The Western powers, like the communists, talk in terms of choice between capitalism and communism. This alternative is almost the one thing the two camps agree on. The facts are, however, more complex. Capitalism in the middle of the twentieth century is not the capitalism of individual initiative, minimal state activity, et cetera, that it was in the nineteenth century. Both the Russian and the Chinese types of communism—different from the Marxist socialism they pretend to resemble. What are the facts and the realistic possibilities? First, we must recognize that the underdeveloped countries, in the long run, will not choose capitalism for both economic and psychological reasons. They cannot choose a system that was developed in Europe over several hundreds of years, in response to the particular historical conditions of that continent. These underdeveloped countries need a system which fulfills these conditions: first, economic power must be taken from the small cliques who use it only for their own interests and without regard for the needs of the majority of the population; second, the economy must follow a plan that allocates resources in the interest of, and for the optimal development of the entire economy. The cardinal point is that the alternative in the underdeveloped countries is precisely not that between capitalism and communism, an alternative which Russia, China and the Democratic party are fond of proposing, but that the alternative is which kind of socialism will they choose: the Russian state managerialism, the Chinese anti-individualistic communist, or a humanistic, democratic socialism, which attempts to combine the necessary minimum of bureaucratic centralization with the optimum of individual initiative, participation and responsibility. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

If the West insist on the communist-capitalist alternative, if it allies itself with outmoded reactionary regimes which are doomed by history, then it will help Russian—or more likely China—to grain the leadership of two-thirds—and within a generation, almost four-fifths of the human race. The less affluent people of the World will believe that they must choose the way which is allowing China to develop at twice the rate of India, provided there is no other alternative. However, in spite of all China’s propaganda, there is plenty of evidence that the Chinese way of complete and ruthless regimentation is not what most of these people prefer. The wish for freedom and independence is not—as it is sometimes alleged—a relatively recent Western discovery; it is a deep-rooted need in the very existence of man, but it is not the only one. If it has to compete with hunger, fear, and hopelessness, most people—in the East and in the West—will be willing to sell out their desire for freedom. The question is whether such a choice can be avoided. Furthermore, even if millions of unaffluent people in all these countries have lived, thus far, under such abysmal conditions of hunger and hopelessness that at the moment they cannot be fully interested in freedom, this has less political significance than many people believe. The history of the underdeveloped countries is being made by relatively small groups of an educated, middle-class elite, who do appreciate the danger and the evils of totalitarianism. It is in fact quite remarkable how well India and other parts of Asia as well as of Latin America and Africa have stood up against the seduction of communism. However, if the necessary fundamental reforms are not made, it is also clear that the younger generation will become increasingly impatient. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

It is thought by some that the only solution for the underdeveloped countries is democratic-socialist systems, adapted to the needs of each country, and varying accordingly just as Yugoslavia varies from India, is by no means a theoretical construction. The fact is that, as Mr. Barnett puts it, “Marxism has had a deep and widespread influence among intellectuals in many countries in the area [South and Southeast Asia]. Most of the leaders in South and Southeast Asia subscribe to ‘socialism’ of one kind or another. Many hope to create societies which can best be described as ‘socialism’ democracies,’ combining free and representative government with varying degrees of state economic planning. For the most part, they still look primarily to the West for their models, and they are attempting to adapt Western experience to their own needs, but few accept any specific Western model without qualification, and they have encountered great difficulties in attempting to transplant Western institutions in their countries. Many, while rejecting communism as a system of power, have felt that the Communists’ experience in Russia and China has considerable relevance to their own problems.” The problem is whether these leaders can eventually find a democratic-socialist pattern which will show achievements comparable to those of China, or whether they will have to accept the Communist solution which they would prefer to avoid. Their decision depends at least as much on the attitude of the West as it does on Communist propaganda. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

So far, the West has been the most effective propagandist for the Communists, by insisting that the Communists, by insisting that the Communist are the true heirs of Marx, and that there is no alternative other than capitalism. The United States of America has made this error more than Europe, because Europe is at least familiar with democratic socialist ideas and parties, which up to 1960 have ruled at one time or another, since 1918, in Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland. In many of these countries the socialists were defeated in recent years because the conservative parties adopted part of the socialist program, and because the socialists themselves stagnated in the midst of plenty. However, it would be a serious mistake to believe that socialism in the underdeveloped countries is finished because it is at the moment on the defensive in the rich countries. In fact it may be considered one of the most important tasks of democratic socialism in the underdeveloped countries and to interpret it to the West. There is an objection to the idea suggested here which is serious enough to warrant immediate attention. This objection runs along the following lines: if it is the aim of the underdeveloped countries to achieve economic well-being within a few generations, if they want to build an industry of their own and provide the majority of their inhabitants with a standard of living that can at least be compared with the less affluent European countries, how can they do it except in the way China does: totalitarian organization, persuasion, and mass suggestion? #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

Are their leaders not forced to create a spirit of fanaticism and fear in order to sustain voluntary underconsumption and currency manipulation? This is not necessarily so. There is, of course, the problem of mobilizing the human energy to achieve a far higher economic productivity than these countries have now. The West officially claims that the hope of monetary gain is the most important way, and no doubt, this motive is effective within a certain frame of reference. (The Russians also agree—in practice.) However, there are other ways of mobilizing human energy. There is the Chinese way of total mobilization of brain, heart, and brawn by force and suggestion; and this way seems to work, although at the expense of fundamental human values. There is still another way, which democratic, humanist socialism offers: an appeal to the sense of self-respect, individual initiative, social responsibility, and pride of the individual. If such an appeal were merely ideological and fictious it would have no real and lasting effect. However, if it is based on the real possibilities the system offers for these qualities to develop; if furthermore, such an appeal is made in a system that has a plan and in which individual effort contributes to the progress of the society as a whole, then, I believe, that human energy can be mobilized to an extent comparable to totalitarian systems. Yugoslavia does not have a two-party system or elections in the Western sense, it has no political terror and its system furthers individual activity and responsibility and encourages decentralization. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

Not only the psychic needs and desires of the broad masses matter, but also the character structure of the educated middle-class elite. What is their motivation? It is necessarily that of material wealth, the Western businessman’s motivation in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries? If this is so, the only possible outcome can be that of corrupt government bureaucracies. For if it is wealth the leaders of underdeveloped countries are after, they will have to enrich themselves at the expense of the masses—possible only through deceit and oppression. However, there are many examples that wealth is by no means the only motivating force for the new elites, and, in fact, for some old ones. The governing groups in Yugoslavia and Egypt, the very top leadership in India, and the leadership in China, according to all reports, are not corrupt. (Their privileges are definitely limited, and not arrived at through theft and bribery.) What is apparently a strong motivation among these new leaders is a pride in their skill in administration and organization. In contrast to the traditional monetary motivation of the entrepreneur, the new elites are motivated by the same factors that motivate many professional men and women in our system: the satisfaction of applying an acquired skill and of obtaining useful results. We in the West often forget that satisfaction in workmanship, in the successful application of one’s skills, can be at least as strong an incentive as profit. In addition to the individual satisfaction rooted in skillful performance, the new elites need and often have another potent satisfaction—that of a sense of social obligation and solidarity with the broad masses of their respective countries. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

This usually takes the form of national pride; whether we think of China, or of Egypt, or of any one of the newly awakened countries, they are led by men and women with a genuine national feeling, often bordering on an irrational nationalism. Professional and national pride, together with a sense of social justice and responsibility, may be said to be the most important motivations of the new leaders of many of the underdeveloped countries. From a psychological standpoint, these motivations are just as potent and as real as the desire for money and the lust for power; they are just as much a part of human nature as the latter ones. What matters is which kind of motivation a given society encourages and furthers, or, to put it differently, what kind of personality will rise to the top. The question arises whether the new elite is more prone to accept the Russian, the Chinese, or a democratic form of socialism. This is difficult to answer. However, one thing seems certain: which course the new elite will take depends on two factors, one psychological and one economic. These new leaders are proud and sensitive; they resent the treatment they have been given by the Western powers for more than a century. (The Russians leaders showed the same kind of sensitivity, especially before they had achieved their present success.) They have not forgotten the humiliation of the opium war, the slave trade, the American “banana policy,” and the American aid to Ukraine. They react in a perfectly normal way, being sensitive and even sometimes supersensitive and thus prone to take an aggressive anti-Western posture when the West continues to treat them with overt or slightly hidden arrogance. The tone of moral superiority toward the underdeveloped countries, which permeates many of our statements, serves only to create a deep antagonism toward the West, and to increase their tendency to unite with the Communist bloc. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

Which are the conditions that are responsible for necrophilia? From the standpoint of Dr. Freud’s theory one must expect that the strength of the life and death instincts (respectively) remain constant, and that for the death instinct there is only the alternative of its being turned either outward or inward. Hence environmental factors can account only for the direction which the death instinct takes, not for its intensity. If, on the other hand, one follows the hypothesis presented here, one must ask this question: Which factors make for the development of the necrophilous and the biophilous orientations in general; and more specifically, for the greater or lesser intensity of the death-loving orientation in a given individual or group? The most important condition for the development of love of life in the child is for one to be with people who love life. Love of life is just as contagious as love of death. It communicates itself without words, explanations, and certainly without any preaching that one ought to love life. It is expressed in gestures more than ideas, in the tone of voice more than in words. It can be observed in the whole atmosphere of a person or group, rather than in the explicit principles and rules according to which they organize their lives. Among the specific conditions necessary for the development of biophilia, here are a few of the following ones: warm, affectionate contact with others during infancy; freedom, and absence of threats; teaching—by example rather than by preaching—of the principles conducive to inner harmony and strength; guidance in the “art of living”; stimulating influence of and response to others; a way of life that is genuinely interests. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

The very opposite of these conditions furthers the development of necrophilia: growing up among death-loving people; lack of stimulation; fright; condition which make life routinized and uninteresting; mechanical order instead of one determined by direct and human relations among people. As to the social conditions for the development of biophilia, it is evident that they are the very conditions which promote the trends mentioned above with regard to individual development. It is possible, however, speculate further and include a fraction of these other factors. Perhaps the most obvious factor is that of a situation of abundance versus scarcity, both economically and psychologically. As long as most of man’s energy is taken up by the defense of one’s life against attacks, or to ward off starvation, love of life must be stunted, and necrophilia fostered. Another important social condition for the development of biophilia lies in the abolition of injustice. This refers to a social situation in which one social class exploits another, and imposes conditions on it which do not permit the unfolding of a rich and dignified life; or in other words, were one social class is not permitted to share with others in the same basic experience of living; in the last analysis, by injustice I refer to a social situation in which a human is not an end in oneself, but becomes a means for the ends of another human. Finally, a significant condition for the development of biophilia is freedom. However, “freedom from” political shackles is not a sufficient condition. If love for life is to develop, there must be freedom “to”; freedom to create and to construct, to wonder and to venture. Such freedom requires that the individual be active and responsible, not a slave or a well-fed cog in the machine. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

Love of life will develop most in a society where there is: security in the sense that the basic material condition for a dignified life are not threatened, justice in the sense that nobody can be an end for the purposes of another, and freedom in the sense that each human has the possibility to be an active and responsible member of society. A point of particular importance is even a society in which security and justice are present might not be conducive to love of life if the creative self-activity of the individual is not furthered. It is not enough that humans are not slaves; if social conditions further the existence of automatons, the result will not be love, but love of death. Theoretically, Dr. Freud’s disbelief in a wish for self-development is linked up with his postulate that the “ego” is a weak agency tossed about among the claims of instinctual drive, of the outside World and of the forbidding conscience. Ultimately, however, I believe that the two formulations of analytical goals are expressions of different philosophical beliefs as to the nature of humans. The deepest source of a man’s or woman’s philosophy, the one that shapes and nourishes it, is faith or lack of faith in humankind. If one has confidence in human beings and believes , that something fine can be achieved through them, one will acquire ideas about life and about the World which are in harmony with one’s confidence. Lack of confidence will generate corresponding ideas. Dr. Freud recognized that some degree of self-analysis is possible, for he did also analyze his own dreams. However, even if we grant that there is sufficient incentive for self-analysis there is still the question whether it can be undertaken by a “layman” who has not the necessary knowledge, training, and experience. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

