tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-335783762024-03-14T22:45:55.432+12:00John Ray's DocumentsJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-70662949425846413342014-11-05T09:57:00.004+11:302022-03-03T23:58:04.830+12:00<br>
<br />
<b>REDIRECTION</b><br />
<br />
This blog is no longer being updated. Operations have been transferred to a blog more highly rated in the search engines: <a href="http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/">A Western Heart</a>. So go there for content similar to what has been appearing here. Posts there are almost daily.
<br />
<br />JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-62161541281021202662009-02-06T22:25:00.004+11:302018-08-11T21:44:18.842+11:00<br><br /><font size="+1"> <b>Papers on PSYCHOLOGICAL AUTHORITARIANISM by J.J. Ray -- Previously published and previously unpublished</font> (All papers are available for viewing online. Just click on a title) </b><br /><br /> <br /> <a href="http://jonjayray.com/gul.html">Gul, F.A. & Ray, J.J. (1989) Pitfalls in using the F scale to measure authoritarianism in accounting research. <i>Behavioral Research in Accounting</i> 1, 182-192. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/nonauaf.html">Heaven, P.C.L. & Ray, J.J. (1980) Non-authoritarian Afrikaners. In: P.C.L. Heaven (Ed.) <i>Authoritarianism: South African studies</i> Bloemfontein: De Villiers.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/valsch.html"> Jones, J.M. & Ray, J.J. (1984) Validating the schoolchildren's attitude to authority and authoritarianism scales. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 122, 141-142. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/vinod.html">Kool, V.K. & Ray, J.J. (1983) <i>Authoritarianism across cultures</i> Bombay, India: Himalaya. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/rudin.html">Martin, J. & Ray, J.J. (1972) Anti-authoritarianism: An indicator of pathology. "<i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 24, 13-18.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/aa.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) An "Attitude to Authority" scale. <i>Australian Psychologist</i>, 6, 31-50. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/berry.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) Australians authoritarian? A critique of J.W. Berry. <i>Politics</i> 6, 92. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/bridge.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) What are Australian Nazis really like? <i>The Bridge</i> 7(2), 15-21. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/cogsimp.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Is antisemitism a cognitive simplification? Some observations on Australian Neo-Nazis. <i>Jewish J. Sociology</i> 15, 207-213. </a> <br /><br /> <a href="http://jonjayray.com/ascale.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Non-ethnocentric authoritarianism. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 8(June), 96-102.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/milit.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Militarism, authoritarianism, neuroticism and anti-social behavior. <i>Journal of Conflict Resolution</i> 16, 319-340. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/militrej.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Militarism and psychopathology: A reply to Eckhardt & Newcombe <i>J. Conflict Resolution</i>, 16, 357-362.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/newbf.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) A new balanced F scale -- And its relation to social class. <i>Australian Psychologist</i> 7, 155-166. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/polidef.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) The measurement of political deference: Some Australian data. <i>British Journal of Political Science</i> 2, 244-251.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/ma.html"> Ray, J.J. (1973) Conservatism, authoritarianism and related variables: A review and an empirical study. Ch. 2 in: G.D. Wilson (Ed.) <i>The psychology of conservatism</i> London: Academic Press. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/dogcon.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) Dogmatism in relation to sub-types of conservatism: Some Australian data. <i>European J. Social Psychology</i> 3, 221-232. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/chapters.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/hr.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Authoritarian humanism. Ch. 42 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/wocla1.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Are the workers authoritarian, conservative or both? Ch. 43 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/tyranny.html">Ray, J.J. (1976) Authoritarianism Left and Right -- The assault on Freedom. Paper delivered to a "Principles of Freedom" seminar sponsored by the Centre for Independent Studies at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia on Friday, 8th October, 1976. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/dir.html">Ray, J.J. (1976) Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes? <i>Human Relations</i>, 29, 307-325. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/thomas.html"> Ray, J.J. (1976) Authoritarianism and racial prejudice in Australia: A reply to Thomas. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 99, 163-166. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/scotauth.html">Ray, J.J. (1978) Are Scottish nationalists authoritarian and conservative? <i>European J. Political Research</i> 6, 411-418. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/detraci.html">Ray, J.J. (1978) Determinants of racial attitudes. <i>Patterns of Prejudice</i> 12(5), 27-32. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authcons.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Does authoritarianism of personality go with conservatism? <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 31, 9-14.</a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authscot.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Authoritarianism in Australia, England and Scotland. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 108, 271-272. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/solidcit.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) The authoritarian as measured by a personality scale Solid citizen or misfit? <i>J. Clinical Psychology</i> 35, 744-746. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/shortbf.html"> Ray, J.J. (1979) A short balanced F scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 109, 309-310. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/notmyth.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Is the acquiescent response style not so mythical after all? Some results from a successful balanced F scale. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 43, 638-643. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authext.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) Are authoritarians extroverted? <i>British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology</i> 19, 147-148. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/whitesa.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Racism and authoritarianism among white South Africans. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 110, 29-37. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authcal.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarianism in California 30 years later -- with some cross-cultural comparisons. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 111, 9-17. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authtol.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarian tolerance. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 111, 303-304. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authost.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarianism and hostility. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 112, 307-308. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/libertar.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) Libertarians and the authoritarian personality. <I> J. Libertarian Studies</I> 4, 39-43. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/nachauth.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) Achievement motivation as an explanation of authoritarian behaviour: Data from Australia, South Africa California, England and Scotland. Chapter in: P.C.L. Heaven (Ed.) <I> Authoritarianism: South African studies</I> Bloemfontein: De Villiers. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/manila.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Achievement motivation and authoritarianism in Manila and some Anglo-Saxon cities.<i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 115, 3-8.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/audomass.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Authoritarianism, dominance and assertiveness. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 45, 390-397. <br /> </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authill.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Do authoritarian attitudes or authoritarian personality reflect mental illness? <I> S. African J. Psychology</I> 11, 153-157. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/attabo.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Explaining Australian attitudes towards Aborigines <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 4, 348-352. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/nedkelly.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Is the Ned Kelly syndrome dead? Some Australian data on attitudes to shoplifting. <I> Australian & New Zealand J. Criminology</I> 14, 249-252. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authindi.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Authoritarianism and achievement motivation in India. J. Social Psychol. 117, 171-182.</a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authlib2.html"> Ray, J.J. (1982) Authoritarianism/libertarianism as the second dimension of social attitudes. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 117, 33-44. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/bloom.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Machiavellianism, forced-choice scales and the validity of the F scale: A rejoinder to Bloom. <I> J. Clinical Psychology</I> 38, 779-782. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/tableaus.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Australia's Deep North and America's Deep South: Effects of climate on conservatism, authoritarianism and attitude to love. <I> Tableaus</I> 169, 4-7. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/lipset.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) The workers are not authoritarian: Attitude and personality data from six countries. <i>Sociology & Social Research</i>, 67 (2), 166-189. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/parsindi.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Ambition and dominance among the Parsees of India. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 173-179.</a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/altconau.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Some alternative conceptions of authoritarianism: with applications in Australia, England, Scotland and South Africa In: V.K. Kool J.J. Ray (Eds.) <I> Authoritarianism across cultures</I> Bombay, India: Himalaya Publishing. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/britauth.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Is Britain an authoritarian society? In: V.K. Kool J.J. Ray (eds.) <I> Authoritarianism across cultures</I> Bombay, India: Himalaya Publishing. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/halfauth.html">Ray, J.J. (1983). Half of all authoritarians are Left-wing: A reply to Eysenck and Stone. <i>Political Psychology</i>, 4, 139-144. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/alt1.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Book review of "Right-wing authoritarianism" by R.A. Altemeyer "<i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 35, 267-268.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/collbf.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) The effect of collapsing response categories on the balanced F scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 123, 279-280. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/caste.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) The effect of caste and education on achievement motivation and authoritarianism. <I> Personality Study & Group Behaviour</I> 4(1), 8-12. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/catalog.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) Alternatives to the F scale in the measurement of authoritarianism: A catalog.<i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 105-119.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/rump.html">Ray, J.J. (1984). Cognitive styles and authoritarianism: A comment on Rigby & Rump. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 283-284. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/crims.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarian attitudes and authoritarian personality among recidivist prisoners. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 5, 265-272. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/audom.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarian dominance, self-esteem and manifest anxiety. <i>South African Journal of Psychology</i> 14, 144-146. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/spacing.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarianism and interpersonal spacing behavior. Personality & Individual Differences, 5, 601-602. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/duck.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) Directiveness and authoritarianism: A rejoinder to Duckitt. <i>South African Journal of Psychology</i> 14, 64.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/correct.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarianism, A-B personality and coronary heart disease: A correction. <i>British Journal of Medical Psychology</i> 57, 386.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/nachrace.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Achievement motivation as a source of racism, conservatism and authoritarianism. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 123, 21-28</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authlef2.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Authoritarianism of the Left revisited. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 6, 271-272. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/http://jonjayray.com/leftpath.html">Ray, J.J. (1985). The psychopathology of the political Left. <I> High School Journal</I>, 68, 415-423. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/punit.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) The punitive personality. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 125, 329-334. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/altdef.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Defective validity in the Altemeyer authoritarianism scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology </I> 125, 271-272. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/wocl2.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Using multiple class indicators to examine working class ideology. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I> 6, 557-562. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/assaudom.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Assertiveness as authoritarianism and dominance. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 126, 809-810. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/defamed.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Letter to the editor regarding Carlson's review of <i>"Authoritarianism across cultures"</i>. <I> Political Psychology</I>, 7, 395-396. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/altab.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Alternatives to the A-B personality concept in predicting coronary heart disease. <I> Personality Study & Group Behaviour</I> 6(2), 1-8. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/eysatt.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Eysenck on social attitudes: An historical critique. pp. 155-173 in: S. Modgil C.M. Modgil (Eds.) <I> Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy</I> Lewes, E. Sussex, U.K.: Falmer. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/brandray.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Ray replies to Brand. pp 176-178 in: S. Modgil & C.M. Modgil (Eds.) <I> Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy</I> Lewes, E. Sussex, U.K.: Falmer. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/slom.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Complex jobs and complex mental processes: A comment on Miller, Slomczynski Kohn. <I> American J. Sociology</I> 93, 441-442. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/alt87.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Special review of "Right-wing authoritarianism" by R.A. Altemeyer. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 8, 771-772. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/valiself.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) The validity of self-reports. <I> Personality Study & Group Behaviour</I> 7(1), 68-70. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/maier.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Intolerance of ambiguity among psychologists: A comment on Maier Lavrakas. <I> Sex Roles</I> 16, 559-562. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/kelley.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Sexual liberation, old-fashioned outlook, and authoritarianism: A comment on Kelley. <I> J. Sex Research</I> 24, 385-387. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/anarch.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Authoritarianism, racism and anarchocapitalism: A rejoinder to Eckhardt. <i>Political Psychology</i> 9(4), 693-699. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/fantasy.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Cognitive style as a predictor of authoritarianism, conservatism and racism: A fantasy in many movements. <i>Political Psychology</i> 9, 303-308. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/whyf.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Why the F scale predicts racism: A critical review. <i>Political Psychology</i> 9(4), 671-679. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/oz3auth.html"> Ray, J.J. (1989) Authoritarianism research is alive and well -- In Australia: A review. <i>Psychological Record</i>, 39, 555-561. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/scistud.html"> Ray, J.J. (1989) The scientific study of ideology is too often more ideological than scientific. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>10, 331-336. </a> <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/sidrej.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Politics and cognitive style: A rejoinder to Sidanius and Ward. <i>Political Psychology</i> 11, 441-444. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/rump2.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Intolerance of ambiguity and authoritarianism: A comment on Rump. <I> Psychology</I>, 27 (4), 71-72. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/alt.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Book Review: <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i>, 42, 87-111. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/byrne.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarianism as a cause of heart disease: Reply to Byrne, Reinhart & Heaven. <i>British J. Medical Psychology</i>, 63, 287-288. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authrig.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarian behavior and political orientation: A comment on Rigby. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 54, 419-422. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/altenemy.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Letter to the editor about Altemeyer's <i>Enemies of Freedom</i>. In: <i>Canadian Psychology</i>, 31, 392-393. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/altem.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Book Review: <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer. Personality & Individual Differences, 11, 763-764. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/oldfas.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) The old-fashioned personality. <i>Human Relations</i>, 43, 997-1015. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/duckitt.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Letter to the editor about Duckitt's theory. <i>Political Psychology</i>, 11, 629-632. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/witt.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) AIDS, authoritarianism and scientific ignorance -- A comment on Witt. <i>J. Applied Social Psychology</i>, 20, 1453-1455.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/meloen.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarianism and political racism: A comment on Meloen, Hagendoorn, Raaijmakers and Visser. <i>Political Psychology</i> 11, 815-817. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/middend.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) The workers are not authoritarian: Rejoinder to Middendorp & Meloen. <i>European J. Political Research</i>, 20, 209-212. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/scheep.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) Authoritarianism is a dodo: Comment on Scheepers, Felling & Peters. <i>European Sociological Review</i>, 7, 73-75. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/safjp.html">Ray, J.J.(1992) Defining authoritarianism: A comment on Duckitt & Foster, Altemeyer & Kamenshikov and Meloen. <i>South African J. Psychology</i>, 22, 178-179. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/pestell.html"> Ray, J.J. (1992) Authoritarianism among medical students: Comment on Pestell. <i>Australian & New Zealand J. Psychiatry</i>, 26, 132. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/eckhardt.html">Ray, J.J. (1993) Do authoritarian and conservative attitudes have personality and behavioral implications? Comment on Eckhardt. <i>Political Psychology</i>, ? (UQ collection defective) </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/sracism.html"> Ray, J.J. (1994) Are subtle racists authoritarian? Comment on Duckitt. <i>South African J. Psychology</i>, 24(4), 231-232.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/meloen97.html"> Ray, J.J. (1998) On not seeing what you do not want to see: Meloen, Van Der Linden & De Witte on authoritarianism. <I> Political Psychology</I>, Vol. 19, Issue 4, 659-661. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/abozek.html">Ray, J.J. & Bozek, R.S. (1980) Dissecting the A-B personality type. <i>British Journal of Medical Psychology</i> 53, 181-186. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authp.html"> Ray, J.J. & Bozek, R.S. (1981) Authoritarianism and Eysenck's 'P' scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 113, 231-234. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/auconrac.html">Ray, J.J. & Furnham, A. (1984) Authoritarianism, conservatism and racism. <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 7, 406-412. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/bloem.html">Ray, J.J. & Heaven, P.C. L. (1984) Conservatism and authoritarianism among urban Afrikaners. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 163-170. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/authkid1.html">Ray, J.J. & Jones, J.M. (1983) Attitude to authority and authoritarianism among schoolchildren. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 199-203. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/germauth.html"> Ray, J.J. & Kiefl, W. (1984) Authoritarianism and achievement motivation in contemporary West Germany. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 3-19. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/behvalau.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1983). The behavioral validity of some recent measures of authoritarianism. <i> Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 120, 91-99. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/compdir.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1986) A comparison of three scales of directiveness. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 126, 249-250. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/mk6dir.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1988) An improved Directiveness scale. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 40, 299-302. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/autgen.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1990) Does attitude to authority exist? <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>, 11, 765-769. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/raysimon.html">Ray, J.J. & Simons, L. (1982) Is authoritarianism the main element of the coronary-prone personality? <i>British J. Medical Psychology</i> 55, 215-218. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/woclarig.html">Rigby, K., Metzer, J.C. & Ray, J.J. (1986) Working class authoritarianism in England and Australia. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 126, 261-262 </a><br /><br /><br /><b>PUBLISHED ON THE NET ONLY:</b><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/altbook.html">BOOK REVIEW of <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/alty.html">BOOK REVIEW of <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/corpse.html">AUTHORITARIANISM: The corpse that will not lie down</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/death.html">THE DEATH OF AUTHORITARIANISM: Psychological parallels to a political phenomenon</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/erotto.html">IS EROTOPHOBIA old-fashioned? A comment on Fisher et al.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/faids.html">WARINESS OF AIDS VICTIMS: Authoritarian or old-fashioned? A comment on Witt and on Larsen, Elder, Bader & Dougard</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/dorn.html">MORAL JUDGMENT and authoritarianism: A comment on Van ijzendorn</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/larsen.html">ATTITUDES TO SOCIAL AUTHORITIES AND CHILD-REARING: Comment on Shively & Larsen</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/louw.html">THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY IN SOUTH AFRICA: A comment on Louw-Potgieter</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/mercer.html">DRUG ABUSE, authoritarianism and the magical power of statistical significance</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/mogh.html">HUMAN RIGHTS, right-wing authoritarianism and conservatism: Comment on Moghaddam & Vuksanovic</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/play.html">PSYCHOLOGISTS ONLY PLAY AT SCIENCE</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/saga.html">MEASURING THE NON-EXISTENT: The strange saga of ethnocentrism, authoritarianism and rigidity</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/skeptic.html">SELF-DECEPTION among psychologists<br /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/witt2.html">COMPANIONSHIP IN FOLLY may be a comfort but it is still folly: Reply to Witt</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/percep.html">PERCEPTIONS OF THE AUTHORITARIAN AS ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATED </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/leftauth.html">AUTHORITARIANISM IS LEFTIST, not Rightist</a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/sdo.html">SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION: THEORY OR ARTIFACT? </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.com/gulreply.html">AUTHORITARIANISM, ACCOUNTING AND THE F SCALE: REPLY</a><br /><br>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-86401544360126194452008-11-12T01:15:00.002+11:302018-08-11T21:11:16.652+11:00<i>Patterns of Prejudice</i>, 1973, 7 (1), 6-16.<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000"> (With two post-publication addenda following the original article)</font><br /><br /><b><font size="4"> ANTISEMITIC TYPES IN AUSTRALIA </font></b><br /><br /><br /><br />By John J . Ray<br /><br />THIS is a study of some present-day Australian Nazis. The data I have derived by the increasingly respectable method (among scientific sociologists) of participant observation [1]. Over the last seven years I have joined Nazi organizations and "collected" people of Nazi sympathies. As a young WASP of basically conservative political views, I found this relatively easy to do -- provided I paid my tax of an occasional antisemitic utterance. Almost all my knowledge is of people living in Brisbane and Sydney -- the two cities where I have spent my last seven years.<br /><br />As an initial categorization, I feel that the Nazis I have known can be divided into three groups. The first are the old-fashioned Nazis; the second are the ideological Nazis; and the third are the young Nazis. A fourth category are antisemites who would roundly deny any interest in, or approval of, Nazism. I will firstly describe the individuals who fall roughly into these categories and then I will go on to identify anything that I feel is common to all these antisemitic people. For obvious reasons I will identify individuals by initials only and will avoid mention of details which could expose their identity to the casual reader.<br /><br />The old-fashioned Nazis are generally, but not exclusively, men upwards of fifty years. H.B. is one instance. H. was a tradesman of German origin who had come to Australia before the first world war. He had taken an interest in some of the more millenarian American religious sects and had collected in his very dilapidated home a great array of books and journals (mostly quite old) which claimed to tell of various sorts of esoterica and "inside information" on world events and human history. Between the two world wars he had been very active in the "Australia First" movement. He did not speak much of Hitler: to him it went without saying that Hitler had been right and that it was "the Jews" who had contrived his defeat. His belief in a malevolent international Jewish conspiracy was as implicit as his belief in the Bible as God's verbally inspired word. The Jews had murdered his God and were now trying to murder his race. He was always concerned to see "behind" world events for their "real" significance and origin. "Bible prophecy" and "International Jewry" both provided him with answers to his quest. His religion was hence a quest to understand rather than an emotional compulsion. Except in the particular nature of his obsession he seemed much like any old man railing at the world about him. Of the utter genuineness of his beliefs, however, there was absolutely no question. He was utterly convinced that the Jews - one and all - had the prime aim of destroying or enslaving all other races. To question this belief was only to draw out an incredible array of "proofs" in the form of events and utterances over all the period of recorded history. He felt that the objective truth of what he had to say would be proved to anyone who was prepared to "study" the matter.<br /><br />L.L. was another "old-fashioned" Nazi. Also an old man of German origin who had migrated to Australia in the early days, he lived on a very run-down farm outside Brisbane. Most of the things said above of H.B. could be said of him. He was, however, much more active than H.B. and got his picture into the paper from time to time -- celebrating Hitler's birthday or some such. He was also not as concerned with religion. Such interest as he did have in religion, however was in the more millenarian sects. W.D. was yet another hoary-headed old man. He was of Dutch origin and a devout Baptist. He wrote and distributed tracts which consisted of mingled warnings about Jews and Armageddon. He was also concerned about pure or "natural" food. All three mentioned so far believed implicitly in the writings of Major Douglas and the Social Credit movement. Seeing bankers as scheming villains who had hoodwinked the innocent majority of the population to their (the bankers') own aggrandisement has obvious affinities with what is believed of the Jew. Given indeed the prominent historical association between Jews and finance, the two beliefs reinforce one-another. Again like H.B. and L.L., W.D. lived in a dilapidated old house crammed with old books and defunct magazines. All three were married to wives who obviously believed in their husbands. To all three the Jews were the epitome of everything evil.<br /><br />Others in this category I have met at Nazi party meetings are N.S. and E.N. N.S. was in his late forties and of German descent. Like H.B., he had grown sons who did not reject his basic views but who were simply not interested in community affairs. He was a manual worker with some inclination to minor crime. His own financial woes served as a confirmation of his belief in the oppressiveness of "the Jewish financial system". He too accepted the tenets of Social Credit. E.N. was a nephew of L.L. and bore a surname equally Germanic. Although in his mid-twenties, he belongs in this group because of the similarity of his belief system. He had been brought up by parents of fiercely Pentecostal religious beliefs but seemed to have no real religious commitment of his own. He did not appear to be versed in Social Credit but went along with it when it was mentioned. Fair-haired, blue-eyed but physically slight, he was something of an errand-boy and hatchet-man to the local Nazi leader. He took part in Nazi demonstrations and was very regularly at meetings of Nazis. He had the interesting characteristic of tending to stand "too close" to one [2]. Unlike the more serious older men mentioned so far he seemed to be of a noticeably cheerful disposition. He had at one stage had a small entrepreneurial business but this had failed, leaving him in debt. E. was unmarried and worked in a manual occupation.<br /><br />For all the people in this category, an obsession with Jews seemed to be paramount -- with little concern for other elements of Fascist belief. Their Nazism seemed more an outcome of their antisemitism. For the group next to be described the reverse is true. Other Nazis in the present category that I have known I will not here describe in detail. One was an officer in the local Social Credit organization. It must be stressed however that not all Social Creditors are Nazis or antisemitic. The converse - that all Nazis believe in Social Credit - is however very nearly true.<br /><br />The next category is of the Ideological Nazis. Epitomizing these is M.H. About 5'4" tall, mustachioed and with the slightest trace of an early speech impediment which he claims to have cured by "self-hypnosis", M. is a one-time Methodist theological student and lay-preacher. He is very gregarious and popular. Wherever he lives is always a foregathering point for others of the extreme Right. Recently married to a girl of "good Aryan type", he has two small children. He has a criminal record for small offences of fraud (mostly with cheques). He works in a manual occupation but is presently an evening student in one of the more marginal medical arts. He was at one time a first-year university student but failed to complete the year. He has the most devastating contempt for "the masses" and regards them as properly and easily gulled. His interest in religion is directed solely to this end. He was at one time however a true believer of a very fundamentalist sort. As a byproduct of this he still enjoys hymn music. He and I have often joined in the strains of the old Protestant favourites -- as I too was once a believer.<br /><br />Although still in his mid-twenties, he has an impressive record of Right-wing activism and at one time stood for election to an Australian parliament -- under the banner of a party he had formed especially for the purpose. His party members were entirely diehard Nazis. One of his favourite recreations is listening to endless replays of Hitler's speeches. He also enjoys however a great deal of good music -- the predictable Wagner and Bruckner but also Bach, Vivaldi and other composers of the Baroque period. His father was an English Fascist in the heyday of Sir Oswald Mosley or at least a strong Fascist sympathizer. His brothers have quite similar attitudes to him but are simply not interested in community affairs. They hence take no part in Rightist activities.<br /><br />What then is the ideology of this "ideological Nazi"? He believes implicitly in the principle of race and regards all non-Germanic races as "degenerate". He believes in the <i>Fuehrerprinzip</i> and in <i>Kueche, Kinder und Kirche</i> as the proper role of women. He venerates everything traditional even long after it has ceased to be functional or relevant. He is fiercely proud of everything typically English or Australian and greatly enjoyed (and often quotes) Barry Humphries' "The wonderful world of Barry McKenzie". He admires Ian Smith of Rhodesia and Johannes Vorster of South Africa. He plans to migrate to South Africa in the future. He is much more of a racialist than the old-fashioned Nazis. Their main concern was the Jews (though they also considered it self-evident that blacks were inferior) whereas he has a violent antipathy to all non-Germanic races and is well-versed in even the most recent debates among psychologists about innate racial differences in intelligence, e.g. Jensen, 1969 [3].<br /><br />He has a complete collection of the works of Nietzsche and often quotes things in it he has read. He has a great attraction to mysticism and witchcraft-- the latter not because he believes in its supernatural efficacy but because it is traditional, "Germanic" and pre-Christian. He often talks of re-establishing an "Odinist" religion (the supposed religion of the pre-Roman German tribes). He contemns Christianity because it is "effeminate" and has seduced the Western European races away from their traditional "manly" virtues. He has utter contempt for weakness and the weak and believes that the "ideal" population of the earth is "about 30 million" -- to include, naturally, no wogs, Jews, Asians or blacks. Thus all could live in the "noble simplicity" of the ancient Germanic tribes -- with lives regulated only by codes of honour and duty, not morality.<br /><br />He wholeheartedly approves of Hitler's eugenic aims and the extermination of "the useless eaters". He is a great believer in health foods and I still have unhappy memories of a glass of fresh cabbage juice that he once regaled me with! With him, therefore, it will be evident that his antisernitism is only one aspect of his overall Fascism. Had Hitler spoken well of the Jews, he might have been pro-Jewish. Like all the Nazis mentioned so far he was a strong believer in the claims of Social Credit (until I endeavoured to disillusion him in the matter -- he being intelligent enough to give such an enterprise some prospect of success) and even now he does not appear to have abandoned entirely such notions.<br /><br />Another ideological Nazi is G.H. Although he does not normally claim to be a Nazi, he is one of their most regular associates and is an "expert" on local Jewry. Like all the Nazis mentioned so far, he accepts "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" as genuine and relevant. While he will derogate "the Jews" in casual conversation, he will, if pressed, insist that he is "anti-Zionist" - not anti-Jewish. While he is just as much a believer in race as M.H., he does not appear to harbour any particular animosity towards other races. He believes more in <i>Apartheid</i> ("apartness") than in the "final solution". He is a veritable encyclopedia of Right-wing apologetics and exegesis and writes articles for various limited-circulation Rightist publications from time to time. At Right-wing demonstrations and meetings pressmen find him only too ready to give a well reasoned and very lengthy justification of his stand. He is a member of several more moderate Right-wing organizations than the Nazis and often succeeds in having a "letter to the Editor" published in the dailies. He is unmarried, works as a clerk and is aged about 30. He is of undoubted intelligence, very well-informed on all things political and is very respectful of religion even though he himself is the most nominal of Anglicans. His very serious disposition goes with an undoubted insensitivity and clumsiness in social matters. He completed his secondary education but did not go on to university. By inclination and habit he is nonetheless very much an intellectual. He is a great attender of meetings. His Nazi associates seem to have partly talked him into a belief in Social Credit.<br /><br />Another Nazi in this category is X.Y. When last I knew him, X. was at one of the best Greater Public Schools in his final year. Very tall, fair-haired and blue-eyed he was a most capable and eloquent public speaker. Good-humoured, socially masterful and of obviously outstanding intelligence, he embodied all that one expects of the best G.P.S. products. His wealthy and long-established father was an influential figure in Liberal-Country party politics and X.Y. himself was a Young Liberal. X. was the sort of person one would expect to go on to a brilliant career at the bar. He was an admirer of Hitler, an undoubted elitist and knew well his "Protocols". His acceptance of the "Protocols" was probably more tendentious than serious but, whatever the rationale, he was clearly anti-Jewish. He was beknown to the local Nazi leader but restricted his activities to more public and legitimate political channels. He was strongly in favour of recognition for Rhodesia. His fundamental contempt seemed to be for weakness of any sort. In his public face he was "anti-Zionist" rather than anti-Jewish. His strong traditionalism was well matched with his love of legalistic debate and expert manipulation of the forms of democracy. He had contempt rather than animosity towards weaker races and stopped short of advocating "the final solution" for anyone but the Jews. He himself was a WASP of pioneer Australian background.<br /><br />The next ideological Nazi was C.D. -- a local Nazi leader. I met C.D. at a folk music club. He was about 30, with his own rather entrepreneurial business, and unmarried. He seemed well-known and widely accepted in the <i>demi monde</i> of the local folk-music and coffee-dive "scene". Although rather serious, he was very socially oriented and seemed well-liked. He had at one time been an Australian Olympic athlete, He believed literally in the existence of some conspiracy to undermine traditional values and virtues in society. He saw the answer to his very real concern for Australian society in strong government and prestigious leadership. He admired strength <i>per se</i> and all the military virtues. At home he would listen either to Hitler's speeches (on tape) or Beethoven piano sonatas and such like. To him antisemitism was a "study". By "studying" his collection of bigot literature he believed that he increased his understanding of what was going on in the world and how he might come out on top. The Nazi meetings that he organized often took the form of a study of chapters from "The Protocols". He was by birth half Greek but had anglicized his name. Powerfully built, he had swarthy to yellow skin and looked in fact rather Chinese -- something of great mortification to him. He was a great devotee of Social Credit. He had also great admiration of traditional British values and led himself a rather Spartan life.<br /><br />As a youth he had, I gathered, often suffered the humiliation of being called a "Dago". His sporting record was, at least in part, an attempt to prove himself better than his tormentors. Given his extremely conservative values he found that the Jews were a group that he could convincingly vent his own aggression on. This, however, was apparently quite unconscious. He obviously really believed that all the woes of the modern world could be traced to the corrupting influence of the Jews -- whom he identified also as being in control of the mass-media. He was indeed much concerned to copy the supposed successful tactics of the Jews. He often observed that the Jews maintained their own racial exclusiveness while selling the rest of the world a doctrine of (supposedly weakening) "race mixing". By observing that "the first race laws were passed by Nehemiah" he felt that his own racialism became justified as merely a legitimate defence against a conniving enemy: "fighting fire with fire". Were it not for his wide-ranging Fascist values in fact, his obsession with the Jews would put him best into the first category mentioned in this paper. As it was, however, he could wax as eloquent about "discipline" as he could about Jews. His attitude towards religion was very respectful and one suspects that he did have some residual beliefs himself.<br /><br />The second local Nazi leader I came to know was A.S. A. was slightly built, bald and sported a rather Hitlerian moustache. Paradoxically, he was a rather "moderate" Nazi, with a well thought-out political "platform". His durability as a Nazi leader seemed attributable to his personal gregariousness and social pleasantness. His policy towards Aborigines of giving them Arnhem land and thus forming a sort of permanent anthropological zoo, rates as very moderate in Nazi circles if not "weak-kneed". Despite this, his personal popularity seems never to have been in any question. He is a very dapper dresser and there is a possibly apocryphal tale circulating that attributes his interest in Nazism solely to the attractions involved in dressing up in uniforms. The tale is that he once got himself appointed ambassador of some small nation formed since the last world war and succeeded thus in getting himself invited to certain garden parties and other formal occasions. He would arrive at these occasions in the full ceremonial uniform that went with his (honorary) office. While he was there, he would get his friends to ring up and ask for him. This would give him the opportunity to be called out from the throng and enable him to parade before all eyes in his resplendent uniform. This tale was told to me by one of A.'s oldest Nazi associates, but one who had subsequently fallen out with A. <br /><br />A. is the only Nazi who was living on the proceeds of his Nazism during the period I knew him. Since he was living in considerable squalor during most of that period, however, it was obvious that the financial support he was receiving was not great. A. has been imprisoned on various occasions for the possession of dynamite and other weapons but claims that he was on those occasions "fitted" (framed) by the police. Knowing A. (he seems in no way inclined to personal violence or physical attack on anything he opposes) and knowing the police, I am inclined to accept A.'s account of the matter. The dynamite was said to have been "seized" from one of A.'s publicly signed Nazi headquarters. As he himself observed to me, if he had been going to use dynamite, he would have been mad to have kept it in a place so open to a police raid.<br /><br />His favourite recreation is listening to tapes of Hitler's speeches and World War II Nazi marching songs but he is also a devotee of Bach and other recondite composers. I have heard him claim (evidently under some misapprehension as to the meaning of the word) to be a "musicologist". His attitude to religion is cynical but not contemptuous. He is Australian by birth and immediate ancestry. In public he makes much of "the honest Australian worker" and he definitely attempts to appeal to working class sentiments. In one of his not uncommon public appearances I heard him say in reply to a questioner "Yes, I live in R., among the workers" -- evidently presenting this as a considerable virtue. In private, however, he is as much an elitist as any Nazi and is very proud of his occasional contacts with people in positions of power and authority. While he does not thus have any real regard for the workers as such, it must be conceded that he does nevertheless seem to have something of an <i>affection</i> for them. He feels sorry for them because of the way they have been exploited by "vested interests" and "The Jews" (which he sees as largely synonymous). He does seem to have a clearly paternalistic philosophy and much admires the England of "Colonel Blimp". As with all the ideological Nazis, his antisemitism is only one aspect of a larger traditionalist but conspiratorial outlook.<br /><br />I have known four thoroughly committed Nazis in this category who are university students. Two in fact were quite active as student leaders but understandably kept fairly quiet about their Nazi sentiments. One of the students (not one of the two who were leaders) is in fact the most "red hot" Nazi I have met. Although very softly spoken, he is utterly committed to ruthless destruction of everything non-Nazi. He is very culturally oriented (he spends hours daily listening to Beethoven and the Baroque) but seems to know no such thing as pity. He is one of a large working class family but is thoroughly an intellectual by both inclination and habit. Unlike the others he is reasonably outspoken about his Nazi views. Since he is at present only 19, this may not last. He is (coincidentally?) a blue-eyed, fair-haired WASP.<br /><br />All of the student Nazis showed remarkably low levels of antisemitism. Although they would all voice some antisernitic sentiments from time to time, this was clearly little more than perfunctory -- something done as an expression of solidarity with historical Nazism rather than out of the sort of genuine indignation and apprehension displayed by the old-fashioned Nazis described above as category I. If not of antisemitism, of what then does the Nazism of this group consist? It is admiration for the ruthless display of power and the splendid panoply of Hitler's Germany -- for the sense of destiny and the pursuit of an ideal goal that makes no concessions to human weakness, inadequacy or ugliness. This distaste for ugliness is in fact something that seems to have received little comment from previous writers on Nazism. Many of the Nazis in the present category (2) show very real aesthetic sensibility. Their real attraction to even the most recondite composers of classical music puts them above the vast majority of the population at large. Their desire for a world of Nordic-appearing WASPs is substantially the pursuit of an aesthetic ideal. Unlike the normal person in a democratic society, the Nazi is willing to sacrifice human lives and happiness to the pursuit of his aesthetic ideal. What does not measure up to the standard must be destroyed. For readers who have been keeping a tally, it may be of interest to know that three of the four student Nazis had substantial German ancestry. Among these were both the student leaders. All four were not in any way religious believers.<br /><br />By reason of his long notoriety, there is one more ideological Nazi I will describe here. G.R. is about 40, tall but portly in build, and exudes an air of middle class trustworthiness and respectability that would easily lead one to thinking him a very successful and important businessman. He has innumerable convictions for various types of fraud and false pretences. He might be described as a confidence-man by vocation. He has no time for "Nat-Socs" -- as he calls the uniform-loving associates of A.S. -- but does acknowledge himself as a Nazi. He makes a good thing out of religion and has been appointed a "bishop" by one of the more enthusiastic American minority denominations. As a man of religion he is compellingly reminiscent of Sinclair Lewis' "Elmer Gantry". He evidently sees religion as a legally immune confidence racket of which he wants his share. In this respect his sentiments are identical with those of M.H. (described earlier) and the two are in fact very good friends and companions.<br /><br />In different cities, both he and M.H. took the lead in "organizing the Arabs" (against Israel) and made substantial financial gain from the connection. To my knowledge, however, the local Arab anti-Zionist movement now has entirely woken up to its Nazi "friends" and ejected them. It is characteristic that the Nazis try to "con" even their potential political allies -- after all to them conning people is what politics consist of. G.R. is a great former of various "front" movements and it is for this that he is well-known. He also makes a speciality of infiltrating other legitimate Right-wing political movements and has thus on some occasions been able to exert some political influence. He was one of a group of Nazis who at one time "took over" a certain Liberal party branch that was of importance to a then current national political furore. G.R. is an Australian of WASP background. I have the strong impression that his antisemitism is largely nominal. The essence of his Nazism is his satisfaction in (through stealth) dominating and deceiving others. Nazism is the only political creed that openly acknowledges this as proper behaviour. One of G.R.'s great delights is to assume Jewish-sounding names. This legitimizes his actions as "beating the Jews at their own game". He shows however none of the genuine apprehension of Jewry that characterizes the old-fashioned Nazis.<br /><br />We now come to the category I have labelled as the "Young Nazis". Most of these are associates (or "troops") of A.S. They are simply brutally-minded young men of limited intelligence. Again in several cases of German origin or extraction, they are simply seeking opportunities of being exhibitionistically nonconformist and aggressive. Had they more intelligence they might be anti-Apartheid demonstrators. I do know two of their number (unusually intelligent for this group) who have made the conversion. Most, however, cannot manage the complicated rationalizations and self-deceptions necessary for them to do this. This is not to say that the Nazism of the young Nazis is not genuine. Nazism again is the only political creed that openly justifies (even glorifies if the object is appropriate) their nakedly aggressive impulses. To them Nazism makes obvious sense: it preaches what they instinctively feel.<br /><br />An essential feature, however, is their <i>acknowledgement</i> of their own aggressiveness. A child who was brought up to repress and deny his aggressiveness would not, of course, see Nazism as being so common-sense -- although he might fundamentally be just as aggressive as any of these young men. A more extended commentary on anti-racist aggressiveness is available in one of my earlier articles [4]. It will be obvious that detailed descriptions of any of these young Nazis would be of little profit here. They could change their allegiance overnight to some other movement that offered them better ego satisfactions. Equally, many aggressive young men in our society of no present political awareness could lend their support to any Nazi movement that developed into a real political force.<br /><br />We now come to the category of antisernites who are not Nazis. These are all people whose antisernitism is at least partly traceable to personal experience with individual Jews. They embody what might be called "traditional antisemitism" and represent perhaps the last remnant of nearly 2,000 years of Christian antisemitism, This dislike of Jewry does not imply any desire to persecute or oppress Jews. It is simply a personal preference to avoid and dislike Jews -- as one might dislike people who drive flashy cars or part their hair in the middle ( ! ).<br /><br />Such a person is D.R. D. is a very successful business entrepreneur with an attractive wife and three beautiful small children. He is in his early 40s and, although of Australian Irish background, was brought up an atheist. A follower of the Communist party in his youth, he is now an admirer of John Gorton. He has a formidably well-informed and catholic devotion to classical music. He is a great lover and exponent of Australian working class traditions and language. Nazism to him is utterly contemptible and "sick". For all that his dislike for Jews is probably rivalled only by his contempt for Aborigines. Jews to him are "scabs" -- people who take what they can get with no accompanying sense of obligation or duty to the others who make their opportunities possible. Aborigines he condemns for their whining disinclination to work and their tendency to "lower the standards" of their community. Both offend against his Australian credo of being "fair dinkum" and allowing "a fair go". He sees both as grasping -- the one by deceit and the other by indolent whining. In standard literary English we might say that D. dislikes insincerity and failures of consideration for others. He can relate many vivid anecdotes which show that his "prejudice" is not prejudice at all. He condemns after and because he has come to know those of whom he speaks. His profusely exemplified Philippics against Jewish and Aboriginal moral defalcations are worthy in fact of an independent literary record. Coming as he does from the "outback", I have seen him use his first-hand knowledge of Aborigines to devastating effect in informal debates with citified Left-liberal intellectual idealists. Let it be clear, however, that his ideology of everyone deserving a "fair go" would make him a resolute and formidable opponent to anyone who proposed or practised oppression of others on the basis of their race. I hope I have made it intelligible that he would oppose his daughter marrying a Jew but would oppose Belsen and Auschwitz much more. If Jews he disliked, injustice he hated.<br /><br />Although I have other examples of non-Nazi antisemites in mind -- some even with postgraduate degrees and of superb personal adjustment - I believe that I have said enough here to establish the point that dislike of Jews can exist on a purely personal (and thus, in some sense, legitimate) basis of actual experience with Jews. This phenomenon may of course be something of a vicious circle; persecution could well have bred characteristics of servility and hatred for <i>Goyim</i> which in turn excuse fresh discriminatory practices. The ebullient unconcern and self-confidence of the Israeli <i>sabras</i> may be just the antidote needed here. One could scarcely claim of them that "You never know what they're thinking" [5].<br /><br />We have now come to the point where we may ask: "What characteristics are general to antisemites?" The two things that stand out from the account I have given so far are no doubt German ancestry and liking of classical music. Concerning this latter point, however, a word of caution is in order. I myself am a Baroque music devotee and as one consequence of this it could perhaps be said of anyone I know that they are very likely to appreciate Baroque music. This works two ways. I do tend to get on best with people who I discover share my tastes and my own championing of Baroque music does tend to influence others who might not previously have given it much mind to take it up. This does not however well explain the tastes of people I have met solely through joining Nazi organizations; and the capacity of people in general for an appreciation of this music is so rare that I still remain impressed by its incidence among Nazis. It must be recollected that even Hitler had artistic sensibility of a sort. I can think of several possible explanations for the phenomenon but would want to see them on a firmer evidential basis before suggesting them in print.<br /><br />The common German ancestry is, I think, a slightly easier phenomenon to deal with. I would like to say at the outset that I do accept the idea of a national character (whether socially or genetically transmitted is irrelevant). I would say then that Nazism expressed something peculiarly congenial to (but not exclusive to) the German character. Even anti-Nazi prewar writers such as Roberts [6] admit that Hitler was immensely popular in Germany. He was no mere military dictator. As I speak good German I have also come to know many migrant Germans in Australia and their main complaint against Hitler seems to be only that he failed. They commonly speak well of the Nazi period. There are some migrant Germans who do, very cautiously, give support to the Australian Nazis. They are, however, very wary of being caught at it. They have, after all, experienced or observed the post-war "De-Nazification" of Germany. Australians who are merely of German descent or have lived here throughout the war years are under no such inhibitions. If their German characteristics have survived, they may well find Nazism very congenial.<br /><br />What then is this character that is so salient among Germans? Again I can only proceed here with extreme caution but I believe that a certain combination of energy with emotional flatness is in evidence. Perhaps one might even speak of an emotional starvation. Only strong emotional stimuli get through to them. The images here are of a high barrier that only a strong force can surmount or of a partly blocked channel. This would explain both the Nazi's relative insensitivity to suffering on the part of others and his appreciation of the supercharged emotion in one of Hitler's speeches. Most Australian Nazis cannot speak German and some of the speeches they have are not provided with translations. They therefore spend hours listening to speeches that they cannot understand the sense of. The emotion alone and the admiration for Hitler is sufficient. In fairness, however, it must be mentioned that most of the speeches are interspersed with marching songs of a very stirring character. What the Nazis do is thus not unlike what classical music fans do when listening to a cantata in a language other than their own. That a shortage of normal emotional stimulus might cause one to turn more to the canned emotion of music does thus fit the Nazi pattern well. The historical Nazism of' Germany too was very musically oriented. As well as the immense number of Nazi songs, performances of Wagner, Bruckner and Beethoven were almost a Nazi ritual. The immensely percussive and dramatic music of Carl Orff also dates from the Germany of this period. On one of the (American-produced) tapes that the local Nazis often listen to, the commentator says of the S.S. "Where ever these murderers went, they sang".<br /><br />To put the theory of Nazi (and to a lesser extent, German) personality given here in a larger framework, the account by Eysenck of his two major personality dimensions (neuroticism and extraversion) is of relevance [7]. One possible interpretation of Eysenck's account is that the neurotic is over-responsive and the introvert over-receptive. Conversely, the extravert is under-receptive or has a high threshold for stimulation. In the context of the present theory, this leads to the testable proposition that Germans, and particularly Nazis, should be especially extraverted. That I have not in fact tested out this hypothesis among my Nazi contacts is due to their considerable suspicion of anything like a psychological test. Even the best informed of them would see it, not inaccurately, as an attempt to "get at" them. Given, however, their love of parading in uniforms, this hypothesis does fit the facts extraordinarily well. It is also of interest to note that I have shown elsewhere [8] that authoritarianism correlates significantly with Social Adaptability. Further data from the same study show that the relationship with militarism is even higher. A subsequent unpublished study has shown that the Social Adaptability variable is highly related to Eysenck's Extraversion variable. Eysenck himself connects extraversion and authoritarian attitudes [9].<br /><br />Eysenck's theory of extraversion is basically physiological and, hence, presumably genetic. On <i>a-priori</i> grounds, however a theory of social transmission through child-rearing practices would be equally plausible. It should be pointed out that the postulated Nazi emotional non-liability is not at all a necessarily negative attribute. It may have great immediate survival value. It was without a doubt the stolid ferocity of the average German soldier that gave the <i>Wehrmacht</i> an effectiveness out of all proportion to its numbers. The traditional emotional lability of Italians and the effectiveness of the Italian army make an informative comparison. In the second world war we saw 80 million Germans take on 100 million English and Frenchmen plus 200 million Russians and 200 million North Americans, That they might have succeeded had Hitler taken one or two decisions differently is surely food for thought. Had, for instance, Hitler allowed Willy Messerschmitt to begin producing the <i>Sturmvogel</i> jet fighter when it was ready in 1942 or had he not ordered Goering to desist from attacks on R.A.F, bases and bomb London instead, the R.A.F. and hence the Royal Navy and hence Britain could not long have survived. A Fascist imperium such as that of ancient Rome might indeed have been re-enacted in our world. Fascist virtues are to be feared -- not scorned.<br /><br />One may ask how well my observations of antisemites square with the account of antisemitism given by Adorno et al [10] -- now a classic in the psychological literature on this subject. This account attributed various types of psychopathology to the Nazi personality. In a previous work [11] I have already identified crucial areas of difficulty with the Adorno et al account and my original interest in the research there reported was largely due to the poor fit that their account provided to what I knew of actual Nazis. I will therefore concentrate here not on dissecting the Adorno et al. account (other than my existing work to this effect, there is also the work collected in Christie and Jahoda [12]) but rather on the general question of psychopathology among the neo-Nazis I have described.<br /><br />There is for a start little evidence of psychosis, One exception to this is W.S. When I first met W.S. he was in Goodna mental asylum's maximum security ward for taking a pot-shot at a rabbi with a rifle. He clearly showed loss of reality contact, and even C.D. (in whose company I first met W.S.) subsequently would speak of "poor old W." W.S. was something of an associate of L.L. but all the other Nazis shied clear of him. As in the research of Elms [13], however, people such as W.S. are entirely exceptional. On the whole in fact (as should be apparent from my descriptions of X.Y. and others above) most Nazis have very good reality-contact -- marred perhaps by an excessive cynicism. At the worst they tend to expect falsely of others the same conspiratorial inclinations as their own. Their view of the world might, however, best be described as jaundiced rather than delusional. Their suspicion of Jews is, I feel, no different from the Radical's suspicion of "the establishment" or "the power elite". Their account of Jewry is a theory about the world -- not a distortion of their immediate perceptual and ideational processes.<br /><br />The question of neurotic tendency is harder to answer. Tauss [14] has shown that a substantial majority of the population may be said to have some form of neurotic disturbance. Against this I have noticed only the most minor manifestations of what might pass for neurotic symptoms among my Nazi contacts. They are in fact almost always concerned with things outside themselves. If they were not very interested in large-scale social phenomena they could not in fact be Nazis. They are definitely not the sort of people who would eagerly answer "yes" to questions such as: "Do you often get pains?" On the other hand their social adjustment is often superb. They would not make such good confidence men if they did not have an instinctive ease with the rules of interpersonal conduct.<br /><br />An entirely different question, however, is the question of psychopathy. This was once known as "moral imbecility" and is now coming increasingly to be called "sociopathy". It refers to a failure to have acquired inbuilt moral restraints. Its worst manifestation is criminality. Most Nazis are completely amoral. They do not believe there is any such thing as Right and Wrong and they feel themselves under no constraint to obey moral dictates. It is interesting context to this to note that academic writers on moral philosophy are also often very skeptical about the viability of a concept of discoverable or objective Right and Wrong. Debate on the reducibility of "is good" statements to "I like" statements is in fact a common exercise for undergraduate philosophy students. I also have before me at the moment an as yet unpublished paper by John Maze, lecturer in philosophical psychology at the University of Sydney, which contains a most sweeping and persuasive indictment of moral convictions as representing themselves a learned delusional system [15].<br /><br />For better or for worse, then, Nazis will only do what they see as being in their (perhaps long term) self-interest to do. Whether or not they are criminal depends then on the ratio of effort to reward and whether they think they can get away with it. In fact only three of the Nazis I have described above show criminal proclivities and I know of only one other such. Some of the young Nazis do from time to time get into trouble for possession of drugs but the harm they do to others by this is at most presumptive and certainly not intentional. Again in confirmation of the theory about Nazi emotional phlegmatism, Eysenck has long associated psychopathy with extraversion.<br /><br />To conclude this section then it can be said that the Nazi is perfectly normal psychologically [13], except for his high threshold to emotional stimuli. Once the threshold has been passed, however, the response may be of normal amplitude. His personal aggressiveness could also be attributed to the same characteristics. One of the normal deterrents to aggression is counter-aggression. With his high threshold, the Nazi would very likely be much less affected and consequently less deterred by this. Indeed one very extreme example of such a phenomenon is R.M. R. is very often a lone counter-demonstrator at Left-wing rallies but ridicule and physical assault seem to deter him not a whit. He still derives great satisfaction from the febrile rage his presence seems to evoke among the hated "peace creeps". He is, however, himself very strongly built physically and is of clearly below-normal intelligence. He is one of the young Nazis. This relative failure of social sanctions among Nazis also goes far to explain their failure to acquire reflexes of moral restraint.<br /><br />So much for what characterizes Nazis. I am also sometimes asked what it is that Nazis get up to. What do they do at their meetings and how do they endeavour to influence the course of events in the world about them? The answer is "very little". Their meetings -- most of which are informal -- are principally occasions for reinforcing one-another's values, of doing in fact what most Australians do in the bar of their local pub. They certainly have no programme of action or set of immediate goals. They sometimes stick up posters calculated to scandalize the Left rather than achieve any real results and in Sydney hold occasional meetings on the Domain. The anti-Apartheid movement has also stimulated them into more counter-demonstrating than was once their wont. Again the aim here is entirely to provoke the "Lefties". The counter-demonstrators are almost entirely drawn from the young Nazis. The ideological Nazis tend to be individualists who do their bit for their cause by infiltrating other community organizations and representing themselves as "ordinary decent citizens" outraged by the excesses of the Left. This is seldom, however, a concerted campaign.<br /><br />Like the extreme Left, the extreme Right is extremely divisive and it is almost impossible for them to get concerted action on any issue. Each has his own idea of what should be done. Since there are far fewer active Nazis than active Left-wingers, this divisiveness does often leave one Nazi alone to his particular point of view. Since Australia does seem to be a fundamentally conservative country, one man in the right place (particularly in the Liberal or Country parties) can have a lot of influence for all that and in general I think it would be true to say that Nazis are as successful in promoting their aims as are the Left. The difference is that the Nazis have to operate almost solely underground.<br /><br />What I have said above in using the terminology of "the extreme Right" must not be taken as implying that I believe the Nazi simply to be a conservative who is more extreme in his views. Shils [16] long ago pointed out that there are some things that Nazis and Communists have in common that in turn distinguish them from Liberals and Conservatives taken together. At its simplest Nazi and Communist are both totalitarian ideologies and Liberal and Conservative are both democratic ideologies. Attempts to find a psychological counterpart to this political division have been made by both Eysenck [17] and Rokeach [18]. Eysenck proposed a two dimensional schema where Fascists and Communists fell together at one end of a "toughmindedness" dimension while the democrats were both "tender-minded". Thus the Nazis were tough-minded conservatives and the Communists were tough-minded radicals. Critiques by Christie [19] and Rokeach & Hanley [20] have, however, substantially undermined Eysenck's position. Rokeach [18] replaces tough-mindedness with "dogmatism" as the variable common to both Fascists and Communists. Although useful, his account is however of a personality variable rather than an attitude dimension. It may also not be the only or even the main thing that the two have in common.<br /><br />The dimension that I would like to propose as a fundamental to the difference between Conservatives and Fascists (as also to the difference between Social Democrats and Communists, Maoists etc.) is the relatively obvious one of respect for the individual and belief in the primacy of individual liberties. If the conservative's commitment to these things be doubted, let it be remembered that it was this that Churchill was most eloquent on in his polemics against Nazism. Hitler and Churchill were certainly both, in some sense, Right-wing <b><font color="#ff0000">*</font></b> but on the question of respect for the individual the gulf was unbridgeable. Note that American opposition to Communism has also been in the name of freedom and "the free world". In the political debates in our society the Right have in general opposed the cry of "freedom" to the Left-wing cry of "peace". Note that freedom from regulation is also the ideological underpinning to the traditional conservative preference for <i>laissez faire</i> in economic policy.<br /><br />Parenthetically, I would also like to point out that the Nazi and the Conservative do not differ on ethnocentrism. Churchill was as proud of his "English-speaking people" (witness his great four-volume History) as Hitler was of his <i>Herrenvolk</i>. The difference was in the inferences for action that the two saw as warranted by this. Churchill saw a duty to help. Hitler saw a right to exterminate. I also attribute the Nazi fascination with religion that I observed to their conservative predilections. True Conservatives, I take it, are generally in some way or other religious believers<font color="#ff0000"> #</font>. Nazis thus have a feeling that they should be religious or at least feel that to be so is in some sense traditional and legitimate. Their complete amorality on the other hand makes the compulsions of religion fundamentally foreign to them, Thus their continual ambivalent trifling.<br /><br />Another question that I am sometimes asked is: "Where do the Nazis get their financial support?". There is in this question implied a conviction that people who "put their money where their mouth is" show an especially deep level of commitment. The question is as naive as asking: "Where do the Communists get their money from?", and I hope that the answer by this stage is as obvious. Most Nazis work for their living and they have few projects requiring funding. When they do the funds are often found from among their own ranks. On one occasion when A.S. set up an offset printing press, the funds were provided by one of the "oldfashioned Nazis" from his savings. For other specific needs however funding was in the past provided through certain Arab embassies and the Croatian community also provides support of various kinds. Some Australian Nazis who have travelled to Germany have also been regally entertained there by at least one sympathetic German industrialist.<br /><br />In conclusion let me reiterate that Nazis are not generally in any way bizarre people. If you met one unknowingly you could quite well like him. Nor are they in any sense bogeymen. They are very much a marginal minority. Even if crypto-Nazis do attain to some power in public life, the traditional respect for the individual in Anglo-Saxon societies should ensure that he could function only as a (perhaps extreme) Conservative. There is obviously some room for further research on the explanation advanced here for the phenomenon of Nazism. I, naturally, hope that it will prove a more viable one than those previous attempts rooted in Freudian theory.<br /><br />---------------------------<br /><br />Footnotes:<br /><br />1. See S. Bruyn, The Human Perspective in Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice Hall. 1966.<br /><br />2. E. T. Hall, The Silent Language. Garden City. Doubleday. 1959, p. 163.<br /><br />3. Arthur R. Jensen, "How much can we boost IQ. and Scholastic Achievement?" Harvard Educational Review, 1969, Vol. 39, pp. 1-123.<br /><br />4. <a href="http://jonjayray.com/ethatt.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) Ethnocentrism: Attitudes and behaviour. <i>Australian Quarterly</i>, 43, 89-97. </a> <br /> <br />5. For a more extensive treatment of non-Nazi antisemitism see <a href="http://jonjayray.com/semitism.html">Ray, J.J. (Unpublished) Semitism and antisemitism: Some<br />observations from Australia in support of the Stein/Glock hypothesis</a><br /><br />6. S. H. Roberts, The House that Hitler Built. Now York. Harper. 1938, pp. 41 and 359.<br /><br />7. H. J. Eysenck and S. Rachman, The Causes and Cures of Neurosis. San Diego, California. Knapp. 1965. Also H. J. Eysenck and S. B. G. Eysenck, Personality Structure and Measurement. London. Routledge. 1969.<br /><br />8. <a href="http://jonjayray.com/aa.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) An "Attitude to Authority" scale. <i>Australian Psychologist</i>, 6, 31-50. </a> <br /> <br />9. H. J. Eysenck, The Psychology of Politics. London. Routledge. 1954, p. 174.<br /><br />10. T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality. New York. Harper, 1950.<br /><br />11. <a href="http://jonjayray.com/cogsimp.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Is antisemitism a cognitive simplification? Some observations on Australian Neo-Nazis. <i>Jewish J. Sociology</i> 15, 207-213. </a> See also footnotes 4 and 8.<br /><br />12. R. Christie and Marie Jahoda, Studies in the Method and Scope of "The Authoritarian Personality". Glencoe, III. Free Press, 1954.<br /><br />13. A. C. Elms, "Those Little Old Ladies in Tennis Shoes are No Nuttier than Anyone Else, It Turns Out". Psychology Today, 1970, Vol. 3, pp. 27-59.<br /><br />14. W. Tauss, "A Note on the Prevalence of Mental Disturbance". Australian Journal of Psychology, 1967, Vol. 19, pp. 121-123.<br /><br />15. See Maze, J. (1973) The concept of attitude. Inquiry 16, 168-205.<br /><br />16. E. A. Shils, "Authoritarianism: Right and Left". In Christie and Jahoda's Studies as under footnote 12.<br /><br />17. H. J. Eysenck, The Psychology of Politics, as under footnote 9, p. 130.<br /><br />18. M. Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind. New York. Basic Books. 1960.<br /><br />19. R. Christie, "Some Abuses of Psychology". Psychological Bulletin, 1956, Vol. 53, pp. 439-451. <br /><br />20. M. Rokeach and C. Hanley, "Care and Carelessness in Psychology". Psychological Bulletin, 1956, Vol. 53, pp. 183-186.<br /><br /><b>POST-PUBLICATION ADDENDA</b><br /><br /><font size= "6" color="#ff0000">*</font>Principally in that both Churchill and Hitler were anticommunist. And Hitler did to some extent romanticize the past. No real-life political party is <i>purely</i> anything so the fact that Hitler's Nazism was a mixture of elements should come as no surprise. In economic policy and in disrespect for the individual he was clearly of the Left but his nationalism conflicts with the internationalism that most Marxists preach so has usually served to place Hitler on the Right in modern-day minds. In his day, however, Hitler was not alone in being both Leftist and nationalist. From Napoleon Bonaparte onward, there were many nationalist Leftists prior to Hitler. Even <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/engels.html">Engels</a> was a German nationalist, in fact. So in his day, Hitler was a mainstream Leftist, only to the Right of Communism. And even in modern times most Leftists are to the Right of Communism. See <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html">here</a> for a more detailed treatment of Hitler's ideology. Even his antisemitism was Leftist in his day.<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">#</font> This sentence was rather vague but was nonetheless still a little careless. I would revise it these days to say something even more qualified: "Christians were at the time usually conservative in at least some senses". Roman Catholics at the time in fact most usually voted for Australia's major Leftist political party (the Australian Labor Party) but were nonetheless respectful of the traditional order in many ways. And in a generally irreligious place like Australia, there are far more voters for conservative parties than there are regular church attenders of any kind. The depth of Australia's irreligiosity (and the consequent irrelevance of religion to Australian politics) is perhaps best shown by the fact that just about all all the politically outspoken Christian clergy in Australia of the year 2004 seemed to be opposed to the conservative government of John Howard -- which seems to have caused Mr Howard little concern and which certainly did not prevent him from having a notable election victory in that year.<br /><br />It may be of interest to some readers that the journal in which this article appeared -- <i>Patterns of Prejudice</i> -- was published by the Institute of Jewish Affairs, in London.JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-35860918832316138742008-04-01T06:08:00.001+11:302008-06-01T06:13:43.515+11:30<i>The Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 1984, 124, 237-246<br /><br /><b><font size="+1"> THE GREAT ANDROGYNY MYTH: Sex Roles and Mental Health in the Community at Large<br /> </font></b><br /><br /><br />JOHN J. RAY & F. H. LOVEJOY <br /><br /><i>School of Sociology, University of New South Wales, Australia</i><br /><br /><blockquote><b>ABSTRACT</b><br /><br /> Previous research on androgyny has focused heavily on college-student populations and has used measuring instruments open to several methodological criticisms. The present research used a random postal sample (N = 214) of an entire state and a modified form of a new sex role inventory by Antill, Cunningham, Russell, and Thompson (1981). The modifications were designed to control against acquiescent response bias. Only a minority of the items discriminated the male and female respondents, making scale construction difficult. Two 12-item inventories of male and female orientation were produced but without balancing against acquiescence. Femininity was found to correlate strongly with neuroticism, lack of assertiveness, and lack of self-esteem. Masculine orientation, however, also went with low self-esteem and low assertiveness. It was concluded that the best mental health was shown by undifferentiated respondents (those who tended to say that sexually polarized self-descriptions were inapplicable to them). Those who were androgynous were generally low scorers on the three indices of mental health.</blockquote><br /><br />IN A RECENT STUDY with the Bem sex role inventory (1974), Myers and Gonda (1982) found that the inventory was completely invalid in a most basic sense. When it was applied to groups of respondents other than college students, Myers and Gonda found that items said by Bem to measure general community stereotypes of what is desirable in, for instance, masculinity did not, in fact, correspond to general community stereotypes of what is desirable in masculinity. Previous work on androgyny based on college-student samples, then, becomes very suspect. Myers and Gonda also suggested that work with other scales constructed with student samples, such as the PAQ, would be similarly flawed (Beere, 1979; Spence & Helmreich, 1978).<br /><br />A very interesting sex role scale is, therefore, the recent inventory by Antill et al. This inventory was specifically constructed to avoid several of the methodological criticisms that have been aimed at the Bem inventory (e.g., Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979) but is of the same general type and format. That Antill et al. used at least some non-student raters during scale construction may also make their scales immune to the Myers and Gonda (1982) criticisms.<br /><br />One possible source of artifact that remains uncontrolled for in even the Antill scales, however, is acquiescent response bias. The masculine scale, for example, contains only pro-masculine items. There are no anti-masculine items. There is now extensive evidence that this can be a source of serious artifact (Altemeyer, 1981; Block, 1965; Christie, Havel, & Seidenberg, 1956; Martin, 1964; Ray, 1972a, 1972b, 1979a, 1983, 1984; Ray & Pratt, 1979; Rorer, 1965). Such scales may simply measure tendency to careless responding. Balancing the Antill scales to eliminate this problem, then, seemed necessary.<br /><br /><b>Method</b><br /><br />To enable balancing of the Antill scales, any item in either their Form A or Form B that could be replaced by an antonym was so replaced. This meant that 35 Antill items were administered unaltered, and 45 were replaced by their antonyms. Other scales administered were Eagly's (1967) revision of the Janis-Field self-esteem scale, the short Eysenck (1959, 1969) Neuroticism scale, a short Marlowe-Crowne (Greenwald & Satow, 1970) social desirability scale, and the Ray Directiveness scale (Ray, 1976, 1980, 1981; Ray & Lovejoy, 1983).<br /><br />The measurement of assertiveness, although of obvious importance in this research area, posed a difficulty in that there is no real agreement about what it is (Burkhart, Green, & Harrison, 1969; Law, Wilson, & Crassini, 1979; Lawrence, 1950). It was arbitrarily decided, therefore, to use the 14-item Ray (1980) Directiveness scale. This is generically a dominance scale and was originally written to measure dominance of an authoritarian kind. Its correlates, however, show that it is associated generally with good mental health (Ray, 1979b), and Ray (1981) has pointed out at some length that there are many points of contact in the authoritarianism and assertiveness literatures. Lorr and More (1980) have also identified directiveness as one of the four main subtypes of assertiveness, although they measure it with a scale of their own construction.<br /><br />All the above scales were included in a single questionnaire mailed out under a university letterhead to 950 people selected at random from the registered voter lists of the Australian state of New South Wales. Because voter registration in Australia is compulsory for all adult citizens and even for many non-citizens, the sampling frame was, thus, unusually comprehensive. A total of 214 (23%) usable replies were received-from 88 men and 126 women. Aside from the slight imbalance in the sex ratio, the distribution of demographic characteristics (age, occupation, and education) did not differ significantly from that observed in contemporaneous samples obtained in the Sydney metropolitan area (Sydney is Australia's largest city and accounts for 3 million of the state's 5 million people). Thus, although the response rate was low, it did not result in any noticeable biasing of the sample in terms of basic demographic criteria. The total sample may perhaps seem small, but with such a sample correlations explaining as little as 2% of the variance are significant.<br /><br /><b>Results</b><br /><br />In view of Antill et al. using some non-student raters in developing their scales, an unexpected and awkward finding (but one in line with what Myers & Gonda, 1982, predicted) was that most of the Antill items, whether originals or their antonyms, did not, in fact, discriminate men and women. Only 36 of 80 items separated men and women among the respondents by one fourth of a standard deviation or more. In other words, on many of the supposedly male-role and female-role items, both men and women were equally likely to get high (or low) scores. This may have some significance in and of itself; a scale of supposedly male or female sex roles, if it is to have any validity at all, however, should show men as, on the whole, following male sex roles and women as, on the whole, following female sex roles. Although there may be a great deal of role overlap in the community, it is the aim of sex role research to detect and study those roles that do not totally overlap. Furthermore, if men do not score especially high on an item believed to measure, for example, a male characteristic, the claim that it measures a male characteristic is arbitrary. Although it is true that the Bem inventory discriminates men and women at the total score level rather than at the item level, its approach, as has already been mentioned, is unsatisfactory.<br /><br />Under the circumstances, then, further scale development was confined to the 36 discriminating items mentioned above. Unfortunately, the reduced size of the available pool of items meant that the aim of producing balanced scales could not be realized. An attempt was made to construct two scales using equal proportions of original and reversed Antill items, but this restriction led to scales for masculinity and femininity with reliabilities (alpha) of only .40 and .30, respectively. More conventional one-way-worded scales, therefore, had to be resorted to if any sex role scales that would be applicable to the general population were to be produced. Acquiescence had to be controlled for by means other than balanced scales.<br /><br />Of the 36 discriminating items, 16 showed higher mean scores among men, and 20 showed higher mean scores among women. Some of these, however, correlated very little with one another so that two scales of only 12 items each were produced to measure masculinity and femininity. Their reliabilities (alpha) were .57 and .64, respectively. They did not correlate significantly with each other. Their correlations with other scales are presented in Table 1. Following the emphasis by Taylor and Hall (1982) on the separate study of masculinity and femininity, these results were the ones most heavily relied upon in assessing the implications of the present study. A high score on either male-polarized or female-polarized attributes was related to low self-esteem (high scores indicate low esteem) and low assertiveness. For neuroticism, however, subscribing to female roles was neurotic. Because neither the male nor the female scale correlated with social desirability, none of these results can be dismissed as due to social desirability.<br /><br />The items making up the general-population masculinity scale were as follows: formal, bashful, seldom outspoken, not fussy, crude, insensitive, hard-hearted, mild, inconsiderate, reserved, quiet, and "I seldom if ever cry." The items making up the general-population femininity scale were: need approval, nervous, lacking confidence, "I feel inferior," unathletic, dreamy, little or no mechanical ability, "I change my mind easily," gullible, religious, unwilling to take risks, and excitable in a major crisis.<br /><br />The simplest measure of androgyny would seem to be a high summed score on the masculinity and femininity scales, obtained only by scoring high on both male and female attributes, which is what generally seems to be meant by psychological androgyny. People with a low summed score would be undifferentiated, and people with a conventional one-role predominance would get middling scores. Such a measure was, therefore, calculated, and high scores on androgyny on this measure were found to be unassertive (r = -.415, p < .001), neurotic (r = .334, p < .001), and of low self-esteem (r = .594, p < .001). These are high correlations in comparison with much that is reported in the psychological literature and are uniformly unfavorable to the feminist hypothesis as enunciated by Bem (1974) and her successors.<br /><br />In a third analysis of the data, all subjects were divided into low and high scorers on each of the two scales. High and low were defined as above and below the scale <i>mean</i>, respectively, rather than as above and below the scale <i>median</i>. Although use of the median is more usual, it was felt that dividing respondents into exactly equal groups was too artificial because there might have been an empirical tendency in the sample toward a greater proportion of, for example, male-oriented persons than female-oriented persons. Use of the mean gave the data some influence on the frequencies in the various categories, as can be seen from the variable ns in the different subgroups of Table 2. This table gives the means of the three mental health measures for each of the four possible combinations of dichotomized sex role scores. The conclusions to be drawn from Table 2 do not seem to differ markedly from those already drawn on the basis of the previous analyses. Undifferentiated respondents seem to have the best mental health and androgynous respondents, the worst.<br /><br />The method adopted to control for acquiescent response bias derives from Martin's (1964) suggestion that an independent measure of acquiescence can be obtained by summing scores on a balanced scale without doing any reverse scoring. Such a score was obtained from the Directiveness scale for each respondent and correlated with scores on the other (substantively scored) scales. Acquiescence was found to correlate .36 (p < .001) with scores on the Eysenck Neuroticism scale, .37 (p < .001) with scores on the self-esteem inventory, .14 (p < .05) with scores on the Masculinity scale, and .44 (p < .001) with scores on the Femininity scale. This implies that there was a pervasive influence of acquiescence throughout the battery of scales.<br /><br />Partial correlations were carried out to remove the effect of acquiescence from the correlations between the sex role scales and the other personality scales. The initial relationships were, however, so strong that this did not affect any correlation substantially or alter its level of significance. Because the Directiveness scale was balanced against acquiescence, acquiescence could not be a common influence underlying the correlations between assertiveness and sex role.<br /><br />Finally, of the 35 Antill items used unaltered for the purposes of the present survey, only 9 fell into the group of 36 valid items found to be usable for scale construction. Hence, the poor validity observed in the body of items available for the present analyses was not due to alterations in the Antill items. In fact, the altered items had a higher success rate in differentiating men and women.<br /><br /><br /><br />TABLE 1<br /><br />Correlates of the Two Sex Role Scales of Masculinity and Femininity<br /><br />......................................Total sample (N = 214)<br /><br />Variable.......................Masculine...Feminine<br /><br />Directiveness................ -.28.............. -.34 <br />Neuroticism................... -.04............... .49<br />Social Desirability.......... .10............... -.08<br />Self-esteem (a)............... .24................ .62<br />Sex................................ -.45................ .35<br /> <br />(a) A high score on the self-esteem scale indicates low self-esteem.<br /><br />TABLE 1 (Continued)<br /><br />........................................Men only (n = 88)..................Women only (n = 126)<br />........................................Masculine....Feminine............Masculine....Feminine<br /><br />Directiveness................. -.04................. -.45..................... -.53.............. -.27<br />Neuroticism.................... .11.................. .42..................... .09................ .45<br />Social Desirability.......... -.03................ -.04...................... .19............... -.10<br />Self-esteem (a)................ .37................ .56....................... .46................ .60<br /> <br /><br /><br />TABLE 2<br /><br />The Means on Three Mental Health Measures for all Possible Combinations of Scores on the Sex Role Scales<br /><br />......................................................Directiveness...............Self-esteem (b)<br /><br />Orientation (a)...............N..............M.............SD.................M................SD<br /><br />Males <br /><br />Masculine.....................40...........29.80.........6.39...............41.70..........8.02<br />Feminine........................5...........21.40.........3.44...............48.80...........9.06<br />Androgynous.................21..........26.61..........7.65...............49.95..........9.37<br />Undifferentiated...........22..........30.09..........5.13..............38.54...........6.28<br />F ratio...........................................3.58*...............................8.26**<br /><br />Females <br /><br />Masculine.......................7...........31.28.........5.99...............41.14...........9.03<br />Feminine.......................49...........28.44.........7.48...............49.49.........10.47<br />Androgynous.................33...........23.93.........5.28...............57.93.........10.60<br />Undifferentiated..........37............30.37.........6.78...............43.18...........7.83<br />F ratio...........................................6.07*..............................14.70**<br /><br />Grand mean, males.......88...........28.63.........6.70...............43.28...........9.15 <br />Grand mean, females..126...........27.98.........7.15...............49.38...........11.35<br />t ratio............................................ .66.................................4.15**<br /> <br />(a) Masculine = high M, low F; feminine = low M, high F; androgynous = high M, high F; undifferentiated = low M, low F. (b) A high score on the self-esteem scale indicates low self-esteem.<br /><br />*p < .05. **p < .01.<br /><br />TABLE 2 (Continued)<br /><br />.....................................................Neuroticism<br /><br />Orientation (a)...............N..............M.............SD<br /><br />Males <br /><br />Masculine.....................40............10.42........4.04<br />Feminine........................5............12.80.........3.65<br />Androgynous.................21...........13.04.........4.01<br />Undifferentiated...........22...........10.54........3.50<br />F ratio............................................2.48<br /><br />Females <br /><br />Masculine.......................7............12.28........2.65<br />Feminine.......................49............14.44........3.42<br />Androgynous.................33............13.93........3.24<br />Undifferentiated..........37............ 11.48.........3.50 <br />F ratio...........................................5.91**<br /><br />Grand mean, males.......88........... 11.21........4.05<br />Grand mean, females..126........... 13.31........3.60<br />t ratio............................................4.13**<br /> <br /> <br /><br /><b>Discussion</b><br /><br />The present paper has been, in a sense, a deliberate attempt to reinvent the wheel. Very little of what has become accepted practice in this research area was taken on faith. If the various relationships reported in the existing literature were accurate reflections of reality, the attempt at thoroughly independent replication should have succeeded. It did not. The conclusions could hardly be more different. The usual findings to date have been that either androgyny or masculinity confer mental health advantages (Taylor & Hall, 1982). The present work appears to be the first occasion on which undifferentiated respondents have been shown to be most advantaged in mental health terms.<br /><br />The present findings, however, fit in very well with those of Myers and Gonda (1982) that turning to non-college respondents reveals as totally invalid items carefully checked for validity on college students. Community stereotypes about sex roles turn out to be college student stereotypes only. Given the limited importance of the college student population in the world at large, existing work may at best be trivial.<br /><br />Even an interpretation of the existing findings as reflecting reality among college students only, however, may be unduly expansive. To do so would leave us to explain why the situation is not only different among college students from the world at large but is, in fact, opposite in important senses. Because it seems rather improbable that reality is so perversely arranged, we must seriously consider another possibility -- the Rosenthal (experimenter-expectation) effect. It seems that feminist views are widely respected in academe, even to the point of being normative. Could it not be, therefore, that our students have in previous research simply given back to us what they thought we expected to hear? The possibility of experimenter expectations having affected responses in the present study, on the other hand, appear to be small. Mailed questionnaires seem to be thoroughly impersonal means of data gathering.<br /><br />In conclusion, then, it appears that in the population at large it is maladaptive to see oneself in terms defined by sex roles. It is maladaptive to see oneself in ways that are either characteristically male or characteristically female. <i>A fortiori</i>, it must be even more maladaptive to see oneself as androgynous as that word is generally now used in the psychological literature. The finding that undifferentiated personalities are most advantageous is, however, still quite congenial to feminist theory. This is because the finding conflicts with the traditional point of view that had begun to receive some support in recent research (Antill & Cunningham, 1980; Taylor & Hall, 1982), that is, the view that it is male sex roles that are most adaptive.<br /><br /><b>REFERENCES</b><br /><br />Altemeyer, R. A. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.<br /><br />Antill, J. K., & Cunningham, J. D. (1980). The relationship of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny to self-esteem. Australian Journal of Psychology, 32, 195-207. Antill, <br /><br />J. K., Cunningham, J. D., Russell, G., & Thompson, N. L. (1981). An Australian sex-role scale. Australian Journal of Psychology, 33, 169-183.<br /><br />Beere, C. A. (1979). Women and women's issues: A handbook of tests and measures. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.<br /><br />Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.<br /><br />Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets. New York: Appleton Century. <br /><br />Burkhart, B. R., Green, S. B., & Harrison, W. M. (1969). Measurement of assertive behavior: Construct and predictive validity of self-report, role-playing and in-vivo measures. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 376-383.<br /><br />Christie, R., Havel, J., & Seidenberg, B. (1956). Is the F scale irreversible? Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 56, 141-158.<br /><br />Eagly, A. H. (1967). Involvement as a determinant of response to favourable and unfavourable information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 7(3, Whole No. 643).<br /><br />Eysenck, H. J. (1959). Manual of the Maudsley Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press.<br /><br />Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1969). Personality structure and measurement. London: Routledge.<br /><br />Greenwald, H. J., & Satow, Y. (1970). A short social desirability scale. Psychology Reports, 27, 131-135.<br /><br />Law, H. G., Wilson, E., & Crassini, B. (1979). A principal components analysis of the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 47, 631-633.<br /><br />Myers, A. M., & Gonda, G. (1982). Empirical validation of the Bem sex-role inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 304-318.<br /><br />Lawrence, P. S. (1970). The assessment and modification of assertive behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 173-971B.<br /><br />Lorr, M., & More, W. W. (1980). Four dimensions of assertiveness. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2, 127-138.<br /><br />Martin, J. (1964). Acquiescence: Measurement and theory. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3, 216-225.<br /><br />Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem sex-role inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 996-1016.<br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/consirr.html"> Ray, J.J. (1972a) Are conservatism scales irreversible? <i>British J. Social & Clinical Psychology</i> 11, 346-352. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/newbf.html">Ray, J.J. (1972b) A new balanced F scale -- And its relation to social class. <i>Australian Psychologist</i> 7, 155-166. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/dir.html">Ray, J.J. (1976) Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes? <i>Human Relations</i>, 29, 307-325. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/notmyth.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Is the acquiescent response style not so mythical after all? Some results from a successful balanced F scale. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 43, 638-643. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/solidcit.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) The authoritarian as measured by a personality scale Solid citizen or misfit? <i>J. Clinical Psychology</i> 35, 744-746. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/authcal.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarianism in California 30 years later -- with some cross-cultural comparisons. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 111, 9-17. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/audomass.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Authoritarianism, dominance and assertiveness. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 45, 390-397. <br /> </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/machval.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Defective validity of the Machiavellianism scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 291-292. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/reviving.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 121, 81-96. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/behvalau.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1983). The behavioral validity of some recent measures of authoritarianism. <i> Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 120, 91-99. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/raypratt.html">Ray, J.J. & Pratt, G.J. (1979) Is the influence of acquiescence on "catchphrase" type attitude scale items not so mythical after all? <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 31, 73-78. </a><br /><br />Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response style myth. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 129-156.<br /><br />Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions. Austin, TX: University of Austin Press.<br /><br />Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347-366.JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-81766707937077075682008-03-01T06:24:00.000+11:302008-06-01T06:24:28.607+11:30<font size="+1"> <b>CRITIQUES AND REJOINDERS BY JOHN J. RAY: </font><br /><br /><i>Although the great majority of articles that I had published in academic journals were reports of my own research, I was also on many occasions moved to point out deficits in the published work of other social scientists. Since journal editors in general greatly dislike publishing critiques (it shows their own review process as inadequate) the fact that I got so many published shows how gross were the errors I pointed to. The two commonest faults by far (usually in the same article) were to ignore most of the previous literature on the subject discussed and to fit almost any finding, no matter how adverse, to a Leftist view of the world</i></b> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/gul.html">Gul, F.A. & Ray, J.J. (1989) Pitfalls in using the F scale to measure authoritarianism in accounting research. <i>Behavioral Research in Accounting</i> 1, 182-192. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lynnlet.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) Correspondence: Regarding the Lynn n-Ach test. <i>Bulletin British Psychological Society</i>, 24, 352. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/berry.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) Australians authoritarian? A critique of J.W. Berry. <i>Politics</i> 6, 92. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/jonesrep.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Subjective class -- A reply to Jones. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 8 (Feb.), 18. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/militrej.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Militarism and psychopathology: A reply to Eckhardt & Newcombe <i>J. Conflict Resolution</i>, 16, 357-362. <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/factora.html">Ray, J.J. (1975) Some dimensions of factor analysis that are not worth finding out: A reply to Gow. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 11(1), 29. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/feather.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Sample homogeneity, response skewness and acquiescence: A reply to Feather. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 33, 41-46. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/bloom.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Machiavellianism, forced-choice scales and the validity of the F scale: A rejoinder to Bloom. <I> J. Clinical Psychology</I> 38, 779-782. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/callan.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Attitudes towards immigrants in Australia: A comment on Callan. <I> International Migration Review</I> 18, 373-374. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/wheel1.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Reinventing the wheel: Winkler, Kanouse Ware on acquiescent response set. <I> J. Applied Psychology</I> 69, 353-355. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/wheel2.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) A further comment on the Winkler, Kanouse Ware method of controlling for acquiescent response bias. <I> J. Applied Psychology</I> 69, 359. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/duck.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) Directiveness and authoritarianism: A rejoinder to Duckitt. <i>South African Journal of Psychology</i> 14, 64.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/confus.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Confusions in defining A-B personality type: A rejoinder to Jenkins & Zyzanski. <i>British Journal of Medical Psychology</i> 57, 385 </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/billig.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Racism and rationality: A reply to Billig. <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 8, 441-443. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/defamed.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Letter to the editor regarding Carlson's review of <i>"Authoritarianism across cultures"</i>. <I> Political Psychology</I>, 7, 395-396. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psychabs.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) The inadequacy of "Psychological Abstracts" <I> Bulletin of the British Psychological Society</I> 39, 184-185. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/brandray.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Ray replies to Brand. pp 176-178 in: S. Modgil & C.M. Modgil (Eds.) <I> Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy</I> Lewes, E. Sussex, U.K.: Falmer. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/shost2.html"> Ray, J.J. (1986) Perils in clinical use of the Shostrom POI: A reply to Hattie. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 7, 591. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/eisler.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Conservatism and attitude to love: An empirical rebuttal of Eisler & Loye. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 8, 731-732. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/alt87.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Special review of "Right-wing authoritarianism" by R.A. Altemeyer. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 8, 771-772. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/slom.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Complex jobs and complex mental processes: A comment on Miller, Slomczynski Kohn. <I> American J. Sociology</I> 93, 441-442. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/maier.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Intolerance of ambiguity among psychologists: A comment on Maier & Lavrakas. <I> Sex Roles</I> 16, 559-562. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/kelley.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Sexual liberation, old-fashioned outlook, and authoritarianism: A comment on Kelley. <I> J. Sex Research</I> 24, 385-387. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/yarn.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) A-B personality type and dominance: A comment on Yarnold & Grimm. <I> J. Research in Personality</I> 22, 252-253. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/fantasy.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Cognitive style as a predictor of authoritarianism, conservatism and racism: A fantasy in many movements. <i>Political Psychology</i> 9, 303-308. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/smeds.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Semantic overlap between scale items may be a good thing: Reply to Smedslund. <I> Scandinavian J. Psychology</I> 29, 145-147. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/kirkc.html">Ray, J.J. (1989) Hypertension and personality: A comment on Thomas & Kirkcaldy. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 10, 1101. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/homebirt.html">Ray, J.J. (1989) Homebirth and IQ. <i>The Psychologist</i>, 2, 443. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/alt.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Book Review: <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i>, 42, 87-111. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/authrig.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarian behavior and political orientation: A comment on Rigby. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 54, 419-422. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/gross.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) Racist extremism and normal prejudice: A comment on Grossarth-Maticek, Eysenck & Vetter. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 11, 647-648. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/byrne.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarianism as a cause of heart disease: Reply to Byrne, Reinhart & Heaven. <I> British J. Medical Psychology</I>, 63, 287-288. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/sidrej.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Politics and cognitive style: A rejoinder to Sidanius and Ward. <i>Political Psychology</i> 11, 441-444. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/altenemy.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Letter to the editor about Altemeyer's <i>Enemies of Freedom</i>. In: <i>Canadian Psychology</i>, 31, 392-393. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/altem.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Book Review: <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 11, 763-764. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/duckitt.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct: Comment. <i>Political Psychology</i>, 11, 629-632. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/meloen.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarianism and political racism: A comment on Meloen, Hagendoorn, Raaijmakers and Visser. <i>Political Psychology</i> 11, 815-817. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/rump2.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Intolerance of ambiguity and authoritarianism: A comment on Rump. <I> Psychology</I>, 27 (4), 71-72. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/witt.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) AIDS, authoritarianism and scientific ignorance -- A comment on Witt. <I> J. Applied Social Psychology</I>, 20, 1453-1455.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/howitt.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) "Racism in a British journal" <i>The Psychologist</i>, 4(1), 18-19 </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/middend.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) The workers are not authoritarian: Rejoinder to Middendorp & Meloen. <I> European J. Political Research</I>, 20, 209-212. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/petwilko.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) Are conservatives despairing? Rejoinder to Petersen & Wilkinson. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 12(5), 501.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/scheep.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) Authoritarianism is a dodo: Comment on Scheepers, Felling & Peters. <I> European Sociological Review</I>, 7, 73-75. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/ivancev.html">Ray, J.J. (1991) If 'A-B' does not predict heart disease, why bother with it? A comment on Ivancevich & Matteson. <I> British J. Medical Psychology</I>, 64, 85-90. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/safjp.html">Ray, J.J.(1992) Defining authoritarianism: A comment on Duckitt & Foster, Altemeyer & Kamenshikov and Meloen. <I> South African J. Psychology</I>, 22, 178-179. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/pestell.html"> Ray, J.J. (1992) Authoritarianism among medical students: Comment on Pestell. <I> Australian & New Zealand J. Psychiatry</I>, 26, 132. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/eckhardt.html">Ray, J.J. (1993) Do authoritarian and conservative attitudes have personality and behavioral implications? Comment on Eckhardt. <I> Political Psychology</I>, ? (UQ collection defective) </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/sracism.html"> Ray, J.J. (1994) Are subtle racists authoritarian? Comment on Duckitt. <I> South African J. Psychology</I>, 24(4), 231-232.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lipson.html">Ray, J.J. (1996) Review of <i>"The ethical crises of civilization"</i> by Leslie Lipson. <I> Political Psychology</I>, 17(3), 587-589. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/meloen97.html"> Ray, J.J. (1998) On not seeing what you do not want to see: Meloen, Van Der Linden & De Witte on authoritarianism. <I> Political Psychology</I>, Vol. 19, Issue 4, 659-661. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/abozek.html">Ray, J.J. & Bozek, R.S. (1980) Dissecting the A-B personality type. <i>British Journal of Medical Psychology</i> 53, 181-186. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/androg.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1984) The great androgyny myth: Sex roles and mental health in the community at large. <I>J. Social Psychology</i> 124, 237-246. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/milbrath.html">Ray, J.J. & Najman, J.M. (1988) Capitalism and compassion: A test of Milbrath's environmental theory. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 9, 431-433. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/cattell.html">Ray, J.J. & Singh, Satvir (1984) The Cattellian method of predicting child personality. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 123,3-8. <br /></a><br /><br /><br /><b>CRITIQUES NOT PUBLISHED IN ACADEMIC JOURNALS</b><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/larsen.html">larsen.html</a>ATTITUDES TO SOCIAL AUTHORITIES AND CHILD-REARING: Comment on Shively & Larsen<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/gulreply.html">gulreply.html</a>AUTHORITARIANISM, ACCOUNTING AND THE F SCALE: REPLY<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/boyle.html">boyle.html</a>CAN THERE BE TOO MUCH INTERNAL CONSISTENCY IN A SCALE? Rejoinder to Boyle<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/mchosk.html">mchosk.html</a>CARING CONSERVATIVES: A COMMENT ON McHOSKEY <br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/maticek.html">maticek.html</a>COMMENT on Gallacher's criticism of Eysenck & Grossarth-Maticek<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/witt2.html">witt2.html</a>COMPANIONSHIP IN FOLLY may be a comfort but it is still folly: Reply to Witt<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/eisensir.html">eisendir.html</a>CONSERVATISM AND RACISM: A comment on Eisenman & Sirgo<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/straub.html">straub.html</a>DOING RESEARCH TO PROVE THE OBVIOUS: Comment on "A-B" and Straub et al.<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/scots.html">scots.html</a>DO STEREOTYPES MATTER?<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/mercer.html">mercer.html</a>DRUG ABUSE, authoritarianism and the magical power of statistical significance<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/mogh.html">mogh.html</a>HUMAN RIGHTS, right-wing authoritarianism and conservatism: Comment on Moghaddam & Vuksanovic<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/erotto.html">erotto.html</a>IS EROTOPHOBIA old-fashioned? A comment on Fisher et al.<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/dorn.html">dorn.html</a>MORAL JUDGMENT and authoritarianism: A comment on Van ijzendorn<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/bias.html">bias.html</a>NON-SCIENTIFIC BIAS IN THE EDITING OF <i>THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY</i> <br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/burt.html">burt.html</a> PERCEPTION IS JUST ANOTHER RESPONSE <br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/play.html">play.html</a>PSYCHOLOGISTS ONLY PLAY AT SCIENCE<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/skeptic.html">skeptic.html</a>SELF-DECEPTION among psychologists<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/sdo.html">sdo.html</a>SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION: THEORY OR ARTIFACT? <br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/forsgren.html">forsgren.html</a>SOME PERILS OF MAIL SURVEYS: Comment on Forsgren<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/louw.html">louw.html</a>THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY IN SOUTH AFRICA: A comment on Louw-Potgieter<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/vanhiel.html">vanhiel.html</a>VAN HIEL'S PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSERVATISM</a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/faids.html">faids.html</a>WARINESS OF AIDS VICTIMS: Authoritarian or old-fashioned? A comment on Witt and on Larsen, Elder, Bader & Dougard<br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/krugnut.html">Kruglanski's "Need for Closure" concept</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lakoff.html">Deconstructing <i>Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think</i> by George Lakoff </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/unschol.html">Academic fakers: Comment on the "Berkeley" study of conservatism by Jost et al.</a>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-83582386145012728932007-10-24T17:24:00.003+11:302018-03-26T09:52:39.812+11:00<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;"> ABRAHAM LINCOLN: FASCIST </span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>"You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce... and prohibit any further publication thereof... you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison... the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers"</i><br />
<br />
Order from Abraham Lincoln to General John Dix, May 18, 1864.<br />
<br />
By John Ray, M.A.; Ph.D.(2010 update)<br />
<br />
I am about as pro-American as it is reasonable for any non-American to be. If you want to know why read <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030207053238/http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000017.html">here</a>. All friendships have areas of disagreement however so let me say here that it always saddens me to note the respect that most Americans still give to Abraham Lincoln. <br />
<br />
Although Lincoln is arguably America's most famous Republican President (though the Republican party was known as the National Union Party at that juncture), I see Lincoln's "idealism" as akin to the "idealism" of the <a href="amerfasc.html">20th. Century Left</a> (both of the Fascist and Communist varieties) -- with mass slaughter as the result in both cases. 600,000 young men or thereabouts died in the American Civil War. <br />
<br />
And if a civil war was necessary to free the slaves, can someone explain to me how the British abolished slavery 30 years BEFORE Lincoln did and managed to do so without killing ANYONE? And Chile freed its black slaves in 1823; Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and Peru in 1854 -- all long before Lincoln's emancipation declaration of 1863. Can the Southerners have been such evil boneheads that they would not have followed suit in time without the need for a war?<br />
<br />
But there is absolutely no doubt that Lincoln knew how to talk the talk. It is hard not to be persuaded by him when one reads his speeches. He knew how to appeal to conservative values in particular. I recently read his <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503">second State of the Union address</a> and one sentence in it spoke persuasively to the conservative in me across all the gulf of time since it was uttered: <br />
<br />
<i>In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve.</i> <br />
<br />
Just that one sentence almost persuaded me that the war was a reasonable and noble one. I had to remind myself that this was also the man who introduced conscription and accelerated the process of taking land from the Indians. No "freedom" for the conscripts or the Indians, it appears! The typical inconsistency of the political "idealist". And, perhaps even more inconsistently, Lincoln in the same address also made clear that he favoured persuading any freed slaves to emigrate rather than have them remain in the USA.<br />
<br />
Like all political "idealists" (Hitler was a <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/peacetalk.html">great preacher of "peace"</a>, for instance), it was Lincoln's deeds rather than his words which revealed what he really was. Note <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16223">the following summary</a> of how he dealt with dissent -- surely one of the the strongest differentiators between the Fascist and the democrat:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
"In 1862, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own authority as a way of dealing with the Peace Democrats, better known as copperheads. The copperheads were advocating letting the Confederacy go its own way, rather than going to war. They actively interfered with enlistments in the Union army. Many copperheads were congressmen and other elected officials. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton decreed that anyone "engaged, by act, speech, or writing, in discouraging volunteer enlistments, or in any way giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or in any other disloyal practice against the United States" was subject to arrest and trial "before a military commission." Some 13,000 people were arrested and held without charges as a result of Lincoln and Stanton's edicts, and they were prosecuted by military tribunals instead of civil courts.....<br />
<br />
One famous arrest was that of a former Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, who opposed the emancipation of Negroes and argued that the war was needless. Vallandigham spoke out against the draft law without going so far as to encourage young men to disobey it. His hyperbolic speeches may sound familiar to today's Americans. "The men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before," cried Vallandigham. He predicted a bleak future for the nation: "I see nothing before us but universal political and social revolution, anarchy and bloodshed, compared with which the Reign of Terror in France was a merciful visitation." For these and other statements, Vallandigham was arrested, locked in military barracks, held incommunicado without charges, and brought before eight army officers who put him on trial for making disloyal speeches against the government."</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
So what the hell went on with Lincoln and his supporters in the North? The essential background to know is that slavery was already waning when the war began in 1861 (<i>importation</i> of slaves was abolished in 1808) and that the North could have slowly BOUGHT the freedom of the slaves for a fraction of what the war cost. Lincoln proposed exactly that in his second State of the Union address but by that time the dastardly Southerners had fired on Fort Sumter etc. and it was all far too late.<br />
<br />
The most charitable explananation I can give for the folly of the war is that what went on was simply the impatience that we know so well from the "revolutionary" idealists of the Left. Such idealists want their brave new world NOW. They are not prepared to wait decades for it to be achieved by slow and peaceful evolution -- as the liberation of the slaves certainly would have been achieved in time.<br />
<br />
But what a terrible price America paid for that impatience! And that was not the first time that Yankee impatience with slow constitutional development and change cost them dearly. Their revolutionary war against Britain shed much blood too. By contrast, Australia became independent of Britain without a single drop of blood being spilt! Australians just had to wait longer, that is all.<br />
<br />
And to add insult to injury, Lincoln, in his famous "Gettysburg address", justified the war not by referring to the liberation of the slaves but by saying that it was fought in defence of government "by the people" -- when he had just DENIED self-government to the South! I concede that Lincoln may have managed to believe the idealistic nonsense that he uttered at that time but it was nonetheless just as much doubletalk as anything the Communists or Fascists ever said. But the Communists and Fascists lost out eventually and Lincoln won so the Communists and Fascists are now (rightly) a laughing stock and Lincoln is accepted as a great man.<br />
<br />
But to me the horror of those 600,000 unnecessary deaths on his hands makes Lincoln little better than Lenin or Hitler.<br />
<br />
And note again: I am not an American Southerner speaking out of some sort of inherited Confederate sympathies. I have no American connections at all. So I speak entirely as a disinterested (though not uninterested) observer.<br />
<br />
So why would I as an Australian think that I have anything new, original or useful to say on a subject that has already spawned innumerable books and articles? And the very title of this article will of course seem like a colossal absurdity to almost every American outside the South (and indeed to some in the South).<br />
<br />
What I say is in fact fairly mainstream among American Libertarians (See e.g. <a href="http://www.mises.org/store/Real-Lincoln-The-P172C0.aspx">here</a>) but I just want to make one simple additional point. I have nothing to add to what they tell us about Lincoln at all. My one small contribution is to note that those things that they tell us about Lincoln are in fact very reminiscent of 20th century Fascism. And I come to that conclusion as someone whose main historical specialization is in fact 20th century Fascism. See my three major articles on that <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html">here</a> and <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html">here</a> and <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/amerfasc.html">here</a>. It is sometimes said that when you have got a hammer, everything looks like a nail so, to switch the metaphor, I could be seeing Fascism under every bed. I think in fact, however, that the connection I make has originality only insofar as 20th century Fascism is still to this day widely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is an obvious connection when you understand what Fascism really was. Most people equate Fascism with racism so the fact that Lincoln seems in some sense to have been an anti-racist definitely blurs the picture.<br />
<br />
So let us at this point get straight a few facts about Lincoln and his war -- from an article by the editor of America's "Patriot Post" (A Tennessean):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
"The Founding Fathers established the Constitutional Union as a voluntary agreement among the several states, subordinate to The Declaration of Independence, which never mentions the nation as a singular entity, but instead repeatedly references the states as sovereign bodies, unanimously asserting their independence. The states, in ratifying the Constitution, established the federal government as their agent -- not the other way around. At Virginia's ratification convention, for example, the delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression." Were this not true, the federal government would not have been established as federal, but instead a national, unitary and unlimited authority. Notably, and in large measure as a consequence of the War between the States, the "federal" government has grown to become an all-but unitary and unlimited authority. <br />
<br />
Our Founders upheld the individual sovereignty of the states, even though the wisdom of secessionist movements was a source of great tension and debate from the day the Constitution was ratified. Tellingly, Hamilton, the greatest proponent of centralization among the Founders, noted in Federalist No. 81 that waging war against the states "would be altogether forced and unwarranted." At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton argued, "Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?" <br />
<br />
Yet Lincoln threatened the use of force to maintain the Union in his First Inaugural Address, saying, "In [preserving the Union] there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority." Lincoln may have preserved the Union geographically (at great cost to the Constitution), but politically and philosophically, the concept of a voluntary union was shredded by sword, rifle and cannon.<br />
<br />
In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln employed lofty rhetoric to conceal the truth of our nation's most costly war -- a war that resulted in the deaths of some 600,000 Americans and the severe disabling of over 400,000 more. He claimed to be fighting so that "this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." In fact, Lincoln was ensuring just the opposite by waging an appallingly bloody war while ignoring calls for negotiated peace. It was the "rebels" who were intent on self-government, and it was Lincoln who rejected their right to that end, despite our Founders' clear admonition to the contrary in the Declaration....<br />
<br />
The second of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was ending the abomination of slavery. It has come to be understood that this calamitous war was the necessary cost of ridding our nation of slavery, <span style="color: red;">yet no other nation at the time required war to do so</span>. In fact, the cost of the war itself would have more than paid for compensatory emancipation, giving each slave 40 acres and a mule -- all without bloodshed....<br />
<br />
Little reported and lightly regarded in our history books is the way Lincoln abused and discarded the individual rights of Northern citizens. Tens of thousands of citizens were imprisoned (most without trial) for political opposition, or "treason," and their property confiscated. Habeas corpus and, in effect, the entire Bill of Rights were suspended. In fact, the Declaration of Independence details remarkably similar abuses by King George to those committed by Lincoln.<br />
<br />
More <a href="http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2006/02/17/the-lincoln-legacy-revisited">here</a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
That is actually a pretty good record for a Fascist but I am sure that most readers will still see the title I have put on this article as absurd. Lincoln was a Holy Joe, not a Fascist. He was a great idealist.<br />
<br />
That objection however shows an unawareness of the fact that Hitler and Mussolini were great speechifiers in their day too. Lincoln could undoubtedly talk the talk for his day but so can most Fascists. Hitler was literally loved by many Germans and it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who called Mussolini "that admirable Italian gentleman". The talk used will vary with the times but the appearance of being wise and idealistic is a common trait of Fascists. I give details in my articles on Hitler and Mussolini (<a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html">here</a> and <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html">here</a>) that show how very popular and impressive both men were in their day. <br />
<br />
But when all the talk is done, Lincoln was as warmongering a power centralizer and denier of civil rights as any later Fascist. And there were of course in his day no limits on how long a President could stay in office. Who knows how long he would have stayed in power had he not been shot?<br />
<br />
And the rhetorical triumphs of Lincoln in fact leave Goebbels for dead. His famous Gettysburg address would have to be one of the most mendacious political speeches of all time but it is still revered today. In good fascist style, he asserted that he was doing exactly what he was not. He said he was defending self-government when that was exactly what he had waded through blood to deny to the South. The idealism still resonates but the ideals are lightyears from what Lincoln actually did. I am sure Goebbels was green with envy at such a successful "big lie".<br />
<br />
And as far as racism goes, Lincoln was certainly not as racist as Hitler but he was perhaps slightly more racist than Mussolini. Mussolini basically did not care about race (which is why there were prominent Jewish Fascists) and did not at all concern himself with banishing or wiping out whole populations. Lincoln, however, DID favour sending blacks back to Africa but had not got around to doing anything much about it at the time of his death.<br />
<br />
So it is only his fine talk that separates Lincoln from the Fascists of the 20th century. His deeds make him one of them. <br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
<b>OBJECTIONS</b><br />
<br />
Most of the objections to the above account seem to stem from a lack of knowledge of 20th century Fascism. Let us look at some of them.<br />
<br />
1). It may be argued that Lincoln just sent his political opponents to jail. He did not send them to extermination camps. In that Lincoln was certainly more lenient than Hitler but he was arguably harsher than Mussolini. Musso had no extermination camps and he did send some people to jail or to island exile but the commonest Fascist punishment for enemies was in fact just a forced dose of castor oil. While undoubtedly unpleasant, this was a lot less limiting than being sent to jail.<br />
<br />
2). It may be argued that Lincoln was no more punitive to war-opponents than were some of his Democrat successors -- such as Woodrow Wilson in World War I. That is true but the Aryan-loving Woody was also a proto-Fascist. See <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html">here</a>. And the attitude of FDR to Mussolini and Italian Fascism has already been mentioned<br />
<br />
3). It may be argued that the 20th century Fascists were socialists and that Lincoln was not. It is true that, unlike Hitler and Mussolini, Lincoln was not a socialist in the sense of being an advocate and practitioner of a welfare State but the times were simply not ripe for that. Socialism in that sense had not been invented at that stage. The beginning of State welfarism is usually traced to Bismarck, whose first welfarist laws were passed in 1883 -- Lincoln died in 1865. But the core idea of socialism is to use the power of the state to benefit some disfavoured group and that was also Lincoln's claim.<br />
<br />
4.) Lincoln came to power through constitutional means rather than via a revolution or coup. True. But the same was true of Hitler and Mussolini. Hitler in fact fought more elections than Lincoln did. For details, see <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html">here</a> and <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html">here</a>. Once Hitler and Musso came to power, they showed little respect for democratic and constitutional restraints but, as we have seen, the same was true of Lincoln.<br />
<br />
5). Lincoln could not have been a Fascist because Fascism had not even been invented by then. This is a very superficial objection. The term "Fascism" was invented by Mussolini but some would argue that the ultimate Fascist State was reached long ago in ancient Sparta. Be that as it may, the inventor of Fascism (in all but name) in modern history was undoubtedly Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) -- with his police State for dissenters, glorified leadership position, military aggression, massive bloodshed, "progressive" doctrines etc. Before Mussolini, the political pattern now called Fascism was in fact called (particularly by Marx & Engels) "Bonapartism" -- though that owed as much to Napoleon III (1808-1873) as to Napoleon I. And one notes with some amusement that Trotsky fingered (quite rightly) both the Fascist and Soviet regimes as "Bonapartist".<br />
<br />
<b>Addendum: And the war did not in fact help blacks much</b><br />
<br />
<i>Peaceful means (e.g. buyouts) would have yielded a better result sooner</i><br />
<br />
We have been told endlessly that the U.S. Civil War was a good war, fought to free the slaves. About 110,100 Union soldiers were killed in action, and another 224,580 died from war-related diseases. An estimated 275,175 Union soldiers were wounded. In 1879, it was believed that the Union had spent $6.1 billion on the war - and that was real money back then. Yet to a significant degree, as far as the former black slaves were concerned, the South was triumphant. We have here one of the most astonishing reminders about how wars backfire.<br />
<br />
Not long after Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Abraham Lincoln's hand-picked successor, Andrew Johnson, helped ex-Confederates reestablish white supremacy in the Southern states. These ex-Confederates understood that the war wasn't really over in 1865. They enacted Black Codes to restrict the freedom of blacks and restore slavery in everything but name. To be sure, Radical Republicans in Congress asserted themselves and passed the Civil War Amendments, officially abolishing slavery, assuring equal rights for former slaves, and guaranteeing the right to vote. But these amendments soon became dead letters. Embittered ex-Confederates formed the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, and other terrorist organizations that conducted brutal "Negro hunts." The influence of Radical Republicans declined after a few years as their leaders died or became preoccupied with other issues. Then the party of Lincoln made a deal to resolve the contested presidential election of 1876: they would have federal troops withdrawn from the last three Southern states that were occupied after the Civil War, enabling Democrats to gain complete political control of the South, and in exchange Democrats would permit the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, to become the 19th U.S. president. The civil rights of blacks were subverted for almost another century.<br />
<br />
Incredibly, in the name of reconciliation, Union veterans and Confederate veterans gathered at Memorial Day ceremonies to mourn the dead - without discussing any of the war issues. Those were laid to rest. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson - the first Southerner elected president since the Civil War - gave a speech at Gettysburg, Pa., marking the 50th anniversary of Lincoln's famous address there. Despite all the wartime sacrifices, Wilson declared that the Civil War was "a quarrel forgotten." <br />
<br />
Moreover, Wilson betrayed his campaign assurances to the black community and segregated federal government offices that hadn't previously been segregated. He defended segregation in a series of letters to New York Post editor Oswald Garrison Villard, the grandson of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. Wilson claimed that segregation would eliminate "the discontent and uneasiness which had prevailed in many of the departments." Wilson added that segregation would make blacks "less likely to be discriminated against."<br />
<br />
The South was victorious ideologically. Its view of the Civil War was the prevailing view in the North for a century. Columbia University Professor William A. Dunning, a founder of the American Historical Association and its president in 1913, was perhaps the most influential promoter of the Southern view. He portrayed Radical Republicans as villains. He helped popularize the term "Carpetbagger," meaning Northerners who went South to seek public office after the Civil War. Dunning defended segregation by claiming that blacks were incapable of self-government. A star of the so-called "Dunning School" of post-Civil War historical writing was Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, who finished his teaching career at Yale. He defended slaveholders against charges that they were brutal, and he claimed they did much to civilize the slaves. Dunning School historians dominated American textbooks well into the 1950s and even the 1960s. <br />
<br />
So, the Civil War was supposed to be quick and easy, and obviously it wasn't. The Union's military victories gave the losers an uncontrollable lust for revenge, and they renewed their oppression of blacks at the earliest opportunity. Nobody could be counted on to protect the blacks. The Civil War was no shortcut to civil rights. After the war, Northerners didn't want to remember why they had fought, or at least the part about freeing the slaves.<br />
<br />
We ought to know by now that the killing and destruction of wars tend to intensify hatreds, and they're bound to play out, often in hideous ways that can be impossible even for a militarily superior power to control. <br />
<br />
The history of emancipation in the Western Hemisphere made clear that war wasn't the only way or the best way to free the slaves. Although slavery had been around for thousands of years, abolitionists launched epic movements generating political support that doomed slavery in only about a century and a quarter. Slave rebellions reminded everybody that slaveholding was a risky business. There were private and governmental efforts to buy the freedom of slaves, reducing the number of slaves, reducing the amount of slaveholding territory, and reducing the political clout of slaveholders. Underground railroads further undermined slavery, and the runaways brought with them fresh horror stories for antislavery campaigns. A peaceful, persistent campaign involving a combination of strategies was the key to abolishing slavery. This was also the key to the campaign Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony launched to secure equal rights for women, the campaign that Mohandas Gandhi launched for Indian independence, and the campaign that Martin Luther King launched for civil rights in America.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/powell.php?articleid=13035">Source</a><br />
<br />
<b>The economic motives behind Lincoln's war</b><br />
<br />
<i>I expressed some puzzlement above about Lincoln's motives for his war. The article below helps clarify that</i><br />
<br />
The truth of the matter is that the Civil War was absolutely not fought over slavery. To understand how this is so, there are two pieces of evidence to consider. The first is the situation of high protective tariffs. In this pre-16th Amendment America, the federal government was funded solely through user fees, land sales, and tariffs. The southern economy, being largely agricultural, was highly dependent upon importing manufactured goods. This situation was something that all 13 original colonies shared, but as the new Republic developed, and the Industrial Revolution took off, the North, being less suited to agriculture, became a manufacturing powerhouse. The South then had a choice to make in importing its needed goods: continue to purchase goods from the British and French predominantly (as they had done since the colonial days) or purchase from the new northern manufacturers. <br />
<br />
In order to strongly coerce the South into doing business with the North exclusively, the federal government erected very high protective tariffs and limitations against imports. What this did was make it too expensive for the South to import goods from England or France, even if those goods were preferable, and created a monopoly in which the northern manufacturers received the majority of the South’s business. This situation is evidenced by the Nullification Crisis of 1832, in which South Carolina nullified the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832, with their near 50% average duty. The stalemate forced the hand of the federal government to lower the average rate to between 15 and 20% with the Tariff of 1833. This dispute was temporarily quieted, but not for long.<br />
<br />
The Morill Tariff passed into law March 1861 was the final straw on the back of the South. Economist Thomas J. DiLorezo writes in a Mises.org article that the Morill Tariff increased the average tax rate from around 15% to 37.5%, while also greatly expanding the imports subject to it. The South rightly perceived that the forced tariff at the hands of the federal government, dominated by northern interests, was a tyranny upon their right to free trade. <br />
<br />
When SC seceded from the Union, followed by ten other states, the federal government had a very grave problem on its hands. Without the forced market of the South, the federal government’s tax revenues would plummet. The federal government was entirely dependent upon the tariff that was paid exclusively by southern imports. The federal government had two options: force the South to stay in the Union, and thereby keep the tax revenue, or watch the South freely trade with other nations, and eventually run out of money. The choice was clear for Abraham Lincoln. The Union was to be preserved above all costs.<br />
<br />
Lincoln’s own words prove that for him, this was never about human rights, but about preservation of the Union. In his infamous August 1862 letter to NY Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln betrayed his true intentions for waging war:<br />
<blockquote>
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.</blockquote>
<br />
Further evidence of this is seen in the Joint Resolution on the War issued by Congress in 1861. “Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression[...], nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to[...] preserve the Union”. <br />
<br />
The federal government was not interested in freeing the slaves. They were only interested in keeping the South attached to the North and the tariff revenue that union provided. Let the true historical record show that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.<br />
<br />
Secondly, as mentioned above, Lincoln was not motivated out of the concern for human rights in deciding what course to take. Even with his famed Emancipation Proclamation, the notion of him being a “Second Moses” is greatly exaggerated. If one looks at the Emancipation closely, you’ll discover a problem: “[...]all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free [...]”. <br />
<br />
The document is clear that the states “in rebellion” would have their slaves freed. However, if you were a slave in Delaware, Kentucky, Marlyand, or Missouri, slave-holding states that did not secede from the Union, you were not emancipated at all. In fact, for the first time in US history, slavery was actually officially recognized on the federal level. The Emancipation Proclamation drew the lines of slavery inclusively around the slaves in the border states, through an executive order. Great Emancipator? Hardly.<br />
<br />
The last point to be addressed will show how Lincoln wrote the blueprint for the excess in government and tyranny that has become hallmarks of the American political system, and of the presidency in general. So much of the angst in our country today is over the intrusion of the federal government into our personal lives. We are touched by government everyday in more ways than we can imagine. In no particular order, I will just list off some of the actions of President Lincoln that put us on the slippery slope to where we are today.<br />
<br />
1. Violation of Article 4 Section 4 that compelled the federal government to protect the states from invasion. Here the federal government was the invasion force.<br />
<br />
2. Arrest and detainment without trial of the Maryland Legislature to prevent a vote on secession.<br />
<br />
3. Conversely, supporting the secession of WV from VA, and recognizing the reorganized government of Virginia as legitimate despite the fact that it was not popularly elected.<br />
<br />
4. Suspension of habeus corpus. Imprisonment and detainment of thousands of dissidents, including newspaper editors and even Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio.<br />
<br />
5. Established the first direct income tax in 1862.<br />
<br />
Much of what Lincoln did during the course of the Civil War was repeated and expanded in later years. As historian James G. Randall notes in his book Constitutional Problems under Lincoln, <span style="color: red;">“it would not be easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the limit of his powers.” Perhaps a more appropriate moniker for Lincoln would be the “Great Tyrant”.</span><br />
<br />
The federal government greatly increased its powers over the states and the citizens as a direct result of the war. Where the South was devastated by its effects, the federal government emerged stronger and more haughty than ever. As a condition of allowing the states back into the Union (that they created in the first place) the state constitutions of the former Confederacy were forced to be rewritten, in order to specifically outlaw secession (proof that secession was not illegal in 1861). The federal government had waged a war to gain power, control, and revenue, and it made sure that this power gained would be permanent.<br />
<br />
The veneration of corrupt men as demigods in the secular, civil religion of American history is not only inaccurate, but it is nefarious and shameful. The point of this article isn’t to be provocative, or to just flame-throw. I am not anti-American, or pro-slavery, or anything else one might try to read into my words. I am, however, very deeply interested in truth. Truth will only be achieved by erasing mythos out of American history. Literature has plenty of fictional heroes, the stuff of legend. An American history textbook should have no such characters.<br />
<br />
More <a href="http://www.libertarianminds.com/lincoln-separating-the-man-from-the-mythos">HERE</a> <br />
<br />
FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-1331714022890998692007-09-20T16:28:00.000+11:302007-09-20T16:35:03.773+11:30<b>The Nutrasweet haters</b><br /><br /><i>On my <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC</a> blog recently, I made some comments about what I regarded as very poorly substantiated criticisms of aspartame (NutraSweet). I gather together below the original post plus the discussion that ensued</i><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The campaign against Nutrasweet (aspartame)</b><br /><br />Coming as I do from a big sugar-producing area (Far North Queensland), I always read carefully the little sachets that one gets with one's coffee in coffee lounges. I make sure that I am putting real sugar in my coffee and not some substitute junk. So I should be in sympathy with the campaign against aspartame, right? Wrong! As far as I can see, the campaign is founded on little more than the usual self-glorifying belief that if something is popular it must be bad. <br /><br />There is a list <a href="http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1464">here</a> of 13 recent anti-aspartame studies and, unless I have missed something, there is not one study of the type that would be decisive: A double-blind study in humans. There are plenty of <i>in vitro</i> ("test tube") and <i>in vivo</i> (rats and mice) studies but that's about it.<br /><br />And even some of the studies listed there admit that some of the potentially bad byproducts of aspartame metabolism can be broken down rapidly by other food components or metabolites. So showing that rats on a rat diet cannot handle aspartame well tells us nothing about humans. What is needed are studies of humans on a human diet as it seems probable that the human metabolism CAN safely break down aspartame. One has to look at the bottom line, not intermediate processes in isolation.<br /><br />Since a double blind study in humans should not pose any great difficulty, I think it is the absence of such a study which is most telling. <br /><br />The attention-seeking studies have however had an effect. There are now various bans on aspartame, particularly in Europe and the UK. Seeing how crazy such places also are about "obesity", it is strange indeed that something which could help combat obesity is restricted on such flimsy grounds. It reinforces the impression that the attack on obesity is insincere too. It adds to the evidence that the anti-obesity campaign is really an expression of middle-class contempt for the working class, who are indeed fatter on the whole: Good old class-prejudice again. The more things change ....<br /><br />The amusing thing is that all the food and health rhetoric goes right over the heads of most working class people. They very wisely just don't listen. They just eat what they like and damn the consequences. I do too. But my father was, after all, a lumberjack. Heh!<br /><br />**********************<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Aspartame revisited</b><br /><br />It looks like I poked a beehive when I criticized the anti-aspartame campaign <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/2007/09/campaign-against-nutrasweet-aspartame.html">yesterday</a>. I got several accusatory emails, including one from the chief anti-aspartame evangelist herself, Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum. I have never heard of a D.Hum before. Maybe you get them out of cornflakes packets. I reproduce below part of my correspondence with the D.Hum one:<br /><br /><blockquote>I initially reiterated my point about the lack of human double-blind studies. She replied:<br /><br /><i>Dr. Walton's study was double blind. Who do you work for?</i><br /><br />I was rather amused by the implicit suggestion of bad faith so I replied:<br /><br /><i>I work for BIG PHARMA, of course. No honest person could question your beliefs, could they? You can see more about my evil affiliations here: <br /><br />http://dissectleft.blogspot.com </i><br /><br />With the lack of any sense of humour that one expects of fanatics, she did not apparently detect the sarcasm at all. She replied:<br /><br /><i>I figured as much. I'm not surprised. If you had read Dr. Walton's report you would have seen the link and the fact that it was double blind. Here is the link.<br /><br />http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Aspartame-Adverse-Reactions-1993.htm </i></blockquote><br />And what a link it is! She had to go all the way back to 1993 to find something and then it concerned ill-effects among a non-random sample of 13 clinical depressives who were fed doses of aspartame seven times a day in pill form, rather than in food.<br /><br />Quite aside from the ridiculous "sampling", the fact that they got the stuff in pill form quite vitiates the study. Aspartame is supplied IN FOOD and unless you study it in food, you are pissing into the wind. As I have previously pointed out, the potentially bad metabolites of it have been shown to be susceptible to breaking down by other food components or their metabolites so it is the actual bottom line after that happens that we have to look at, not intermediary processes in isolation. And NOBODY seems to have shown any adverse effects from normal use of aspartame in a double-blind study. <br /><br />I am sure the anti-aspartame evangelists will be sticking pins into a voodoo doll of me by now. <br /><br />************************<br /><br /><br /><b>More amusing correspondence from the Aspartame (Nutrasweet) foes</b><br /><br />Further to <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/2007/09/aspartame-revisited-it-looks-like-i.html">my post of yesterday</a>, I received or had copied to me the following:<br /><br /><blockquote> <i>We are not in any way associated with Betty Martini whose rants embarrass us all. She is what one of my colleagues called "a self-appointed general" <br /><br />There is a list on Yahoo, The Aspartame Victim's Support Group that at all times, for the last 10 years has had 1,000 people who list and share their experiences with aspartame. </i><br /><br />I replied:<br /> <br /><i>Testimonials are the stock in trade of the quack. They are of no worth in determining cause. Give me double blind studies.</i><br /><br />Then the following was copied to me:<br /><br /><i>Mary... do you know what he's talking about... </i><br /><br />A more sophisticated person replied, also copying to me:<br /><br /><i>He's saying all you're giving him are 'anecdotal' accounts - not double blind human tests with a large number of subjects made up of a 'control' group and an 'aspartame' group. Walton's was too small by scientific standards. <br /><br />You get mired down in debating this guy, it could go on forever and you won't win because he is there to prove his predetermined point and to make you look bad. Like Martini, he will out-argue you and drag you down. We don't have to prove anything to this character. Those who believe will survive. Those who don't won't. Don't waste valuable time arguing with him. He isn't worth it. </i></blockquote> <br /><br />These are obviously sincere people who have themselves had bad experiences that they attribute to aspartame -- but they are badly lacking in scientific understanding. The fact that some academic researchers will hop onto any bandwagon that will give them publications is a serious disservice to them.<br /><br />Because of their lack of scientific background, they fail to understand that I am asking only for normal scientific caution and so interpret my comments as evilly motivated in some way. I noted at the beginning that I myself do not use ANY artificial sweeteners that I know of so my personal inclination would be to agree with them. I just ask for a conventional standard of proof before I do so.<br /><br /><br />*********************<br /><br /><br /><b>The aspartame saga continues</b><br /><br /><i>I have received the following article from Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Director, McGill University Office for Science and Society. It originally appeared in <a href="http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/index.html">The Montreal Gazette</a></i> <br /><br />We are up to our ears in scientific publications. Over 9000 peer-reviewed journals bombard us with thousands of new research findings every day. They deal with all aspects of science, ranging from highly theoretical quantum mechanical calculations to studies of what goes into our mouths or comes out of our nose. It's a real challenge for our brain to make sense of this tsunami of information! For most of us, the studies that arouse the greatest interest are the ones that have a potential impact on our daily lives, especially on our health. There's certainly no lack of these. Virtually every day we hear of some study that urges us to eat more of a certain food or avoid another. There are studies that warn us about risks of specific chemicals in our environment and others that offer hope for the treatment of disease. To confuse matters, and people, studies are often at odds with each other!<br /><br />There are several points to remember in the face of this publication onslaught. Science aims for a consensus opinion arrived at by examining all the available information. Rarely are single studies compelling enough to cause a major shift in thinking. Results that are reproduced by different researchers merit more attention. Negative studies are less likely to be reported than positive ones, leading to "publication bias," and research that is funded by vested interests can raise questions about reliability. Keep in mind also that not all peer-reviewed journals are equally demanding in the quality of papers they accept for publication, and that scientists are not immune to human foibles.<br /><br />When it comes to health-related issues, the fundamental question raised by any new study is whether it is persuasive enough to change any recommendations that are currently in effect. Recently an Italian study on aspartame, the most widely used artificial sweetener in the world, aroused a great deal of interest. This isn't surprising, given the title of the paper: "Lifespan Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame Beginning During Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in Rats." If such a common product increases our risk of cancer, changes in recommendations about its use would certainly be warranted. But what does this rat study mean for humans?<br /><br />The current "Acceptable Daily Intake" (ADI) for aspartame in North America is 50 milligrams per kilogram body weight, while in Europe it is 40 mg/kg. Based on numerous laboratory, animal and human studies, adverse effects below these levels are unlikely. Using the lower European value, the ADI for an average adult weighing sixty kilograms is then 2400 mgs, which is the amount of aspartame found in roughly four liters of diet drink. Average consumption of course is way below this, but unfortunately there are people who drink abusive amounts. Perhaps they will re-evaluate their habit after hearing about what researchers at the European Ramazzini Foundation found.<br /><br />Dr. Morando Soffritti and colleagues fed pregnant rats aspartame-laced food, and then did the same to their offspring throughout their natural lives. The rats were then autopsied and all signs of cancer recorded. One group of rats was fed aspartame at a dose of 100 mg per kilogram of bodyweight, another group at 20 mg/kg, and a third group, given no aspartame, served as a control.<br /><br />Soffritti was following up on similar research he had published in 2005 which had concluded that aspartame was a carcinogen. That study was criticized by a group of toxicologists assembled by the European Union as having poor methodology and coming to an unwarranted conclusion. Soffritti was understandably angered by the criticism and undoubtedly vowed to "show them." And apparently he has. The current results do show that animals fed at 100 mg/kg per day developed more tumours than those fed no aspartame. This is the amount of aspartame found in ten liters of diet drink. However, when it comes to the 20 mg/kg dose, the incidence of tumours found was essentially the same as in the rats given no aspartame. Based on these results, Soffritti and colleagues correctly conclude that their study showed aspartame to be a carcinogen, and that the effect is dose related.<br /><br />What do we make of this? It is surprising that a carcinogenic effect was found, given that a large number of other studies have failed to find a link between aspartame and cancer. But the important finding here is the dose-response relationship. As the dose is decreased, so is the risk of tumour formation. At the equivalent of two liters of diet drink a day, the percent of animals bearing tumours is the same as in the control group. So, are these results convincing enough to alter the Acceptable Daily Intake? Before taking such an action, at the very least, we need to see if the experiment can be reproduced by another lab. <br /><br />The Ramazzini Foundation study [by Soffritti] comes on the heels of a paper recently published in the Annals of Oncology, in which researchers from Italy and France examined the potential association between the risk of cancer and the consumption of artificial sweeteners. They evaluated the rates of consumption of saccharin, aspartame, and other sweeteners in approximately 7,000 individuals with various types of cancers and compared these with a similar number of people who did not have the disease. No link between artificial sweeteners and cancers of the esophagus, colon, rectum, larynx, breast, ovaries, prostate, kidney or mouth was found. And this was a human, not a rat study. Let's remember also that the amount of aspartame found in a couple of diet drinks and artificially sweetened yogurts is way less than the 20 mg/kg per day dose that was shown to cause no increase in tumours in the Ramazzini study. In any case, there is no reason for anyone to be consuming more artificially sweetened products than these. <br /><br />For now, there seems to be no reason to change recommendations about consuming moderate amounts of aspartame, but rest assured that it won't be long before some new study comes along that either accuses or exonerates aspartame of some nutritional crime. Many scientists will be ready to evaluate that study and change their views if warranted (myself included). That's the way of science. <br /><br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-28593434301371278772007-09-06T22:55:00.001+11:302018-08-11T21:15:22.988+11:00<b><font size="6"> Solomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski on <br><br> "Worldview Defense" </font></b><br /><br /><br /><br /> By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- September, 2007<br /><br /><br /><i>I have had a cursory look at the "Worldview Defense" research and found much to amuse in it. I don't rule out there being some useful kernel of truth in it but to firm that up one way or another I would have to do a detailed critique of at least some of the papers basic to it -- which is not an inviting prospect. I have decided therefore simply to gather together below my blog posts on the subject</i><br /><br /><br /><b>"WORLDVIEW DEFENSE" AS AN EXPLANATION OF CONSERVATISM</b><br /><br /><i>A critique of research by Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski</i><br /><br />That old Leftist, John B. Judis, has <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082707">an article in The New Republic</a> that summarizes a stream of psychological research into fear of death that goes by the name of "worldview defense". The idea is that if you are reminded of your own mortality, you become more conservative. <br /><br />In one way, that is all fair enough. The old saying "A conservative is a liberal who was mugged last night" embodies a similar idea and represents a claim that conservatives often make: That they are more realistic and that Leftists are dreamers who need to be brought down to earth. Being vividly reminded of your own forthcoming death (which is what the psychological experiments concerned do) should invoke a similar burst of realism and disable dreamy views of life.<br /><br />So an interpretations of the findings congenial to conservatives is more than possible. Judis and those he quotes, however, strain to find a more elaborate interpretation that is some way derisory of conservatives. But in doing so Judis falls into a trap common among psychologists and other Leftists: He lives in such a self-protective Leftist bubble that he basically just does not know what conservatism is or what conservatives think. For decades now, psychologists have been devising questionnaires that allegedly "measure" conservatism but which in fact give no prediction of vote at all! The ludicrous <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html">Bob Altemeyer</a> is the most recent example of that. The highpoint of such ignorance, however, would have to be the <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html">2003 "Berkeley" study</a> which classified various Communist leaders as conservatives. That Communists and conservatives have radically different views about the world had apparently not penetrated the ivory towers of UCB!<br /><br />So we have the following remarkable comment from Judis: <i>Also central to worldview defense is the protection of tradition against social experimentation, of <font color="#ff0000">community values against individual prerogatives"</font></i>. And you thought it was <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/07/monograph-below-monograph-is.html">conservatives who stood for individual liberties</a>! Not so, according to Judis. Conservatives stand for "community values". So Hillary Clinton, with her quotation of an old African saying that "It takes a village to raise a child" must be a conservative!<br /><br />So I don't think we really need to say much more about such profound ignorance. As this stuff falls squarely within <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/all-published-papers-by-j.html">my own field of professional exspertise</a>, however, I will make one more comment: Answers to questions that are obtained from young college students (which is mainly what Judis is referring to) often tell you very little about the real world. The very first piece of psychological research that I ever did was based on responses from students and I found a most gratifying correlation of .808 between the two variables concerned. Being a born skeptic, however, I then did something that psychologists almost never do: I repeated the research among a group much more representative of the general population. And I found NO correlation between my two variables on that group.<br /><br />And so it seems also to be with the research by Pyszczynski and friends that Judis quotes. Using student responses, Pyszczynski et al. found a correlation between awareness of death and what they (in their confused way) define as conservatism but I carried out long ago <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20070526-0000/jonjayray.batcave.net/neocons.html">a piece of research</a> into much the same question. I looked at the correlation between attitude to death and conservatism among a general population sample. And I used a measure of conservatism that DID closely reflect the political divisions of the day. So what did I find? I found that there was NO correlation between attititude to death and conservatism whatsoever. Nor was there any connection between anxiety generally and conservatism. So the Pyszczynski/Judis claims fail a more rigorous test. What they think happens, does NOT happen in the real world.<br /><br />And I carried out that piece of research in collaboration with the head of our local Sociology department -- an impeccably mainstream Jewish Leftist. So the <i>ad hominem</i> attacks that one expects from Leftists would be more than usually implausible in this case. <br /><br />***********************<br /><br /><b>PSYCHOLOGY: ANOTHER BUNDLE OF LAUGHS</b><br /><br /><a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2007/09/worldview-defense-as-explanation-of.html">I referred recently</a> to the Solomon, Greenberg & Pyszczynski research <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082707">summarized by Judis</a>. The interpretation of the research findings concerned was highly speculative and unparsimonious in that the effect of priming people to think about death was somehow magnified into telling us something about "worldview defense". The point of the theoretical extravaganza was of course to portray conservatives in a bad light. I suggested a more straightforward interpretation of the findings which was rather supportive of a conservative view of the world.<br /><br />In the end, however, I concluded that the research concerned really told us nothing at all about anything because it was not based on any kind of representative sampling. Solomon, Greenberg & Pyszczynski obviously disagree with me on that, however, so I have found another study based on their kind of "sampling" that should interest them. A <a href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01983.x"> study by Shariff & Norenzayan</a> also looked at the effect of "priming" people's perceptions. Where the Solomon, Greenberg & Pyszczynski research showed that priming people to think about death caused them to become more conservative, however, the Shariff et al. research showed that priming people to think about God caused them to become more altruistic and kinder towards others! It tends to show that Christians are nicer people, in other words. I wonder what Pyszczynski and friends think about that? One thing they CANNOT consistently do is dismiss the finding on the grounds of unrepresentative sampling!<br /><br />********************<br /><br /><b>An amusing response from Pyszczynski</b><br /><br /><i>Who says that conservatism is produced by a fear of death</I><br /><br />Pyszczynski did respond promptly to the criticism of his research <a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2007/09/psychology-another-bundle-of-laughs-i.html">that I posted yesterday</a>. After the burst of personal abuse that one expects from Leftists he did have two actual points to make:<br /><br />He said that the "priming" experiment that he does has now been repeated worldwide to a total of about 350 times and always gives a similar outcome. He seems to think that doing unrepresentative sampling 350 times is in some way as good as doing one really representative sample. No logic there at all, of course. So I replied simply that doing a silly thing 350 times does not make it right. <br /><br />His second point concerned the "God" research that I mentioned. He commented quite reasonably that the outcome you get would depend on the concept of God involved. That the usual Christian concept of God as a God of Love might have been behind the finding I mentioned -- that thinking about God makes you more altruistic -- he did not address, however. He preferred abstract argument to research results. But it is consistent with his argument that the usual Christian view of God makes Christians better people. How embarrassing for him!<br /><br />But as in the story by Conan Doyle ("Silver Blaze") about the dog that did not bark, the most interesting thing was what Pyszczynski did NOT mention. His theory claims that worrying about death is behind a lot of conservatism. But my research <i>in a general population sample</i> has shown that conservatives worry about death and worry in general no more than do others. So his theory is disconfirmed at the bottom line. No matter what groups of tame students do when confronted by Pyszczynski's little experiment, the conclusion from those experiments does NOT generalize to the population at large. So he is talking about something of no real-world significance. He had no reply to that whatever. I guess he didn't reply because he couldn't!<br /><br />He also did not reply to my point that he was overinterpreting his data. In science the most parsimonious (simplest) explanation for a finding is always preferred and I offered an explanation for his basic finding that was a lot simpler than the fanciful edifice he has erected. I guess he couldn't reply to that either! He has devoted decades of work to his little theory, however, so I don't expect that mere evidence and logic will cause him to drop or even modify it. <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/04/social-dominance-orientation-theory-or.html">Jim Sidanius</a> had the grace to go into a major backdown when I confronted him with evidence and logic about his "Social Dominance Orientation" theory but there is no sign of that from Pyszczynski -- at least so far.<br /><br />**********************<br /><br /><b>IS THIS A BACKDOWN?</b><br /><br />Further to my post of <a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2007/09/amusing-response-from-pyszczynski-who.html">yesterday</a>, I reproduce below the latest email from Prof. Pyszczynski. As far as I can see the first and fourth sentences contradict one-another!<br /><br /><blockquote>We have NEVER claimed that conservatives have any more fear of death than anyone. That would be completely at odds with terror management theory or the research that has been done to test hypotheses derived from it. This is something anyone who has read our work would know. The point is that conservative ideology is a type of worldview that people use to protect themselves against a fear of death that is a natural consequence of wanting to live and knowing that you must die. Just as liberal ideology is. Just as science and religion are. When people are reminded of death, they cling more to the aspects of their worldviews that protect them from this fear. Conservatives and liberals do it -- but birds and educated fleas do not. There is some evidence that conservative ideology might be especially useful in providing protection but the jury is out as to whether that is inherent in conservative ideology or particular to the particulars of today's culture. </blockquote><br />The only sense I can make out of it is a claim that people become more extreme in their views (whatever those views may be) when they think about death. That is a fairly humdrum proposal but does not correspond to how other researchers see the Pyszczynski work. Note <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/moem/2006/00000030/00000003/00009040?crawler=true">this quote</a> about the Pyszczynski work, for instance: <br /><br /><i>"Terror management research has typically found that people respond harshly toward offending others when reminded of their mortality"</i>. <br /><br />Clearly, Pyszczynski has been claiming that death anxiety moves you towards a SPECIFIC view, not simply a more extreme view. And among Leftist psychologists, punitiveness has long been held to be a feature of conservatism -- which is why I have <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20070526-0000/jonjayray.batcave.net/punit.html">previously written</a> on that subject (I found that impunitive people are the oddballs!).<br /><br />At any event, Pyszczynski has clearly repudiated the summary of his work by <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082707">Judis</a> -- which is rather fun. I am a bit disappointed that he didn't deflate under attack as rapidly as <a href="http://jonjayray.com/harman2.html">Gilbert Harman</a> but Harman is a genuinely acute thinker.<br /><br />********************<br /><br /><b>"Truthers" and worldview defense</b><br /><br /><img src="http://jonjayray.googlepages.com/conspiracy.jpg"><br /><br />I had a bit of a laugh above about the "worldview defense" research of Pyszczynski and friends. I could see no good evidence for his claim that conservative views arise out of a need to defend a worldview.<br /><br />The evidence Prof. P. offers for his claims concerns attitudes. What students say about their views is the foundation of his theory. I replied by pointing out (among other things) that proper general population survey research into conservative attitudes does not reveal the correlations to be expected from Prof. P.'s theory.<br /><br />There is however abroad these days one very strange set of attitudes: The attitudes of the "truthers" -- people who believe that the dumb but strangely clever George Bush conspired with the neocons, the Jews and various others to blow up the twin towers on 9/11. Apparently the twin towers were deliberately detonated by GWB rather than being knocked out by bin Laden's henchmen flying hijacked airliners. Some of the claims of the truthers have a superficial plausibility but all have often been debunked (e.g. <a href="http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47677">here</a>).<br /><br />The interesting thing about truther theory is that, for all its vast implausibility, it is widely believed. According to <a href="http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf">a general population poll carried out by Zogby</a> 42.6% of Democrat voters believe some version of it versus 19.2% of Republican voters. Nearly half of Left-leaning voters say they believe in a total absurdity! <br /><br />So why do they do that? A simple answer: It is BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Bush is so hated by many on the Left that they cannot accept any evidence that might support his policies. Their worldview requires that Bush be (as they often say) akin to Hitler and the embodiment of all evil. That he might have had reasonable grounds for his overthrow of two aggressive Islamic regimes (in Afghansistan and Iraq) just cannot be accepted. Rather than accept that it is preferable to believe a total absurdity.<br /><br />So if that is not worldview defense I would like to know what would be. It is worldview defense carried to the extent of an extreme mental pathology. So, as I have often previously remarked, Leftists are great projectors -- they attribute to others things that are really true of themselves. So to find out what is true of them, just listen to what they say about conservatives. Prof. P. was so alive to the phenomenon of worldview defense precisely because it fills the heads of many of his fellow Leftists -- and maybe even his own head.<br /><br />************************<br /><br /><b>More data on those "death-fearing" conservatives</b><br /><br /><i>I have received the following report from a reader. It gives us some more of that pesky general population data -- the sort of data that almost all psychologists avoid like the plague. Students are SO much better at giving responses that accord with Leftist stereotypes:</i><br /><br />Reading <a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2007/09/amusing-response-from-pyszczynski-who.html">John Ray's September 4, 2007 critique</a> of the Pyszczynski et al. claim that fear of death is behind conservatism, I couldn't help but analyze data from the NORC General Social Survey, one of the most respected databases of U.S. public opinion in existence, to further explore the matter. In fact, the GSS data completely support Dr. Ray's conclusion that there are no meaningful differences whatsoever in how liberals and conservatives view death. Again, the received "wisdom" concerning the psychology of conservatism espoused by Pyszczynski and academic social science in general, is shown to be speculative and fails to survive even moderate scrutiny.<br /><br /><i>Method:</i><br /><br />For decades, the GSS has asked respondents about their political orientations under the variable name POLVIEWS and whether they believe in life after death under the variable name POSTLIFE. I recoded the variable POLVIEWS into the following categories: <br /><br />* Extremely liberal/Liberal =1, <br />* Slightly Liberal = 2, <br />* Moderate/Middle of the Road = 3, <br />* Slightly Conservative = 4, and<br />* and Conservative/Extremely Conservative = 5. <br /><br />POSTLIFE was recoded into the following categories: <br /><br />* Believe in life after death =1, <br />* Unsure = 2, and<br />* Don=t believe in life after death = 3. <br /><br /><i>Results:</i><br /><br />Conservatives were much more likely than liberals to believe in life after death, with approximately 80% of conservatives/extreme conservatives reporting that they believe in life after death and only 66% of liberals/extremely liberals reporting the same. (All percentages are rounded upwards.) While a person's belief in life after death is not necessarily predictive of whether he fears death, the results are suggestive and weaken Pyszczynski's paradigm. The Pyszczynski et al theories would seem to imply that belief in life after death is a cognitive defensive mechanism but a sizable proportion of individuals with liberal orientations clearly exhibit the same phenomenon, so it is as least not a peculiarly conservative defence mechanism. And in any event, the number of people who absolutely reject the possibility of an afterlife is very small, only about 9% in this database.<br /><br />To further explore whether conservatives might harbor more fear than liberals regarding death, I analyzed how respondents answered an additional set of questions asked between 1983-1987. Each respondent who reported a belief in life after death was asked a further series of questions, prefaced as follows: <br /><br /><blockquote>Of course, no one knows exactly what life after death would be like, but here are some ideas people have had. How likely do you feel each possibility is? Very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not likely at all?</blockquote><br /><br />Among the various alternatives were the following descriptions of an afterlife: (1) A life of peace and tranquility (POSTLF1) and (2) A life like the one here on earth, only better (POSTLF3). There was very little meaningful difference between liberals and conservatives regarding their views on the matter. With respect to the first variable, POSTLF1, eighty-five percent of liberals/extreme liberals thought it somewhat or very likely that an afterlife would be a life of peace and tranquility, while an even greater 95% of conservatives/extreme conservatives held similarly positive views of life after death. Regarding the second variable, POSTLF3, 57% of liberals/extreme liberals thought it somewhat or very likely that an afterlife would be better than life on earth, and 59% of conservatives/extreme conservatives reported it somewhat or very likely that an afterlife would be better than life on earth. Again, all percentages are rounded.<br /><br />Insofar as there is a discernable difference between liberals and conservatives in how they view death, <font color="#ff0000">if anything conservatives might appear to face the prospect with less fear and anxiety than those who lean leftward politically</font>. Note that similar results are obtained when comparing respondents who are slightly liberal versus those who are slightly conservative. <br /><br />If in fact conservatives have a more positive view of existence after death than that held by liberals, perhaps it explains why they seem to be at least as happy and as satisfied with life as liberals. The GSS asks respondents, "Taken all together, how would you say things are these days: Would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" (HAPPY). Eighty-eight percent of liberals/extreme liberals reported being very happy or pretty happy, and approximately 90% of conservatives/extreme conservatives reported being very happy or pretty happy. Again, the same trend is found when comparing slightly liberal respondents with slightly conservative respondents. <br /><br />And on the prospects of future generations, conservatives appear to be at least as optimistic, if not more so, than liberals. The GSS asks respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: "It's hardly fair to bring a child into the world with the way things look for the future." Forty percent (40%) of liberals/extreme liberals and 34% of slightly liberal respondents agreed with the statement, while 36% of conservatives/extreme conservatives and 33% of slightly conservative respondents agreed with the statement.<br /><br />These findings represent yet another piece of evidence that conservatives suffer from no greater existential anxiety or dread than do liberals. The claims of a relationship between psychological maladjustment and social/political conservatism, posited by <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/authoritarianism-research-by-john-j.html">classical authoritarianism theory</a>, are simply inaccurate.<br /><br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-13040690221435640612007-08-17T17:28:00.001+11:302012-08-27T01:36:45.077+11:30<b>NO EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING IN SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE</b><br /><br /><img src="http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/satell3.gif"><br /><i>Southern Hemisphere is the bottom line</i><br /><br /> Spencer and Christy have updated their tools to calculate the tropospheric temperatures between 1979 and the present era from their and NASA's satellite data to a new version 6.0 beta (readme file). The three graphs above show the global average, the Northern Hemisphere, and the Southern Hemisphere. This upgrade is also discussed by Steve McIntyre. If you look at the third graph, you see that there was no warming on the Southern Hemisphere in the last 25 years even though the "global warming theory" and the corresponding models are predicting even faster rise of the tropospheric temperatures than for the surface temperatures. The decadal trend is quantitatively around 0.05 degrees which is noise whose sign can change almost instantly. <br /><br />Normally, I would think that one should conclude that according to the observations, there is no discernible recent warming on the Southern Hemisphere, and an experimental refutation of a far-reaching hypothesis by a whole hemisphere is a good enough reason to avoid the adjective "global" for the observed warming. Of course, the proponents of the "global warming theory" will use a different logic. The troposphere of the Southern Hemisphere is bribed by the evil oil corporations, and even if it were not, the data from the Southern Hemisphere can't diminish the perfect consensus of all the hemispheres of our blue planet: the debate is over. All the hemispheres of our planet decide equally about the catastrophic global warming, especially the Northern Hemisphere that shows that the warming is truly global and truly cataclysmic. Be worried, be very worried.<br /><br />James Hansen, one of the fathers of the "global warming theory", has a new paper. When Hansen writes a paper, the media immediately publish hundreds of articles. The present temperatures are warmest in 12,000 or one million years, depending on the source. However, when you open their paper, you see that it looks like one of these jokes propagating through the blogosphere and the authors are kind of comedians. <br /><br />First of all, most of the paper is dedicated to not-too-substantiated arguments with Michael Crichton. Michael Crichton stated in "State of Fear" as well as the U.S. Congress that Hansen's predictions from a 1988 testimony were wrong by 300 percent: a calculation based on a particular choice of time period and scenarios. Hansen then proposed three scenarios - "A,B,C" - how the temperatures would rise. "A" is a catastrophe in which no action is taken and the emissions continue to rise. "B" involves a peaceful limit in which emissions stabilize around 2000 and the warming is smaller. "C" is the scenario assuming drastic cuts of CO2 emissions. <br /><br />The result as we know it in 2006? The reality essentially followed the temperatures of the scenario "C" even though the CO2 emissions continued to rise just like in the scenario "A". More details are summarized by Willis E who discusses the content of the figure 2 of the new Hansen paper. Isn't it enough to admit that Hansen was just wrong? If it is not enough, what kind of wrong prediction does he have to make in order for us to know that he has made an error? I just can't understand it. <br /><br />The new paper contains even crazier assertions - e.g. the present temperature is probably the maximum temperature in the last 12,000 or one million years. This is probably based on the graph 5 on the bottom of page 5 (or 14291) and this graph's data is taken from a completely different paper written by very different authors: Hansen's only role is to hype and politicize their numbers. You see in that graph that since 1870, the oceans' surface temperature was more or less constant and the previous temperature probably can't be trusted, especially not the relative vertical shift of the graph in comparison with the current temperatures. <br /><br />Even more amusingly, the paper is filled with a lot of completely off-topic comments that indicate that Hansen et al. are unable to focus on rational thinking. When I was reading one of the last sentences, I started to laugh loudly. Hansen et al. criticize the "engineering fixes" of the global climate recently discussed by Paul J. Crutzen, the 1995 Nobel prize winner for chemistry, and Ralph Cicerone, the current president of the National Academy of Sciences. Hansen says that these fixes are "dangerous" because they could diminish the efforts to reduce the CO2 emissions. <br /><br />That's very funny because this is, indeed, exactly the purpose of these papers - to propose more efficient methods than the most stupid method you can imagine for the hypothetical case that we would ever need to regulate the global climate. The papers are indeed intended to diminish the role of the most uncultivated proposals how to fight with the hypothetical "climate change". As Hansen explains, that's exactly his problem with those papers. <br /><br />It is very clear that the paper was only written in order to misinterpret another paper, draw media attention (which is guaranteed with Hansen), and make a purely political statement about the programs that are beginning to supersede the naive carbon dioxide cuts - political statements that have nothing do with science - in a scientific journal. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick's comments on the paper are here. Hansen's reasoning is not too unsimilar to the reasoning of Quantoken. <br /><br />Incidentally, Crutzen's proposed technology involves artificial volcanos. A major natural volcano eruption can cause 0.2-0.5 degrees of cooling over 2-3 years. Using the favorite technologies of Hansen and Gore - namely stifling the civilization - such a cooling would cost tens of trillions of dollars or many thousands of Virgin corporations. Al Gore would have to fly roughly millions of times to give his prayers for impressionable billionaires - because not all of them would decide in the same way as Branson - and these flights would probably overcompensate the cooling effect anyway.<br /><br /><i>When we note that there is a far greater human presence in the Northern hemisphere, a point that could be made is that the results discussed above point to the Northern hemisphere being one big "heat island" -- i.e. the temperature rise is a heat artifact, a direct result of human heat generation, not an effect of CO2 emissions<br /><br />The above article was included in a post that went up on <a href="http://antigreen.blogspot.com">Greenie Watch</a> on Oct 1, 2006 and was reproduced from <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisphere-ignores-global.html">a post by Lubos Motl</a>. It is reproduced here as a separate file for convenience.</i>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-51716729047064263542007-05-22T23:30:00.000+11:302007-05-22T23:35:20.143+11:30<b><font size="6"> Was Churchill an antisemite and a Fascist? </font></b><br /><br /><br /><br />By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)<br /><br /><br />Churchill was a much more complex character than people generally realize and, <a href="http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/837/">as I have pointed out before</a> (See also below), he was a centrist conservative like GWB and Disraeli rather than an unqualified supporter of <i>laissez faire</i>. This complexity has led to a number of hostile re-evaluations of him both from libertarians and from the Left. Two of the libertarian evaluations are <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill1.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1450 ">here</a>. A very common accusation that one often hears is that Churchill was an antisemite and a Fascist. Below are some of the quotes that are sometimes given in support of that claim. The first is <a href="http://www.britain.tv/ukpolitics_prime_ministers_winston_churchil.shtml"> from the <i>Illustrated Sunday Herald</i> - 8th February 1920</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote> “The part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews ... is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders ... The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in (Hungary and Germany, especially Bavaria).<br /><br />Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated”.</blockquote><br /><br />The most important thing to note about this quote is its date. Like Ronald Reagan and many others, Churchill moved from Left to Right during his lifetime and the above quote was uttered while he was a member of a LIBERAL government led by Lloyd George. And below is part of <a href="http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/ahrespected.htm">what Lloyd George said</a> about Hitler at a much later date (Daily Express, 17.9.1936):<br /><br /><blockquote>“I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. “Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook…<br /><br />It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war - broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.<br /><br />There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.<br /><br />One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, as resolute will and a dauntless heart.”</blockquote><br />An admiration that <a href="http://www.biblebelievers.biz/witness1.htm">Churchill echoed</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>“While all those formidable transformations were occurring in Europe, Corporal Hitler was fighting his long, wearing battle for the German heart. The story of that struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistance’s which barred his path. He, and the ever increasing legions who worked with him, certainly showed at this time, in their patriotic ardour and love of country, that there was nothing that they would not dare, no sacrifice of life, limb or liberty that they would not make themselves or inflict upon their opponents.” </blockquote><br />And speaking in Rome on 20 January, 1927, <a href="http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT6-2.html">Churchill praised Mussolini</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>“I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understood it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him. If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism.”</blockquote><br /><br />And I don’t suppose I need to remind people that FDR also praised Mussolini—referring to him as “that admirable Italian gentleman” and adopting part of Mussolini’s ideas for his “New Deal”<br /><br />In summary, then, Churchill’s comments about the Jews (and Jews WERE prominent among the Bolsheviks) belong to his most Leftist period and his admiration of the achievements of Hitler and Mussolini were widely shared in the interwar period and were very much what one would have expected of ANY centrist politician (Left or Right) at the time.<br /><br /><a href="http://hnn.us/articles/39017.html">Dan Mandel</a> goes into these matters in much more depth.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><i>In case it goes offline, I also reproduce below my post about Churchill's conservatism:</i><br /><br /><b>Winston Churchill: The original “compassionate conservative”</b><br /><br />Perhaps I have missed it but I have not seen any comparisons between GWB and Winston Churchill. Yet their policies and views are strikingly similar. Note the following speech by Churchill to the Conservative Party Conference, on 5 October 1946 (From <i>The Sinews of Peace</i>, ed. Randolph S. Churchill, London, 1948, p. 213-215). I have highlighted a few points in red:-<br /><br />“It certainly would be an error of the first order for us to plunge out into a programme of promises and bribes in the hopes of winning the public favour. But if you say to me: `What account are we to give of the policy of the Conservative Party? What are we to say of our theme and our cause and of the faith that is in us?’ That is a question to which immediate answer can always be given.<br /><br />Our main objectives are: <font color="#ff0000">To uphold the Christian Religion and resist all attacks upon it</font>. To defend our Monarchical and Parliamentary Constitution. <font color="#ff0000">To provide adequate security</font> against external aggression and safety for our seaborne trade. To uphold law and order, and impartial justice administered by courts free from interference or pressure on the part of the executive. To regain a sound finance and strict supervision of national income and expenditure. To defend and develop our empire trade, without which Great Britain would perish. To promote all measures to improve the health and social conditions of the people. <font color="#ff0000">To support as a general rule free enterprise and initiative against State trading and nationalisation of industries.</font><br /><br />To this I will add some further conceptions. We oppose the establishment of a Socialist State, controlling the means of production, distribution and exchange. We are asked, ‘What is your alternative?’ <font color="#ff0000">Our Conservative aim is to build a property-owning democracy</font>, both independent and interdependent. In this I include profit-sharing schemes in suitable industries and intimate consultation between employers and wage-earners. In fact we seek so far as possible to make the status of the wage-earner that of a partner rather than of an irresponsible employee. It is in the interest of the wage-earner to have many other alternatives open to him than service under one all-powerful employer called the State. He will be in a better position to bargain collectively and production will be more abundant; there will be more for all and more freedom for all when the wage-earner is able, in the large majority of cases, to choose and change his work, and to deal with a private employer who, like himself, is dependent upon his personal thrift, ingenuity and good-housekeeping. In this way alone can the traditional virtues of the British character be preserved. We do not wish the people of this ancient island reduced to a mass of State-directed proletariats, thrown hither and thither, housed here and there, by an aristocracy of privileged officials or privileged party, sectarian or Trade Union bosses. We are opposed to the tyranny and victimisation of the closed shop. Our ideal is the consenting union of million, of free, independent families and homes to gain their livelihood and <font color="#ff0000">to serve true British glory</font> and world peace.<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">Freedom of enterprise</font> and freedom of service are not possible without elaborate systems of safeguards against failure, accident or misfortune. We do not seek to pull down improvidently all structures of society, but to erect balustrades upon the stairway of life, which will prevent helpless or foolish people from falling into the abyss. Both the Conservative and Liberal Parties have made notable contributions to secure minimum standards of life and labour. I too have borne my part in this. It is 38 years ago since I introduced the first Unemployment Insurance scheme, and 22 years ago since, as Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shaped and carried the Widows’ Pensions and reduction of the Old Age Pensions from 70 to 65 - We are now moving forward into another vast scheme of national insurance which arose, even in the stress of war, from a Parliament with a great Conservative majority. It is an essential principle of Conservative, Unionist, and Tory policy - call it what you will - to defend the general public against abuses by monopolies and against restraints on trade and enterprise, whether these evils come from private corporations, from the mischievous plans of doctrinaire Governments, or from the incompetence and arbitrariness of departments of State. Finally, we declare ourselves the unsleeping opponents of all class, all official or all party privilege, which denies the genius of our island race, whose sparks fly upwards unceasingly from the whole people, its rightful career reward and pre-eminence alike in peace and war.”<br /><br /> <br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-932544280878823862007-05-08T15:06:00.005+11:302012-06-12T23:11:13.038+11:30<i>The paper below is circulated on the Internet only. I have submitted it to quite a few academic journals but all the editors have found it too risky for them to publish. Although the theory put forward is one that various Jewish scholars favour, it is still a bit politically incorrect to have a Gentile saying it!<br />The paper may be used, reproduced or circulated in any way anyone wishes without charge, let or hindrance from the author as long as it is reproduced in full and not altered in any way. For any other usage of the paper permission is required from the author. The paper may however be freely quoted and cited as long as appropriate acknowledgment of authorship is made. The version of the paper below is the update of June, 2012 but the first version of the paper was submitted in 1974.<br />John Ray (Jonjayray@hotmail.com)</i><br /><br />**************************************************************************************<br /><br /> <br /><font size="+2"> <b>SEMITISM AND ANTISEMITISM: SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM AUSTRALIA IN SUPPORT OF THE STEIN/GLOCK HYPOTHESIS</b></font><br /><br /><br /> J.J. Ray<br /><br /><i> University of New South Wales, Australia</i><br /><br /><br /><br /> <blockquote> <b> Abstract</b><br /><br />Although all types of antisemitism are overgeneralizations, it is important to note that there is more than one type and source of antisemitism and that not all types are equally pernicious. It is the extreme examples of antisemitism that are dangerous and they are most safely seen as <i>sui generis</i> (requiring study in their own right). Contrary to the popular impression, extreme antisemitism has been in recent centuries mostly Leftist but this paper is primarily concerned with non-extreme antisemitism -- widespread but not usually important low-level grumbling about Jews. Social psychology textbooks now describe everyday racism as normal and at times rational. This suggests that some antisemitism too could be rational in at least some cases. Jewish authors such as H.F. Stein and C.Y. Glock have argued to that effect in recent years. To help examine this possibility, some case studies of ordinary Australians are presented which tend to suggest that such people's dislike for Jews is ultimately traceable to a significant subset of Jews acting out the central Jewish belief that they are a chosen and hence superior people. It is suggested that such beliefs lead to a tribal morality which sours business interactions between Jew and Gentile. This in turn suggests that the only relatively safe future for Jews over the long term may be either assimilation or migration to Israel. Another alternative may however be the one adopted by the Parsees of India. Various criticisms of these conclusions are considered.</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>A LITTLE-KNOWN LESSON FROM HISTORY</b><br /><br />Ever since the Pharaohs, Jews have been persecuted. To be a Jew is to be at serious risk of adverse discrimination and persecution. It is arguably the single feature that unites Jews of all eras. Religion once had that role but most Jews today seem to be atheists or something not far short of that. <br /><br />To academics like me such a unifying feature cries out for a unifying explanation. Explaining the complexity of reality in terms of much simpler underlying processes is what academics do. But academic caution also requires one to note that things which seem the same on the surface may often not be at all the same underneath and it is my contention that EXTREME examples of antisemitism are <i>sui generis</i> -- i.e. they have to be understood in their own terms and in their own context. For instance, the "final solution" of England's King Edward I in 1290 cannot safely be seen as similarly-motivated to a certain later "final solution". I think, however, that there is nonetheless one generalization about extreme antisemitism in the last couple of centuries that has some explanatory power and I will initially say a few words about that:<br /><br />The most extreme example of antisemitism in recent times was of course the thinking and deeds of the avowedly socialist Adolf Hitler. Leftist propaganda has convinced many that he was not a true socialist because he violently disagreed with the Marxist notion of class war. But most Leftists in the last 200 years have not agreed with the goal of class war. They want reform that falls somewhere short of that. So Hitler was in fact a fairly normal Leftist in that regard. There are probably few readers here, however, who are ready to unlearn the propaganda they have been fed about Hitler being a Rightist so I refer such doubters to a really thorough exposition of the matter <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html">here</a><br /><br />And who wrote this?<br /><br /><i>"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry". </i><br /><br />Most people would identify those words as the words of Hitler but they are in fact the words of that great hater, Karl Marx. So I think that does lead us towards one useful generalization about extreme antisemitism in the last 200 years or so: It is characteristically Leftist. By Hitler's time, antisemitism in particular, as well as racism in general, already had a long history on the Left. August Bebel was the founder of Germany's Social Democratic party (mainstream Leftists) and his best-known saying is that antisemitism is <i>der Sozialismus des bloeden Mannes</i> (usually translated as "the socialism of fools") -- which implicitly recognized the antisemitism then prevalent on the Left. And Lenin himself alluded to the same phenomenon in saying that "it is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people" but "the capitalists of all countries." For more on the socialist roots of antisemitism see Tyler Cowen's detailed survey <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10234">here</a>. <br /><br />And when we contrast the socialist Hitler with people who really were conservative, the difference in treatment of Jews could hardly be more stark. In the clearly more racist 19th century to which Hitler belonged intellectually (He was born in 1889), the British Conservative Party made a flamboyant Jew -- Disraeli -- a most honoured and influential Prime Minister. Could that be a greater contrast with the gas ovens he could have expected under Hitler? And it was of course Conservative party member and eventual leader Winston Churchill who was Hitler's most unrelenting opponent.<br /><br /><img src="http://jonjayray.googlepages.com/peanut.jpg"> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/KPM37.jpg"><br /><br />And Leftist antisemitism was only briefly interrupted by the aftermath of Hitler's defeat and horror at the holocaust. The most virulent expressions of non-Muslim antisemitism are now once again emanating from the Left -- sometimes but not always in the form of "anti-Zionism" (Translation: Hatred of Israel). If Hitler were alive today, his attitude to Jews would make him once again a fairly mainstream Leftist. He would certainly get on well with America's famous Grinning Peanut (See <a href="http://www.adl.org/israel/carter_book_review.asp">here</a> and <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=25746">here</a> for details of Peanut's addled thinking).<br /><br />And it is no mystery why Leftists should be antisemitic. Hatred of success and prominence in others -- envy -- is the major driving force behind Leftism and Jews do have the perhaps unfortunate attribute of tending to be prominently successful in all sorts of ways. And the remarkable exceptionalism of modern-day Israel would make it hated by the Left whether it was populated by Jews or Calathumpians. But it IS mainly populated by Jews so extreme antisemitism gets a new lease of life. <br /><br />I will not go on to discuss further the characteristically Leftist nature of extreme antisemitism as we have seen it in the last couple of centuries because I think that the two links I have given above do a pretty thorough job of that. And there is what will probably be a surprising comparison between Hitler and American Leftists of his day <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/amerfasc.html">here</a>. <br /><br />Before I leave the topic, however, I think I should quote <a href="http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/Articles/The%20European%20and%20American%20Left.htm">a summary</a> (originally published in the Leftist magazine "Dissent") of where Leftists at the beginning of the 21st century stood with regard to Israel:<br /><blockquote> "If one is not at least a serious doubter of the legitimacy of the state of Israel (never mind the policies of its government) and if one does not dismiss everything American as a priori vile and reactionary, one runs the risk of being excluded from the entity called "the left." There has not been a common issue since the Spanish Civil War that has united the left so clearly as has anti-Zionism and its twin, anti-Americanism. The left divided, and divides, over Serbia, over Chechnya, over Darfur, even over the war in Iraq. There are virtually no divisions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and over the essence of the United States.</blockquote><br />And guess from what era <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html">the quote below</a> comes. It is is from a prominent American Democrat -- at one time a candidate for the Democrat Presidential nomination.<br /><br /><i>When we asked him what made him so sure the *** administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers." </i><br /><br />It sounds fresh out of the 1930s with its reference to "New York money people" (rich Jews) but it was in fact a public comment by retired General Wesley Clarke in the year 2007 -- commenting on the supposedly Jew-run Bush administration. As the French say, the more things change, the more they remain the same.<br /><br /><blockquote> {And, to pre-empt a Leftist wriggle-out, I should note that Clarke was at the time no fringe figure or ill-educated "redneck". He was in his youth a Rhodes scholar and was later Supreme Commander of NATO. He had for some time been much fawned-over by Democrats. And the comments by Democrat supporters published along with his words above were generally supportive. As <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009497">an Israeli</a> put it: <i>"I read your posting on Clark's comments to the Huffington Post (or Puffington Host) and the comments of the "progressive" and "enlightened" anti-Semites cheering on Clark's anti-Semitic diatribe and was blown away.</i>}</blockquote><br />There are many more examples of the truly insane antisemitism emanating from the early 21st century Western Left <a href="http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/PROGRESSIVE_JEWISH_THOUGHT.PDF">here</a> -- in an article by Alvin H. Rosenfeld for the American Jewish Committee.<br /><br />I now want to move on to my main focus in this article: a look at a much lesser-known type of antisemitism -- antisemitism of a low level "grumbling" sort -- antisemitism that is not at all extreme but which is nonetheless widespread among many modern Western populations.<br /><br /><b>THE CONTEXT FOR WHAT FOLLOWS BELOW:</b><br /><br />I want to make clear at the outset that what I discuss below is a particular type of antisemitism in a particular type of context. What I say is most unlikely to account for ALL types of antisemitism or all contexts. But the type and the context are common ones: "Incidental" antisemitism in a context where Jews are a small minority. I am NOT talking about the sort of people who believe in Jewish conspiracy theories or those who have "studied" Jews. I have <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/antisem.html">a whole separate article</a> devoted to such people. This is, in other words, one of two companion articles.<br /><br />Also: I do mention it below but I think I should attempt a pre-emptive strike here at popular conceptions of stereotyping. Crazily enough, stereotyping is often stereotyped. People think they know what goes on in stereotyping -- but they don't. As you might expect, there is a very large academic literature in which psychologists have researched what exactly goes on in stereotyping and they find that it is the OPPOSITE of how it is popularly conceived. It is popularly conceived as being rigid and imprisoning and as somehow dictating what people will see and think. It isn't. The truth is that human beings form generalizations very quickly and on the basis of most limited evidence but they also CHANGE their generalizations equally readily and again on the basis of a few impressions rather than waiting for ALL the evidence to be in. Stereotypes are in fact highly flexible and contain what Allport long ago described as a "kernel of truth". They ARE based on (very limited) experience. There are summaries of the academic literature on the subject, complete with full citation details, <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/stereo.html">here</a> and <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/scots.html">here</a>. <br /><br />And the generalizations that I discuss below ARE stereotypes -- but in the reality-based sense I have just described: Generalizations based on very limited experience. Such generalizations are however common and need to be addressed. So this article is in fact another contribution to the literature on stereotyping: I look at how one particular stereotype is formed in one particular population type in one particular context.<br /><br /><b>PSYCHOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ON RACIAL ATTITUDES</b><br /><br /> It is perhaps encouraging that research into racially and ethnically denominated antagonisms ("racism" for short) seems to be one field where knowledge and understanding among psychologists has undergone steady development and, hopefully, progress. Throughout the 50's, 60's and even later the most common view of racism among psychologists seems to have been the one propagated by Adorno et al (1950) -- i.e that racism was an attribute of sick deviants only and that it was possible to "educate" people out of it. How much things have changed! Now it is a textbook view that ethnocentrism and stereotyping are "universal ineradicable psychological processes" (Brown, 1986. See also Tajfel & Fraser, 1978) and reviews of research into racism now hardly mention the Adorno et al claims (e.g. Tajfel, 1982; Brewer & Kramer, 1985; Messick & Mackie, 1988). Even in 1974 my claim <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/racethno.html">(Ray, 1974, Ch. 46)</a> that racism on some occasions can be in some senses "rational" (have some basis in reality) was something of a voice in the wilderness. Now social scientists generally and sociologists in particular (including sociologists of many different orientations) are quite ready to agree (e.g. Banton, 1983; Moreh, 1988; Wellman, 1977; Brown, 1985; Hechter, 1986; McClendon, 1984) and some go so far as to make the somewhat startling claim that all racism is rational (e.g. Hechter, 1986). Hechter is, however, referring to active racial discrimination rather than mere sentiment so it is perhaps arguable that some rational self- interest has to be mobilized before attitude will be transformed into action.<br /><br /> In the early 1970's I wrote two papers that were essentially field reports of studies I had made among various Australian Neo-Nazi groups. These were published (Ray, 1972 & 1973) in Jewish journals. I also wrote a companion paper that described antisemitism among ordinary citizens in the community. The conclusions of the paper were, however, that antisemitism can on some occasions be rational (have some basis in reality). This, however, seemed to breach a fundamental taboo and meant that the paper did not find a publisher. In fact, the editors of one allegedly academic journal (<i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i>) completely stopped corresponding with me, presumably because of my reprehensible conclusions. Now that racism generally is widely acknowledged by psychologists as not necessarily irrational or psychopathological, however, it seems that the time might be ripe to extend the same analysis to antisemitism in particular. Below, therefore, are presented the previously unmentionable observations.<br /><br /> <font color="#ff0000">Before getting to that point, however, it should be noted that the conclusions I come to are novel only in that they come from a Gentile. Similar conclusions are old stuff among Jewish intellectuals, most notable of whom is perhaps the widely influentual and ethnically Jewish philosopher, Karl Popper (Hacohen, 2000, pp. 304-307).</font><br /><br /> And they continue to be well-known in Jewish circles. For instance, in his bitter commentary on the controversy in Germany over the performance of the Fassbinder play <i>Der Muell, die Stadt und die Tod</i>, Broder (1986) concludes that antisemitism is an ineradicable human folly that Jews will always have to live with and which is therefore best overt rather than covert (a view also more recently supported by <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010172">Eugene Volokh</a>). In particular, he concludes that hidden antisemitism is still pervasive in Germany and he clearly views this as the worst sort of antisemitism. <br /><br />This subsidiary conclusion is rather controversial, however. While the reasoning behind the conclusion is clear enough ("Better the devil you know...."), might it not be said that the era before the Second World War represented a test of where open antisemitism led? At any event, Broder's subsidiary conclusion does seem worth examination and it so happens that the data I gathered in Australia in the late 60's and early 70's do make an examination of it possible. This is because antisemitism still does seem to be fairly openly acknowledged in Australia (Yes, Australia, not Austria). Beswick & Hills (1972) found that among a random sample of Australians 47% agreed with the statement that, "One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and prevent other people from having a fair chance in competition". Naturally, racism is generally regarded as socially undesirable in Australia at the present time so we must regard this 47% as the lower bound of antisemitism in Australia. In a secret ballot, the level would certainly be much higher. At any event, there are a lot of overt antisemitic beliefs in Australia. Broder would be pleased.<br /> <br /><font color="#ff0000"> Two present-day Jewish social scientists who present much the same view that I do are H.F. Stein and C.Y. Glock.</font> See Stein (1977, 1978 & 1984), Quinley & Glock (1979) and Glock, Wuthnow, Piliavin & Spencer (1975). Glock worked under the auspices of the anti-defamation league of B'nai B'rith and what he found was that antisemitism was highest where Jews were most visible: No Jews, no antisemitism. Since prejudice must have an object, this is not perhaps an intrinsically surprising finding and similar findings have in fact been reported for non-Jewish minorities (e.g. Fossett & Kiecolt, 1989; Mitchell, 1968) but it does raise the possibility that a significant subset of Jews in some way cause, stimulate or at least collaborate with prejudice. Glock himself deals with this deduction by in essence resorting to the old "jealousy" explanation: Many Jews tend to be successful in various ways and success always invites envy. This would appear to be essentially a version of the popular "economic rivalry" explanation for racism (Banton, 1983; Hechter, 1986; Fossett & Kiecolt, 1989) but the empirically very limited explanatory power of such theories should be noted (Studlar, 1979).<br /><br /> Stein, by contrast, is more innovative. In his various works he puts forward the theory (cf. Volkan, 1985 & 1988) that Jews NEED persecution for their survival. He posits that the quite unprecedentedly long time that Jews have survived as a distinct ethnic group needs an extraordinary explanation and that the best explanation is that they survived not in spite of but because of the persecution that they have always unconsciously invited. Persecution leads to ingroup cohesion just as external threat encourages unity among citizens of nation-states. As it is a common modern observation that the State of Israel holds together today only because of the Arab threat (See Eisenstadt, 1986, for an account of just some of the tensions within modern-day Israeli society) Stein's hypothesis has considerable contemporary context to recommend it. Although Stein's version of the hypothesis is extreme, could there not be something characteristic or at least common in Jewish behaviour which at least enables or collaborates with prejudice? Jews do tend to have a distinctive culture which is proudly maintained in one way or another by at least a substantial minority of them and many writers (e.g. Park, 1950; Manheim, 1960; Rokeach, 1960; Byrne, Clore & Smeaton, 1986; Walker & Campbell, 1982) maintain that people with different values, beliefs and attitudes will tend to be disliked -- so we could entertain a "culture clash" explanation of antisemitism even if we do not wish to accept Stein's psychoanalytic musings. Some examination of how Jews are generally perceived does therefore seem needed.<br /><br />Before proceeding any further, however, <font color="#ff0000">I should perhaps enter the caveat that I personally find utterly ludicrous any idea that there is such a thing as a "typical" Jew</font>. As far as I can see, from Biblical times to the present day, Jews must be the most fractious (i.e. furiously divided among themselves) people in all of history. Unity is definitely not one of their attributes as a people so any idea of a "worldwide Jewish conspiracy" could hardly be more laughable. If such a conspiracy were ever attempted, there would immediately be a whole heap of other Jews furiously denouncing it! I see much truth in the saying that where there are two Jews there will be at least three points of view! Nonetheless the idea that some things are "typically" Jewish is widespread and needs to be examined. That such views might have originated from observations of a significant subset of Jews and then been overgeneralized to all Jews is not an inherently unreasonable proposition. And I might say at this point that for my purposes I find the definition of "Jew" contained in Israel's "Law of the Return" adequate. In summary: "A Jew is someone who sees himself as a Jew".<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>METHOD</b><br /><br /> I attempted to fill the need for an account of how Jews are perceived in the population at large by making use of case studies or "participant observation". Adorno et al (1950) and Stein (1977 & 1978) both used case studies for their purposes so the methodology obviously has its attractions. Its open-ended character is probably the chief of these. Many writers have highlighted the shortcomings of the laboratory- or survey-based methods that psychologists and sociologists generally use (e.g. Bruyn, 1966; Campbell, 1976) and have exhorted us to make more use of alternative sources of data so the data to be presented below would seem to deserve at least some examination.<br /><br />The cases I describe below are simply all the people I personally met over a period of about seven years whom I heard making low-level antisemitic utterances. I also encountered some less casual antisemitic utterances but I have described those commenters <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/antisem.html">elsewhere</a>. <br /><br />I have long been interested in the study of antisemitism, as my early articles on Neo-Nazism (Ray, 1972 & 1973) attest. Whenever therefore I happened to hear any antisemitic utterance, I took some interest in it and endeavoured to find out more about the person concerned and how they felt about Jews. Being in most ways a fairly conventional-seeming WASP Australian, I may have been in a better position to draw out people on the topic than a Jewish social scientist might have been.<br /><br /> Although the cases therefore are not deliberately selected in any way, they may of course have been influenced by the fact that they are drawn from people met in the course of my own social and business life. Academics probably tend to mix with people not too dissimilar from themselves so any one circle of acquaintances can hardly hope to be in any sense representative. There is also of course the difficulty that not every antisemitic utterance is encountered in circumstances where one can follow it up with a detailed discussion of the sentiments behind it. The cases described are, in other words, only those where I could assure myself that the antisemitism was seriously meant and where I could find out how the person justified it. I must also enter the caveat that for none of the people described was their antisemitism an important thing or even something that they often thought about. If it had not been for my interest in antisemitism, they would probably in fact never have been "picked up" as antisemites. This "low-level" antisemitism is, however, the form that antisemitism generally seems to take in Australia today: People may have a general dislike or suspicion of Jews but this does not imply any desire to persecute or oppress them. This may be a reservoir of sentiment with frightening political potential in certain circumstances but as it stands at the moment it is simply a dislike of Jewry much as one might dislike people who drive flashy cars or part their hair in the middle.<br /><br />And I hope I do not need to stress at this point that, like much else in psychological studies of attitudes, predicting antisemitic behaviour from antisemitic attitudes would be extremely perilous. The attitude/behaviour gap has been well-known in studies of racism at least since the work of La Piere (1934) and has been amply confirmed since (See e.g. Crosby, Bromley & Saxe, 1980; Rule, Haley, & McCormack, 1971 and Stephan, 1985). Perhaps the most spectacular "gap" of that type however is the example of one Richard Milhous Nixon. President Nixon was much prone to antisemitic slurs in private but was exemplary, if not philosemitic, in his actual treatment of Jews. And I hope that no lover of Israel will ever forget <a href="http://ww.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19025">Nixon's ferocious defence of Israel</a> in its hour of greatest need. So any assumption of evil in the people I describe below could well be the reverse of the truth if it is deeds rather than words that count.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>THE CASES</b><br /><br /> The first case I wish to describe is in fact one I have described in a previous study (Ray, 1973). I will call him "E.S.". It will be worthwhile to repeat the description: E. is a very successful businessman of a quite entrepreneurial kind with an attractive wife and three equally attractive children. He was at the time in his early 40's and although of Australian Irish descent, was brought up an atheist. A Communist in his earlier days, he is now politically very much to the Right. He has a formidably well-informed and catholic devotion to classical music. He is a great lover and exponent of Australian working-class traditions and language, perhaps largely because he worked in a highly unionized blue-collar occupation in his younger days. Nazism to him is utterly contemptible and 'sick'. For all that his dislike of Jews is probably rivalled only by his dislike of Aborigines (Australian blacks). Jews to him are 'scabs' -- people who take what they can get with no accompanying sense of obligation or duty to the others who make their opportunities possible. Aborigines he condemns for what he sees as their whining disinclination to work and their tendency to "lower the standards" of their community. Both offend against the universal Australian working-class credo of being "fair dinkum" and allowing a "fair go". He sees both as grasping -- the one by deceit and untrustworthiness and the other by indolent whining. In standard literary English we might say that E. dislikes insincerity and failures of consideration for others. He can relate many vivid anecdotes to show that his "prejudice" is not prejudice at all -- i.e. he condemns after and because he has become to know those of whom he speaks. His profusely exemplified philippics against Jewish and Aboriginal moral defalcations are worthy in fact of an independent literary record. Coming as he does from the "outback" (Australia's sparsely populated and semi-desert inland where many Aborigines still live in a quite primitive state), I have seen him use his first-hand knowledge of Aborigines to devastating effect in informal debates with urban Left-leaning intellectuals. Here then is a racially critical man whose attitudes it is hard not to respect -- whether or not we agree with them. Let it be clear, however, that his ideology of everyone deserving a "fair go" would make him a resolute and formidable opponent to anyone who proposed or practiced any oppression of others on the basis of their race or creed. I hope I have made it intelligible that he would oppose his daughter marrying a Jew but would oppose Belsen and Auschwitz much more.<br /><br /> Similar in many ways was U.Q. U. is a short, stocky, grey-haired businessman and company director with a large house in one of Sydney's "better" suburbs. He is the sort of person whom one would imagine would often be called (ironies aside) "a real Christian". He is characterized by a grandfatherly sort of gentleness and kindness that make him the soul of generosity, consideration and humanity. He did in fact have a definitely Protestant upbringing in an Australian country town. I know personally of instances where he has sacrificed immediate monetary gain simply for the sake of having satisfied customers. He would definitely rather have a reasonable return on his money and the feeling that he had served his customers well than a big return and customer animosity. He was, for all that, a prosperous and successful businessman. His humane business policies he would justify as being in fact good business. He could see that accepting less than what he could get for what he had to sell gave him a stability of customer demand that more rapacious policies would militate against. He felt in fact that he was in the long term no worse off than someone who went all out for a "fast buck" -- and in addition he had the reward of other people's liking and esteem. Given, however, that his business was, like so many today, one where a typical purchase was large so repeat custom would be the exception rather than the rule, the loss or gain entailed by having or not having repeat custom must have been fairly marginal. Certainly he could quite plausibly have acted rapaciously -- with the rationale that you will not see them again so soak them while you have them. It should by now be very apparent that one thing U. would be very contemptuous of was precisely such rapacity. It became apparent also that he had seen enough to conclude that such behaviour was more to be expected of Jewish businessmen than of others. Speaking to me in condemnation of a person whom both of us knew to be engaged in an enterprise that would result in considerable financial gain if certain customers could be "conned", U. said: "But he's not an Australian, is he? That's what makes the difference." There was no ambiguity concerning what ethnic origin this particular "non-Australian" might be presumed to have. U, then, would not explicitly or in blanket terms condemn Jews -- he was far too forbearing a man to do that -- and the suggestion of persecuting them he would receive with horror, but for all that the direction his expectations lay as far as Jews were concerned was quite clear. Being the sort of man he was, it is hard not to credit his judgment with some accuracy. It certainly cannot be dismissed as mere self-justifying prejudice.<br /><br /> Next is O.I. O. was an attractive, Australian-born divorcee of wholly Irish ancestry. She had one child and was at the time in her late 20's. Of obviously high intelligence, she supported herself in some style entirely out of the proceeds of various speculative business deals which represented both her occupation and principal hobby. She completed a couple of years at University but was not interested enough to complete a degree. She was raised as a Catholic but is now an agnostic and sent her daughter to a prestigious Church of England private school. She could to a degree be described as moving "in Society". She has one or two friends who are Jewish and would if formally asked say all the right things about how absurd prejudice is and how people must be treated as individuals. Nonetheless, among familiars it is quite commonplace for her to say such things as: (speaking of her daughter's school, where she is a committee member) "We tried to keep them out but eventually we had to let some of the little Jewesses in." I have, by the way, every reason to believe that the "we" was far from being a royal plural. Her dislike of Jews seems to be justified by her in terms of their separatism and their being in general " not very good types". It should be said that she is herself rather self-centred and aggressive -- compassion is certainly not her strong point. Nazism is not exactly abhorrent to her -- rather foolish and irrelevant. Her attitude towards Jews is certainly one of the least important things to her in life.<br /><br /> Another person in this category was M.K. M. is a Hungarian by birth but migrated to Australia after the second world war. He was at the time about 30 and single. He speaks faultless English and in his social life associates somewhat with students and others of a conventionally Leftist outlook. He is a rather entrepreneurial importer by occupation and has in the past clashed with the officers of Australian customs to the point of having a warrant out against him. His dislike of Jews is quite strong and he will defend it even to his radical friends in terms of his own actual experience of their rapacity and dishonesty in business. Since his business lies in a traditionally Jewish field, he should have had some experience on which to base his judgment. He will not even concede that Jews have to be taken individually. He has found them "all the same".<br /><br /> As was suggested above, even among Leftists antisemitism is far from a remote possibility. Q.N. was a divorcee of about 30 and an active worker for one of Australia's Leftist political parties. A tall, blonde and very attractive woman of Catholic nominal background, Q. worked in a responsible position with a firm in the heart of Sydney's financial district. Her attitude towards Jews is an obviously well thought-out one. She greatly dislikes Hungarian Jews in particular: "Even their own people (other Jews?) don't like them". Her complaint is that in their business dealings they are completely untrustworthy and know no honour. For money they would sacrifice every human and social value. So deleterious has been their influence on the standards of the business community that she is in favour of deporting the lot of them. To her Leftist friends she says: "When I was at University I thought as you do but now I know differently. I have to deal with these people every day." Whatever her own attitude to Jews, however, she would regard Nazism as the epitome of everything she opposed.<br /><br /> Another young woman who would see herself as radical and "progressive" was M.E. M. was in her late twenties, had a pleasant personality, was of presentable appearance and happily married. She was of Protestant nominal background and worked as a teacher. Her recipe for solving any financial crisis is: "I will have to go out and kill a fat Jew". Since she was a very gentle-natured and caring person, this was, of course, not a literal proposal. It was, in fact intended as facetious. For all that, she did have a definite dislike of Jews -- based on their presumed personal characteristics of being money-hungry, insincere etc. I gathered that the attitude, as well as the formula quoted is something she inherited from her family but it is nonetheless strongly held by her, and she will defend it as realistic even to horrified Leftist friends.<br /><br /> Perhaps a final person in this category is X.H. X works in a semi-professional field where he has ample contact with Jews. He was in his mid-twenties and unmarried. He is Australian-born and of nominal Protestant background. He is very sociable and good-humoured and is well-liked among his large circle of "mates" (male friends). His dislike of Jews is as something automatic. There is no apology for it or expectation that his friends will disagree with him. It is based again on his seeing Jews as generally untrustworthy and always ready to "take you down". As the very epitome of a young, beer-drinking Australian who is nonetheless keenly intelligent and successful in a necessarily creative occupation, his impressions are hard to dismiss.<br /><br /> All the impressions given so far were written up in the early 70's very much as given above. I present them in such a way to show that, being written before the Stein/Glock work, they represent an independent confirmation of it. From later experience, however, examples such as those given above could readily be multiplied. I can, for instance, think of two young men with higher degrees in Humanities fields whom I have heard express general dislike of Jews on much the same grounds as repeatedly emerged in the cases quoted above.<br /><br />None of the people described above were saints by any means but they all seemed to be people of normal goodwill <font color="#ff0000">and it is their normality and sanity which is the central datum of this article</font>. There were also some antisemitic people I met who seemed unusually ill-willed but they all fitted into one of the categories described in <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/antisem.html">my article on more serious antisemites</a> -- which see.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>SOME INFERENCES FROM THE OBSERVATIONS</b><br /><br /> Perhaps the first impression one gains from what is reported above is that Broder seems to be right. Antisemitism seems to be fairly open in Australia and is also far from virulent or even important there. Whether the second is a consequence of the first, however, remains debatable.<br /><br /> Another interesting feature of the above cases is that they were all gathered (between 1968 and approx. 1973) in Sydney -- a city with a substantial Jewish business community. This is in some contrast with Brisbane -- another large Australian city I have spent many years in but where Jews seem very few and far between. Brisbane did have neo-Nazis but not any low-level general population antisemitism that I could detect. The only person from Brisbane that I could have included above was in fact an American now living in Australia who himself traces his antisemitism to business experiences with Jews in America (He is, incidentally, a notable Brisbane welfare worker, admired for helping blacks and homosexuals). The present observations are, then, very much consistent with the observations by Glock et al (1975): Antisemitism is highest where Jews are most present.<br /><br /> What the "cases" above actually say about their attitudes is also consistent with the Stein/Glock observations. Australian low-level antisemites assert consistently that it is actual experience with Jews that has made them antisemitic. Are we then to take seriously what these people say? Is actual association with people who define themselves as Jews aversive for many non-Jews? If so, why? I submit that we ignore what these generally young people say at our peril. As I have been at pains to point out, the claims they make are not the isolated claims of eccentrics. They are mainstream views. I believe therefore that we should accept that a significant subset of Jews do often behave in ways which are offensive to such people. We must enquire, therefore, just how this comes about.<br /><br /> The obvious first response is to say that Jews generally maintain a different culture and people will dislike anyone who is different. There probably is some truth in that. The psychological literature is replete with studies showing that those most attractive to us are those who are most like us in beliefs, attitudes, values, dress etc. (e.g. Rokeach, 1960; Byrne, Clore & Smeaton, 1986; Walker & Campbell, 1982). Trivial though it may seem, even strange hats can alienate. That is far from the end of the story, however. Why, for instance, are not redheads generally disliked? They are certainly a small minority and their difference is an obvious one. There have even been suggestions that they are characteristically more intelligent and more emotional. Yet the idea of a Pogrom against redheads is merely amusing. We must conclude, then, that it is not difference per se which is disliked but rather certain types of difference. What we have to ascertain is why some types of difference (such as being Jewish) are disliked while other types are not.<br /><br /> One of the reasons why people do not dislike redheads is that few other characteristics can in fact reliably be associated with red hair. As should be evident, a considerable diversity of people have no such difficulty with Jews. Can this be explained away by invoking the "stereotyping" formula? Do people come to their contacts with Jews with a stereotype in their heads into which Jews are fitted willy nilly? Note that if there were only such stereotypes involved, we should expect precisely the opposite generalization to that which was in fact found. If the stereotype were just that and not a true description, then people not having actual contact with Jews should hold with greatest assurance to the stereotype while those who did have most contact with Jews should see it often enough contradicted to lose faith in it. The reverse seems to be true. In fact what I observed was that people seem to start off with (given the terrible events of recent history) a sympathetic attitude towards Jews which is reversed as they actually come to know Jews. Among people who do not know Jews, there is no "stereotype". The "stereotype" is postjudice, not prejudice: It only emerges as the fruit of experience with Jews. <br /> <br /> <br /><b>SOME RATHER DISTURBING HISTORICAL PARALLELS</b><br /> <br />Although the above observations have concerned people for whom their antisemitic views are completely incidental, it would seem that in some cases, similar processes CAN lead on to really serious antisemitism.<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">And in fact a reading of any biography of Wilhelm Marr -- who in 1879 invented the term "antisemitism" (<i>Antisemitismus</i>) and published a very popular and influential antisemitic tract (<i>"Der Sieg des Judenthums ueber das Germanenthum"</i> -- "The victory of Jewry over the Germanic peoples") will show that he had exceptionally close and frequent contact with Jews -- even marrying one. And as Lindemann (2000, p. 188) says of 19th century antisemites generally: ""an astonishing number of them had at some point in their lives not only extensive contact with Jews but also remarkably positive experiences with them -- close friends, respected teachers, even lovers and spouses!" </font> So what I observed has much historical precedent.<br /><br />Indeed, according to the extensive account of the matter given in <i>"Mein Kampf"</i> ("My Struggle") much the same is true of Hitler himself. <i>Mein Kampf</i> is unreliable as objective history but there can be little doubt that it is good psychological history -- i.e. it records Hitler's own history as he saw it. And what he says is that in Linz -- where he grew up -- there were few Jews and he saw them at that time as no different from other Germans. So when he moved to Vienna he was horrified at the antisemitism of much of the Viennese press. As he says: <br /><br /><i>"For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation".</i><br /><br />Long before the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, however, Hitler despised the destructive and divisive side of Marxism and when he found that practically every preacher of Marxism that he encountered in Vienna was a Jew, he began to see Jews as bent on the destruction of the German people he loved. In other words, for him too, it was <i>experience</i> of Jews that led to his dislike of them. And he describes his conversion to antisemitism as "a great spiritual upheaval" -- i.e. he abandoned his previous "cosmopolitan" (tolerant) views only with great reluctance. <br /><br />The conventional account of the origins of Hitler's animosity towards Jews is that his rejection from the Vienna Art Academy (in which Jews were prominent) embittered him. But that is not remotely what he says in <i>Mein Kampf</i>. He does not even mention the word "Jew" in connection with the Academy. He says that the Rector rejected him from the painting school because his main talent and interest was in architecture -- a judgement with which Hitler himself emphatically agreed!<br /><br />An obvious question that arises from the historical cases I have just mentioned is why observations of Jews in those cases led on to really serious antisemitism when the normal effect is incidental antisemitism. <br /><br />As I intimated initially, I think such cases have to be treated as <i>sui generis</i> and I do not know enough about Marr and others to comment with any certainty. The case of Hitler, however, is clear-cut. As any reader of <i>Mein Kampf</i> should know, Hitler was a fervent German nationalist (like <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/engels.html">Engels</a> and other Leftists before him) and the great love affair of his life was a love-affair with the German people (<i>Volk</i>) as he saw them. But in the aftermath of WWI, Germans were furiously divided among themselves and apparently on the verge of class-war. That grieved Hitler deeply and to salvage his romantic view of his <i>Volk</i> he had to attribute the divisions among Germans to outside forces deceiving them rather than as something intrinsic to Germans themselves. And since the active preachers of class war at the time were often Jews, the scapegoat was obvious. So it was Hitler's nationalist passion that transformed him into an active antisemite. It must be noted, however, that nationalism and patriotism are normally NOT related to racism <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/auconrac.html">(Ray & Furnham, 1984)</a>. Hitler's case was <i>sui generis</i>.<br /><br /><blockquote> {Since it is still considered authoritative in certain circles to trace ideas to Marxian origins, I might note in passing that the non-necessary connection between nationalism and antisemitism can be seen in the writings of Marx and Engels themselves. Marx was the furious antisemite -- which Engels more or less went along with -- and Engels was the fervent German nationalist -- which Marx more or less went along with. It took Hitler to combine both orientations with great enthusiasm. Those less familiar with Marxian writings should find a browse through the archives <a href="http://marxwords.blogspot.com">here</a> to offer good confirmation for the summary I have suggested.}</blockquote> <br /><br /><br /><b>SEMITISM</b><br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">It must be noted again that psychological research has now made the view of stereotypes as being rigid and mentally imprisoning quite obsolete</font> (Brown, 1986; McCauley, Stitt & Segal, 1980). Stereotypes are now known to be as fluid as they were once thought rigid. Stereotypes are, in other words, highly responsive to new information about their target. See also Bayton & McAlister (1966) and Stein, Hardyck & Smith (1965) and summaries <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/stereo.html">here</a> and <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/scots.html">here</a>. At this point, then, it seems we must do something that has probably been rather resisted in the past. We must look at the characteristics not only of those doing the discriminating but also at the characteristics of those discriminated against. What is there in many self-defined Jews that might generally offend today?<br /><br />I would like to suggest that the explanation might be found (cf. Stephenson, 1940) in what one might call Semitism (or, as Stein calls it: "Anti-Gentilism") -- the well-known rejection of "Goyim" (Gentiles) by some Jews themselves. In fact, if we go by Brown's (1965) "codability" theory, Semitism is much more important to Jews than antisemitism is to Gentiles. English does not have a single word for "Jewish female", let alone a contemptuous one, but the Yiddish term "shicksa" (meaning roughly "Gentile bitch" and synonymous with "prostitute" in German) is well-known. In explaining antisemitism a very humble reference source (Pears Cyclopaedia, 1971) puts it all rather well: "Jews tend to form a closed society and incur the suspicions attached to all closed societies within which social contacts are largely limited to members; marriage outside the group is forbidden or strongly disapproved of and the preservation, among the orthodox, of cultural and religious barriers tends to isolate them from their fellow citizens. Discrimination, hateful as it is, does not come from one side only and it is such barriers as these that help to maintain an old and cruel folly".<br /><br /> It seems then that the offence some Jews give may stem from what Sumner (1906) long ago described and which is only too familiar to anthropologists: The tendency to have different standards for the in-and the out-groups. In such a "tribal morality" ingroup members tend to be treated in highly ethical ways but outsiders are "fair game". Many Jews would seem to see themselves as part of such a "tribe". To swindle an unperson is no crime at all and if one is challenged in the matter, a wealth of justifications and rationalizations is available under the general formula: "Look what they did to us" or Shylock's "If we are wronged, shall we not revenge?" Such behaviour can even be pious: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". It matters not that the individual upon whom the revenge is wreaked has done nothing wrong; where groupthink exists, the individual Jew need find little moral difficulty in justifying exploitation of Gentiles. The sad point is that even a member of the most primitive tribe could justify murdering members of other tribes in a similar way.<br /><br /> Such a tribal morality among a significant subset of Jews, then, very well explains the constant refrain from my informants about the dishonesty and untrustworthiness that they encountered when dealing with individual Jews. Those who live by a tribal morality, however, would seem to overlook the enmity they must arouse among the "unpersons" among whom they move and whom they treat less ethically than they might. Even an unperson knows the difference between good treatment and bad. And even unpersons can fire bullets and wield bayonets.<br /><br /> What is proposed here, then, is that the very "We" feeling that is prized by many Jewish community leaders is the thing that most endangers that community. Hitler showed what the effects of having the enmity of those among whom you live can be. The price of earning the enmity of your neighbors can be a terrible one indeed to pay. Is any pride or any temporary material gain worth it?<br /><br /> The last thing that should matter is to whom we trace the blame for this state of affairs. Persecution breeds "We" feeling and the Catholic Church persecuted Jewry for over a millennium, but then institutional Jewry had brought about the slaying of the Catholics' God. What a towering insult and injury that must have seemed! Not to slay a father, not to slay a King, but to slay a God! To me as an atheist of course the Catholic (and early Protestant) abhorrence of Jewry seems hopeless superstition and ignorance. But then so does the common Jewish view (<a href="http://972mag.com/poll-shows-israel-slowly-but-surely-turning-into-a-theocracy/33989/">shared by 70% of Israelis in 2012</a>) that they are a chosen people. It is easy for a Jew to think of his own people as guiltless. When we realize that the Catholic and even the Nazi also think of themselves as guiltless it becomes apparent how pointless the ascription of guilt is. If instead it is the future towards which we are oriented, we may well live to see that future. A tribal morality is something that the future cannot justify and something that threatens the future of those that adhere to it today.<br /><br /> The sympathy that has gone out to Jewry after the Hitlerian horror became fully known could well lull Jews into a false sense of security. One could be tempted to identify all antisemitism with Nazism and give it no heed. To do so would be to squander a dearly bought breathing-space. The sympathy will one day run out as memory fades and public criticisms of Jews will then no longer be suppressed. It takes no wisdom at all to know what will follow then.<br /><br /> I am not, of course, suggesting that Jews themselves are unaware of the importance of developing goodwill and all sorts of ties with non-Jews. It is even my impression that Jews are unusually philanthropic once they have made their money. I am suggesting in fact that it is mainly in or perhaps only in business dealings that the tribal morality often emerges. It is only in the ultimately vital (survival-related) field of economics that the crunch comes. As I once heard H.N. say: "Socially they're lovely but in business......!". Certainly it has been my strong impression that it is mainly people who have had business dealings with Jews who dislike them. This for many will simply be contact as the customer of a Jew but even here a certain contempt by a Jew for his customers may be and is perceived. This is most usually where the Jew is in a limited competition position. A shopkeeper in competition with others cannot afford to be contemptuous but a landlord where housing is scarce may well be so able.<br /><br /> Let me elaborate a little on how many Jews may generally come to offend. Cut-throat though it may be, I think that there are nonetheless many ways in which business in our society works under ethical restraints. This is, of course, simply a matter of long-term self-interest. If a man's word is as good as his bond, it does obviate the need for bonds -- with all their attendant rigidities and inconveniences. The way one can (at least in Australia) simply ring up his stockbroker and order a purchase of shares is surely an instance of this. The transaction is one requiring trust and the broker is taking a risk. Given the moment to moment movement of the market, however, the advantage of preserving this trust and its attendant convenience are obvious. Verbal agreements are as convenient and advantageous as they are legally difficult to enforce. I gather from Q.N. that their ability to breach verbal agreements and even deny that they had been made is one of the things which makes Jews particularly offensive and indeed makes impossible the conclusion of such agreements. By saying that they "lower the standards" of the business community, she is referring precisely to the general lack of trust that the activity of some Jews engenders. Since not being able to trust the people with whom one works and deals must be singularly unpleasant, the cause of the situation quite reasonably must attract opprobrium. To me it seems obvious that not all Jews can be like this but I can also see that one of the things that keeps people behaving ethically towards others they have to do with is the need for the goodwill of those others. Indeed, there is no doubt that monetary advantage will frequently be sacrificed to the maintenance of goodwill. If a Jew sees himself as being apart from the "Goyim" he deals with and as being "chosen" and demonstrably better than they are, if he also looks for his social rewards and support to others than his "Goy" business associates, then this need for goodwill may indeed be lacking as a constraint on unethical behaviour. For a large monetary advantage he may be willing to sacrifice goodwill. This is made even more likely by the possibility that Jews seek security in money. In many ways this is an adaptive and realistic thing for a persecuted people to do and it may have served well in the past -- particularly where, for religious reasons, goodwill was simply unavailable. It does explain the contemptuous epithet "money-hungry" so frequently applied to Jews in Australia. Ultimately, however, the only security is the goodwill of one's fellows. Money did not help Hitler's millions of victims. Any outlook that has us think of others as not our fellows is personally dangerous.<br /><br /> This is not of course to deny that superiority and inferiority or similarity and difference do exist. In fact it is to assert that Australian Jews do appear to be economically more successful than others and I personally think that they are the intellectual elite of the human race. Nor am I necessarily saying that economically successful people everywhere should hide their success or deny it. What I am saying is that we are at risk unless we see our success and our values as merely our own. If I, raised as a Presbyterian, am successful and honest, it does not mean that all Presbyterians are successful and honest --any more than it means that Catholics must necessarily be unsuccessful and dishonest. The advantage of treating each man on his individual merits, then, is that it means that resentments can only ever have small targets. My success will be resented by those who do not share it but I as an individual am not worth getting heated about. If however I am known for my identity as a Jew the target may become not me but Jewry -- and that is (and often has been) a target big enough to get heated about.<br /><br /> In an age of nationalism and a rediscovery of ethnic roots, my plea that people see both themselves and others as individuals rather than as group-members may seem passe and redolent of the sort of liberal idealism that died with the '60s. I may indeed be advocating the impossible and the long rejected. Did not the Jews of Germany travel a long way along the assimilation road? Where did it get them? Nonetheless, if my analysis is correct the safest long-term alternative for Jews to the abandonment of group-identity that I urge may be emigration to Israel -- and the perils the Israelis face are only too well-known.<br /><br /> Some readers by now must be troubled that I seem to be accepting as true what antisemites say. Is that not naive? Is a thing true just because people believe it? Was not the absurd blood-libel believed about Jews for many centuries against all evidence to the contrary (Ben-Sasson, 1974)? In reply I basically must say that what I report is testimony of personal experience rather than hearsay and rumour. The difference seems important. It is certainly important in law. And dismissing my informants as "antisemites" simply prejudges the question of their veracity. When there are so many like them such prejudging and dismissal is quite simply incautious.<br /><br /><br /><b>OBJECTIONS TO THE ABOVE ACCOUNT</b><br /><br />I am sure that what I have said above will not be universally persuasive. Most people, many Jews no doubt particularly, have well-entrenched views about the matter already. But there are a few objections that I have not so far dealt with that may be worth addressing. <br /><br />The first I have in fact already dealt with implicitly but maybe I should be more explicit: Many Jews will refer to their own knowledge of other Jews and note how many philanthropic and generally admirable Jews there are. That is seen as a decisive objection to the stereotype I have discussed. It is not, of course. Even scientists rarely form their views on ALL the evidence (See <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com/">here</a> if you doubt it) and the man in the street is not even interested in ALL the evidence. He forms his impressions based primarily on his own limited experience and that is the reality we have to deal with and which I have tried to deal with.<br /><br />A second objection is that Jews who live in predominantly Christian communities see enough variety in the inhabitants of those communities to be very wary of any generalizations about Christians -- so surely it is perverse that members of predominantly Christian communites make adverse judgments of Jews in general.<br /><br />There are many replies to that. The obvious one is that many Jews DO seem to make adverse judgments of Christians -- as seen in the way a big majority of Jews vote for the Democratic party in the USA -- even though at least since Nixon the best friends of Israel have been Republicans. Why do they do that? Apparently because of the strong religious polariztion of the two parties. The Republicans are these days the Christian party. 2000 years of persecution of Jews by Christans of all sorts has a lot to do with that, of course, but what we see here seems to be a rare example of stereotyping in the popular sense -- i.e. a judgment that is NOT changed in response to changing reality. That should surely give some pause for reflection. If there is anything rigid and pathological in this whole area, the best candidate for it would seem to be the way so many contemporary American Jews reject their contemporary best friends: Evangelical Christians.<br /><br />Be that as it may, however, the main point is that the way Jews see things in a gentile country need have nothing in common with how gentiles see Jews in a gentile country. Living in a place where Jews are a majority and their diversity can be readily seen should lead to more cautious views about Jews compared to living in a place where Jews are only occasionally encountered. But it is the latter circumstance that is discussed in this article. <br /><br />And although the adverse stereotypes of Jews that I have discussed are generally unimportant to the people holding them, we have seen in Hitler's Germany how such views can cause the actions of really serious antisemites to be treated with indifference. And given the rising hostility to Israel in particular and Jews in general now emanating from the Left, a resurgence of serious antisemitism is not only a possibility but a fact. Where it will lead only a great optimist would dare to specify.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>THE PARSEES</b><br /><br /> Perhaps, however, I have so far been too pessimistic. Perhaps there is a safe choice for Jews other than Israel or assimilation. I have for some time been a keen student (Ray, 1982 & 1986) of an ethnic group that does seem to manage to have it both ways: The Parsees of India. Sometimes called "the Jews of India", the Parsees have set an example which does, I believe, give hope.<br /><br /> The Parsees are descendants of Zoroastrian true-believers who fled the Persian empire at the time of its conquest by Muslims. They took refuge in what is now the Indian State of Gujurat and have Gujurati as their native language to this day. Perhaps because of their typically Iranian energy, they have prospered mightily in India. They founded India's steel, nuclear, computer and airline industries and one of their sons (Rajiv Gandhi) even became Prime Minister of India for some time while another (Sam Manekshaw) headed the Indian Army. In spite of India's generally abject poverty the Parsee living standard is more or less at a Western level. Their over-representation among the upper strata of Indian society makes any eminence that Western Jews have achieved seem puny by comparison. If "jealousy" is the reason behind the persecution of Jews, the Parsees should be the most persecuted minority on earth. Yet amid the seething hot-bed of religious, racial, caste and communal hatreds that is India, the Parsees have remained unscathed. They are, in fact, somewhat popular. How do they do it?<br /><br /> The answer is rather simple. The Parsees have always been grateful to the host community that gave them safe refuge from the Muslims. Instead of holding their hosts in contempt, they actually tend to appreciate their hosts (no doubt at least in part because of India's considerable and unusual success in resisting Islam). They certainly make great efforts not to offend their hosts (e.g. they tend to avoid eating beef and pork not because Zoroastrianism forbids it but because one offends Hindus and the other Muslims). This has beneficial results at many levels, not the least of which is the interpersonal level. The level that is most visible, however, is the ultimate level when Parsees are deciding what to do with the fortunes that many of them accumulate. Such fortunes are almost always used for charitable ends. Parsee charitable foundations are in fact legendary. Such foundations usually have as their first duty the succour of any needy Parsees but as the Parsee community is very small (a total of around 90,000 souls and falling) Indians generally are also major beneficiaries. The Parsees, in other words, not only say "thank you" but say it very nicely and very convincingly. There is nothing in Zoroastrianism that tells them that they are superior. They are quite endogamous but this is normal and understood in India. In fact, their endogamy seems Indian rather than Zoroastrian. Zoroastrianism teaches that the help of all men is needed in the fight against evil. A fuller ethnography of the Parsees than the few notes given above is to be found in Kulke (1978)<br /><br /> So it seems to me that Jews might just possibly be able to learn from the Parsees. Few diaspora Jews are now religious so religious justifications for a superior attitude towards others are usually not available. It is true that Jewish and Israeli achievements are great in many fields but that is the work of a few individuals only rather than the work of all Jews. So assuming any superiority from that at the all-important level of individual interactions with others is simply arrogating the achievements of others to oneself. There are lots of foolish Jews too, as there are in any group.<br /><br />Christians have much to answer for if we take an Irish view of history (i.e. that history never dies) but we have all seen in Northern Ireland where an Irish view of things leads. Additionally, if we take a more contemporary view of things, has not the succour given by Christians to the State of Israel been worthy of gratitude? Do not Christians even go against their own interests (e.g. at the time of the Arab oil embargo) to give that succour? I admit that I am drawing a long bow but if most Jews who live among Christians can come to see something in Christians worthy of gratitude then all their troubles will be over. People like gratitude as much as they dislike condescension. Popularity is obtainable but it must be worked for. If people must view themselves as group-members rather than as individuals then the Parsees have shown the safe way to do so.<br /><br />What I have said immediately above is in effect advice to Jews but I fully recognize that advice is the world's most oversupplied commodity and is often worthy of no respect. I do however feel obliged to point out where in my view the available evidence leads. What others do with my observations will probably be minutely little but I have done all I can to help.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>BILLIG'S ACCUSATIONS: AN ATTACK FROM THE FAR LEFT</b><br /><br /> Unfortunately, however, there is every possibility that the Parsee example I describe above will go unheeded. The defensiveness that the propositions of the present paper engender has already made itself evident. At a time when many published papers seem to go forever unread, the present paper has the distinction that it has twice been attacked in print even before it was published! In the first such instance the Trotskyite Billig (1981) obtained a copy of the unpublished first draft of the paper and was so incensed by it that he plumbed new depths in social scientific debate by implying that I am or was a Nazi. I did of course reply to this outrageous accusation. In Ray (1985) I not only denied it but showed where Billig had got his "information". He was using the published fact (Ray, 1972 & 1973) that I had done participant observation research among neo-Nazis to imply that I myself must be one of them. He seems, however, not to have confronted the fact that he himself has also done apparently rather involved research among neo-Nazis! <br /><br />My exposition of the extraordinary shallow nature of his reasoning, however, has simply caused Billig (1985) to mount a new and yet more vitriolic personal attack on me and on this paper. That attack surely needs some reply. First, one of Billig's dotty criticisms is that it is in some way suspicious that my research program gave rise to only three publications. I should apologize! Many research programs give rise to no publications whatsoever. It is true that Billig needed a book to record his own observations of British Neo-Nazis while I wrote only journal articles but surely one must accept that journal articles are a perfectly normal and adequate way of reporting research results. Billig may find that I have not given all the detail he would like but that is more characteristic of journal articles than of my specific work.<br /><br /> Billig's next objection to my work is even more pompous. He claims that because I began my research while I was a student, it cannot really have been disinterested research and that I must therefore have had some ulterior motive for it. This is ridiculous for several reasons but let me give at least one: My secondary schooling was interrupted so that I was aged 20 by the time I became an undergraduate. I have however, always been a voracious reader so that before I ever set foot in a University I had already consumed great quantities of pop social science in paperback form (Vance Packard, Margaret Mead, Galbraith, Eysenck etc.). I was therefore even at that time perfectly well aware that sociologists saw participant observation as a powerful and exciting way of finding out about deviant sub-groups in society. When the opportunity arose, therefore, I saw no reason why I should not do some of that kind of research. As Billig rightly observes, however, my work was somewhat unsystematic and lacking in the precautions that a seasoned researcher might have taken. I am not at all ashamed to say that the explanation for this is simply that one cannot learn everything out of paperbacks!<br /><br /> Billig (1985) does however end up conceding that my degree of involvement with Nazis is really "of scant interest". His attachment to <i>ad hominem</i> arguments, however, remains. He goes on to shift his attack to the related accusation that I am antisemitic.<br /><br /> His first point in this new attack is to question my claim that there is a great gulf between Nazism and conservatism (I had noted previously that it was the Conservative Churchill, not the Communist Stalin who refused an alliance with Hitler). Billig does this by quoting my own statement that Nazis sometimes join and are active in conservative political parties. He conveniently overlooks the fact that the Nazis are immediately expelled once the conservatives get wind of what they really are.<br /><br /> Billig, however, also goes on to quote another of my statements to the effect that both Nazis and conservatives are ethnocentric. By this he creates the impression that I think conservatives are racists. This is, however, sleight of hand. While it is true that many social scientists use "ethnocentrism" and "racism" as more or less interchangeable terms, I do not. And Billig knew that: One of the very papers Billig attacks bore the title "Are racists ethnocentric?" <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/racethno.html">(Ray, 1974 Ch. 46)</a>. I was using "ethnocentrism" at that time to mean little more than patriotism. There is, of course, now plenty of evidence that both conservatism and patriotism are essentially unrelated to racism among general population samples (e.g. Ray & Furnham, 1984).<br /><br /> Billig then moves on to an attack on me that is based on misleading quotations from the first draft of the present paper. He also quotes the titles of two papers from my book <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/chapters.html">(Ray, 1974)</a> that must sound (and were meant to sound) pretty alarming to most social scientists. I do not, however, here propose to make any attempt to answer these criticisms by Billig in detail. The only real corrective to selective quotations is for people to read the original in full and I believe that my papers must stand or fall on that basis. It is insidious that Billig has largely based his attack on my one paper that has not been publically available but I here remedy that deficit.<br /><br /> I do however wish to answer the underlying criticism that really motivates Billig's cheap shots at my paper ("billig" means "cheap" in German). It is true that the paper does contain criticisms of some Jews. Billig appears to believe that no such criticisms should ever be made. I reject that utterly. No-one is beyond criticism and criticism can be kindly meant as well as maliciously meant. I feel sure that most people reading this paper could not doubt that the criticisms I make are indeed of the constructive rather than the destructive kind. I even attempt the folly of giving helpful advice! <br /><br /> I agree that in view of the tragic events of recent history it could be seen as "insensitive" to speak critically of Jews, but I also believe that such a view is itself clearly racist. I treat Jews like any other ethnic group. I think it not only demeans them to treat them with kid gloves but it runs the risk of creating a fictitious view of reality. The dangers of this can be seen from the Palestinian uprising in Israel. A sort of fictitious image of saintliness has been created around Jews so that when they behave in normal, non-saintly ways there is shock and horror. An unrealistically high standard is set for Israel that is not set for anyone else. That hardly serves Israel well. It is the fruit of not heeding an ancient warning: "He who flatters a man spreads a net for his feet" (Proverbs 29:5 R.S.V.).<br /><br /> So it seems to me that someone whom you really accept is also someone whom you feel free to speak to frankly. By that criterion, I am one of the few social scientists who do really accept Jews. I wish Jews well and feel that honest criticism is the duty of a friend. As Solomon the wise put it so long ago: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy" (Proverbs 27: 6. R.S.V.). The fact that such a duty can be risky I always accepted and Billig's attack on me is evidence enough of that risk. It was in fact because of that risk that I made only desultory attempts over the years to get versions of the present paper into print in the academic journals. There are some ways in which even a tenured academic (as I was) can run the risk of losing ones job and I had to be cognizant of that risk. So the present paper was "back-burnered" for many years. Now that I am retired from academic employment, however, I am in a position to speak without fear or favour. I can only hope that not all readers of this paper will be as hostile as Billig. I can only hope Solomon was right again when he said: "He who rebukes a man will afterward find more favour than he who flatters with his tongue" (Proverbs 28: 23 R.S.V.).<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Epilogue:</b><br /><br />So at the end of the day, what are my personal thoughts and feelings about Jews in general? A number of responses to that:<br /><br />1). I DON'T think questions of the above sort are wrong, vain, or simplistic. There is nothing wrong with generalizations as long as we realize that it is is very rare for a generalization to cover all cases. And NO generalization covers all Jews. And basing your judgment of any individual solely on some group that he belongs to falls somewhere between absurd and evil.<br /><br />2). I think it is absurd to be simply either antisemitic or prosemitic. Like everybody else, Jews have both strengths and weaknesses. And in this article I have not shrunk from talking about what I see as weaknesses. Mature discourse requires cool consideration of both strengths and weaknesses. Given such consideration, however, it is a matter of personal judgment whether, ON BALANCE, one thinks well or ill of Jews. I personally am philosemitic on balance (I am a great supporter of the State of Israel and even put my money where my mouth is by donating to Israeli causes) but I can certainly see that some characteristics often found among Jews might lead others with different values to a more negative conclusion.<br /><br />3). I think Jews are one of the earth's most politically stupid people. Their talent for siding with their enemies is extraordinary. <br /><br />4). In other respects, I think Jews are the intellectual cream of the human race and, as such, should be valued as rare treasures. Hitler's depredations were a grievous assault on the human gene pool as a whole. Anything that saves Jews from the haters has my unqualified support.<br /><br />So does the above make me antisemitic or does it make me a Jew-lover? I have been vigorously accused of both -- but I don't really care. <font color="#ff0000">I just try to describe reality as accurately as I can -- in all its messy complexity</font>. Perhaps that is my personal area of weakness and folly. It certainly exposes me to much scorn. I am perhaps fortunate,however, that the scorn concerned troubles me not a bit.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>REFERENCES</b><br /><br />Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N. (1950). <i>The authoritarian personality</i> New York: Harper.<br /><br />Banton, M. (1983) <i>Racial and ethnic competition</i>. Cambridge: Univ. Press.<br /><br />Bayton, J.A., McAlister, L.B. & Hamer, J. (1956) Race-class stereotypes. <i>J. Negro Education</i> 25, 75-78.<br /><br />Ben-Sasson, H.H. (1974) <i>Trial and achievement: Currents in Jewish history</i> Jerusalem: Keter.<br /><br />Beswick, D.C. & Hills, M.D. (1972) A survey of ethnocentrism in Australia. <i>Australian J. Psychology</i> 24, 153-163.<br /><br />Billig, M. (1981) <i>L'internationale raciste de la psychologie a la science des races</i>. Paris: Maspero.<br /><br />Billig, M. (1985) The unobservant participator: Nazism, antisemitism and Ray's reply. <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 8, 444-449.<br /><br />Brewer, M.B. & Kramer, R.M.(1985) The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. <i>Annual Review of Psychology</i> 36, 219-243.<br /><br />Broder, H.M. (1986) "It thinks inside me..." Fassbinder, Germans and Jews. <i>Encounter</i> 66, 64-68.<br /><br />Brown, K.M. (1985) Turning a blind eye: Racial oppression and the unintended consequences of white "Non-racism". <i>The Sociological Review</i> 33, 670-690.<br /><br />Brown, R.(1965) <i>Social psychology</i> N.Y.: Free Press.<br /><br />Brown, R.(1986) <i>Social psychology</i> (2nd. Ed.) N.Y.: Free Press.<br /><br />Bruyn, S. (1966) <i>The human perspective in sociology</i>. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.<br /><br />Byrne, D., Clore, G.L. & Smeaton, G. (1986) The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? <i>J. Personality & Social Psychology</i> 51, 1167-1170.<br /><br />Campbell, D.T. (1976) Reprise. <i>Amer. Psychologist</i> 31, 381-384.<br /><br />Crosby, F., Bromley, S. & Saxe, L. (1980) Recent unobtrusive studies of Black and White discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. <i>Psychological Bulletin</i> 87, 546-563. <br /><br />Eisenstadt, S.N. (1983) Some comments on the "Ethnic" problem in Israel. <i>Israel Social Science Research</i>, 1(2), 20-29.<br /><br />Fossett, M.A. & Kiecolt, K.J. (1989) The relative size of minority populations and white racial attitudes. <i>Social Science Quarterly</i> 70, 820-835.<br /><br />Glock, C.Y., Wuthnow, R., Piliavin, J.A. & Spencer, M. (1975) <i> Adolescent prejudice</i> N.Y.: Free Press.<br /><br />Hacohen, M. (2000) <i>Karl Popper: The Formative Years, 1902 - 1945</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br /><br />Hechter, M. (1986) Rational choice theory and the study of race and ethnic relations. Ch. 12 in J. Rex & D. Mason (Eds.) <i>Theories of race and ethnic relations</i> Cambridge: U.P.<br /><br />La Piere, R. (1934) Attitudes and actions. <i>Social Forces</i> 13, 230-237<br /><br />Lindemann, A. (2000) <i>Anti-Semitism Before the Holocaust</i>. Boston, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.<br /> <br />Manheim, H.L. (1960) Intergroup interaction as related to status and leadership differences between groups. <i>Sociometry</i> 23, 415-427.<br /><br />McCauley, C., Stitt, C.L. & Segal, M. (1980) Stereotyping: From prejudice to prediction. <i>Psychological Bulletin</i> 87, 195-208.<br /><br />McClendon, M.J. (1985) Racism, rational choice, and white opposition to racial change: A case study of busing. <i>Public Opinion Quarterly</i>, 49, 214-233.<br /><br />Messick, D.M. & Mackie, D.M. (1989) Intergroup relations. <i>Annual Review of Psychology</i> 40, 45-81.<br /><br />Mitchell, I.S. (1968) