to approach the ultimately new. However, some interpreters of history have made of progress a symbol for the very meaning of history. According to them, progress means either an ever-lengthening line between the fixed points of a temporal beginning and end or an infinitely ascending line that constitutes progress and end or an infinitely ascending line that constitutes progress itself the goal of history. Progress in certain areas—for example, ethical content, education, technology, and science are all relevant. However, at the core of man’s spiritual functions—the moral act of self-integration, the cultural act of creativity, and the religious act of self-transcendence—lies freedom, and freedom is the leap in which history transgresses the realm of pure being and creates meaning. The movement, then, of historical time is by unpredictable leaps rather than by a measured mounting of the steps of progress. Thou who art the breath of life, who didst create all humans alike in dignity, thy power is manifest in the destiny of nations. Thou makest nations great; Thou bringest nations low; thou givest freedom even unto the beast and winged fowl; Thy will it is that all humankind be free. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

The Winchester Mystery House

Mrs. Sarah L. Winchester said that in 1888, she was riding in her carriage to Llanada Villa. After crossing a small stream, her horses began to walk on very fast. It was between the hours of eight and nine o’clock in the morning. Besides her driver, Mrs. Winchester was alone it her carriage. It was a clear day. She entered a lane adjoining to her estate. Her horses suddenly wheel at a portion of the gate, looked at the mansion, and neighed very loud. Mrs. Winchester and her driver then saw Mr. William Wirt Winchester coming toward them, in the same apparel she had seen him in his lifetime: he had on a navy-blazer. Just before they came to the gate, Mr. Winchester varied to the right and vanished. About the first of December following, Mrs. Winchester was walking about her garden, about three miles from the mansion. About Dusk, Mr. Winchester came walking alongside of her, and walked with her about two hundred yards. He was dressed as when first seen. He made a halt about two steps from his wife. A farmer was ploughing the fields came riding up, and Mrs. Winchester lost sight of the ghost of her husband. She was much alarmed: not a word was spoke. The farmer did not see Mr. Winchester. The sight of her husband prayed upon her minds so.

Some time after Mrs. Winchester was lying in bed, about midnight, when she heard Mr. Winchester groan; it was like the groan he gave before he expired. Mrs. Winchester heard the groan. She got up and searched the mansion, but after many hours found nothing. Some time after, when in bed, and a great firelight in the room, Mrs. Winchester saw a shadow on the wall, and at the same time she felt gentle brush of her hair, and knew it was her husband comforting here. About the middle of April, Mrs. Winchester was sitting in the Hall of Fires, enjoying the heat when Mr. Winchester appeared, dressed in his navy blazer. He extended his arms around her and hugged her. She does not know how long she remained in this situation. She was much alarmed. In May, about twilight in the morning, she saw Mr. Winchester about a hundred yards from the mansion; he walked fast and disappeared: there was nothing between them to obstruct the view. On the same day, Mr. Winchester appeared again to Mrs. Winchester and their niece Daisy in the garden. Mrs. Winchester asked, “Do you not see your uncle William?” They advanced toward Mr. Winchester. Mrs. Winchester spoke to her husband, as Daisy watched. They walked off together about five hundred yards; a conversation took place as they walked. However, Mrs. Winchester has not the conversation in her memory. She could not understand Mr. Winchester’s, his voice was so low.

For further information about tours, including group tours, weddings, school events, birthday party packages, facility rentals, and special events please visit the website: https://winchestermysteryhouse.com/

Please visit the online giftshop, and purchase a gift for friends and relatives as well as a special memento of The Winchester Mystery House. A variety of souvenirs and gifts are available to purchase.  https://shopwinchestermysteryhouse.com/