With all due respect for the role of specialization in cultural development, too much awe of specialization can paralyze initiative. We are all too inclined to believe that only a politician can understand politics, that only an auto science engineer can repair an Ultimate Driving Machine, that only a trained gardener can prune trees. Of course, a trained person can perform more quickly and more efficiently than an untrained person, and in many instances the latter will fail entirely. However, the gap between a trained and an untrained person is often regarded as wider than it is. Faith in specialization can easily turn into blind awe and stifle any attempt at new activity. General considerations of this kind are encouraging. However, in order to arrive at a proper evaluation of the technical possibility of self-analysis we must visualize in concrete detail what constitutes the equipment of a professional analyst. In the first place, the analysis of others demands an extensive psychological knowledge of the nature of unconscious forces, the forms of their manifestation, the reasons responsible for their power, the influence wielded by them, the ways of unearthing them. In the second place, it demands definite skills, which must be developed by training and experience: the analyst must understand how to deal with the patient; one must know with a reasonable degree of certainty which factors in the maze of material presented should be tackled and which left out for the time being; one must have acquired a highly developed ability to “feel into” the patient, a sensitivity to psychic undercurrents that is almost a sixth sense. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

Finally, the analysis of others demands a thorough self-knowledge. In working with a patient the analyst has t project oneself into a strange World, with its own peculiarities and its own laws. And there is considerable danger that one will misconstrue, mislead, perhaps even inflict positive injury—not through bad will but through the carelessness, ignorance, or conceit. Therefore not only must one have a thorough familiarity with one’s tools, and skill in using them, but equally important, one must be straightened out in one’s relations to self and others. Since all three of these requirements are indispensable, nobody who does not fulfill them should assume the responsibility involved in analyzing others. These requirements cannot be automatically attributed to self-analysis as well, because analyzing ourselves is in certain essential points different from analyzing others. The difference most pertinent here is the fact that the World that each of us represents is not strange to ourselves; it is, in fact, the only one we really know. True enough, a neurotic person has become estranged from large parts of this World and has an impelling interest not to see parts of it. Also there is always the danger that in one’s familiarity with oneself that one will take certain significant factors too much for granted. However, the fact remains that it is one’s World, that all the knowledge about it is there somehow, that on need only observe and make use of one’s observation in order to gain access to it. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

If one is interested in recognizing the sources of one’s difficulties, if one can overcome one’s resistances to recognizing them, one can in some respect observe oneself better than an outsider can. After all, one lives with oneself day and night. In one’s chances to make self-observations one might be compared with an intelligent nurse who is constantly with a patient; and analyst, however, sees the patient at best only for an hour each day. The analyst has better methods for observation, and clearer viewpoints from which to observe and to make inferences, but the nurse has opportunities for a wide range of observation. This fact constitutes an important asset in self-analysis. Indeed, it reduced the first of the requirements demanded of a professional analyst and eliminates the second: in self-analysis less psychological knowledge is demanded than in the analysis of others, and we do not need at all the strategical skill that is necessary in dealing with any other person. The crucial difficulty in self-analysis lies not in these field but in the emotional factors that blind us to unconscious forces. That the main difficulty is emotional rather than intellectual is confirmed by the fact that when analysts analyze themselves they have not such a great advantage over the layman as we would be inclined to believe. On theoretical grounds, then, I see no stringent reason why self-analysis should not be feasible. Granted that many people are too deeply entangled in their own problems to be able to analyze themselves; granted that self-analysis can never approximate the speed and accuracy of analytical treatment by an expert; granted that there are certain resistances that can be surmounted only with outside help—still, all of this is no proof that in principle the job cannot be done. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

The patients who may be readily counted, whose illness is of such nature as to lead to hospitalization, are not the ones under primary consideration here. Rather, it is the unnumbered mass of lesser sufferers, the partial cripples, with whom we are concerned. These are the individuals who are emotionally maladjusted and psychologically disordered but whose mental illness permits them to lead a tortuous existence outside the hospital walls. Only a very rough approximation of their total number is possible. They are partially enumerable as those chronic visitors to physician’s offices with complains that are vague, anatomically and physiologically irrational, and unsupported by any findings of actual organic defect. These are the recalcitrant 50 to 70 percent of the general practitioner’s case load who are sooner or later labeled “neurotic.” Included also in the extramural population of psychiatric cases are those persons who are seen on an outpatient basis in public mental hygiene clinics of social agencies and by private psychiatrists and psychologists. These too are countable. Most present-day authorities are not content to let the realm of mental illness be bounded by these recordable patients. They practice the delicate art of extrapolation and arrive at estimates of the “real sum” of mentally sick persons in the total population. In such activity they are not out of step with general practice in the field of public health which recognizes that there are multiple factors determining whether a given case of a specific disease ever comes to formal diagnosis. Thus, it is logically descriptive to speak of the person known to carry the active tubercle bacillus in his or her lungs as having had tuberculosis even before one was X-rayed, visited a physician, or had a formal diagnosis of one’s symptoms. After such a diagnosis, it is appropriate to recognize that the individual has been ill. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

The disease does not begin its existence, except in a very arbitrary and formal sense, with the occurrence of diagnosis. Accordingly, it is not at all fictional to think of the total incidence of a disease such as tuberculosis, which William Writ Winchester had a fatal encounter with, as composed of those recorded, diagnosed cases plus an additional estimated number of undiagnosed cases. Biometric experts have developed methods for rather exact estimating of the number of such putative cases, utilizing among other factors data on the number of cases that come to diagnosis per period of time and the prior duration of the illness as indicated by the stage of symptoms at the time of diagnosis. Similarly, it is appropriate to conceive of the total number of mentally ill at any given time as composed of those institutionalized and otherwise recorded cases plus an estimated number of individuals who carry the “germs” of mental illness and have manifest symptoms, but have not yet come to diagnosis. Recent surveys of probability samples of urban and rural populations presented some degree of psychic symptomatology and to the equally startling finding that less than 20 percent were free of any sign of emotional distress. The ultimate negative is a hinderer: “We would fain have come unto you…but the ultimate negative hindered us” reports 1 Thessalonians 2.18, wrote Pual, who was able to discern between the hindering of the ultimate negative and the restraining of the Holy Spirit of the ultimate concern (Acts 16.6). This again means knowledge, and power to discern the ultimate negative’s workings and schemings and the obstacles which it places in the paths of the children of the ultimate concern—obstacles which look so “natural” and so like “providence” that numbers meekly bow their heads and allow the Hinderer to prevail. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

Power to discern comes by knowledge that the ultimate negative can hinder; by observing the objective of the hindrances, and by close observations of its methods along this line. For example, is it the ultimate concern or the ultimate negative withholding money from missionaries preaching the gospel of Calvary, and giving abundance to those who preach error and teachings which are the outcome of the spirit of antichrist? Is it the ultimate concern or the ultimate negative urging a family to move their residence, without reasonable grounds, to another neighbourhood, when it involves the removal of another member from a strategic vantage-ground of service to the ultimate concern, with no other worker to take one’s place? Is it the ultimate concern or the ultimate negative leading Christians to put first their health, comfort, social position in their decisions, rather than the needs and the exigencies of the kingdom of the ultimate concern? Is it the ultimate concern or the ultimate negative who hinders service for the ultimate concern through members of a family making objections, or through troubles in business which give no time for such service, or through property losses, et cetera? Knowledge of the Hinderer means victory by prayer over one’s schemes and workings. The believer should therefore know one’s wiles. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

Up to now we have examined the fact of the manifestation of the Kingdom of God through the appearance of the Christ in a moment of Kairos. Since the reception of Christian revelation constitutes the manifest churches, they are the representatives of the Kingdom of God within history and thereby play a twofold role: they actively contribute to the pursuit of the aim of history, and they struggle against the forces of profanization and demonization which seek to frustrate this purpose. To accomplish this task, to create the new in history and to withstand the profane and the demonic, the churches draw upon the power of the New Being which is their foundation. The churches as the embodiments of the Spiritual Community comprise only persons, but as representatives of the Kingdom of God they stand for all dimensions of life, including the animate and inanimate World of nature. This wider representative function is fulfilled through the sacraments: To the degree in which a church emphasizes the sacramental presence of the divine, it draws the realm’s preceding spirit and history, the inorganic and organic universe, into itself. For the Kingdom of God symbolizes not only society, but also the multidimensional life of the whole universe. The churches have a history, but instead of speaking “the history of the churches,” we prefer the phrase “the history of the church” in order to emphasize that the many churches are embodiments of the one Spiritual Community, despite their paradoxical ambiguities. In the light of this fact, one must admit that church history is at no point identical with the Kingdom of God and at no point without manifestation of the Kingdom of God. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

Although the church is the representative of the Kingdom of God, the two cannot be simply identified because the riddle of the church history, namely, the ambiguity of the church as spelled out in its historical dimension. The riddle of church history can be expressed in a series of questions. Why is the church, in principle universal, effectively restricted to a particular civilization? How account for the rise within Christianity itself of secular movements, such as humanism and communism? Why has the unity of the church been splintered? How explain so much profanization of the holy in church history both by Roman Catholic ritualization and Protestant secularization? What is the cause of the history of demonization in the church, from the early persecution of heretics, through the religious wars, through the fanatical stubbornness of fundamentalism, through the tyranny of Protestant orthodoxy, to the infallibility of the pope? In the face of this riddle, this scandal, one must ask: What does church history mean? Two statements can be made in reply. First, church history cannot be identified with the history of salvation or sacred history. “Sacred history is in church history but is not limited to it, and scared history is not only manifest in but also hidden by church history. It is the everlasting paradox of the church that it conceals the Kingdom of God as well as reveals it. Secondly, church history has one quality which shines through even its most distorted phases: “…it has in itself the ultimate criterion against itself—the New Being in Jesus as the Christ.” Consequently, “the presence of this criterion elevates the churches above any other religious group, not because they are ‘better’ than others, but because they have a better criterion against themselves and, implicitly, also against other groups.” #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

The struggle of the Kingdom of God within history is above all a struggle within the bosom of its own representatives, for the reformation of a profanized and demonized church is never ended. Church history, however, judges not only itself, but also non-church history or World history. The influence of church history upon World history is seen where it produces an uneasy conscience in those who have received the impact of the New Being but follow the ways of the old being. Church history is not the Kingdom of God, but the Christian civilization which it begets is a continual reminder of it. Must not all philosophy in the end bring to light the presupposition upon which the movement of reason rests: our belief in the “I” as substance, as the sole reality according to which we attribute reality to things generally? The oldest “realism” finally comes to light—at the same time as the entire religious history of humankind is recognized as the history of the soul superstition. There is a limit here: our thinking itself involves that belief (with its distinction between substance and accident, deed and doer, et cetera); letting go of it means no longer being allowed to think. That a belief, however necessary it may be for the preservation of a creature, has nothing to do with truth, one can see, for example, in the fact that we have to believe in time, space, and motion, but without feeling constrained to grant them absolute reality. 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. Nations that defy Thy law of justice and of love, that stir up hate against the weak, estranging human from human, that crush the stranger in their midst and shed one’s blood for gain, and follow their unrighteous ways that lead to strife and war, such nations still to evil are enslaved, but Thou, through us, shalt bring to judgement all their wicked ways. Please keep the Sacramento Fire Depart and your hearts and prayers this season, for they are not receiving all of their resources. If it is possible, please make a donation. It will be much appreciated. #RandolpHarris 19 of 19

The Winchester Mystery House

The greatest contributor among the health-food pioneers in the Victorian Ear was Gail Borden. City people were being poisoned by tainted milk every day. Mr. Borden discovered that by evaporating much of the water from milk and canning the result, the milk did not have to be refrigerated. The cows could live a healthy, country life while the consumers could stay far away in the city, hence Mr. Borden’s famous slogan for Carnation milk: “from contented cows.”

The other strong influences on late nineteenth-century eating was the home-economics movement. Well-educated, middle-class nonimmigrant women not only created a profession of their own, but also sought to Americanize the less affluent. Home economists and social workers tried to teach immigrant women about nutrition and tried to wean them away from the “hot,” spicy cuisine of their homelands. The favourite foods of the home economics movement were gelatin salads and boiled dressings. A blanket of white cause covering a slab of boneless protein was the ideal dish. Salads were orderly, encased, cool, and controllable rather than hot, sloppy, and sensuous.

Jello, after all, is a Victorian product invented during the 1890s by the Genesee Pure Food Company of Leroy, New York. This change in cuisine was not all one-way bullying. Cookbooks like Fannie Farmer’s and Mrs. Beeton’s as well as manners books like Emily Post’s, were eagerly bought by immigrant women who wanted to fit into American culture. These books gave advice on food, eating, and household management to Europeans who wanted to know how things were “done” in America.

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/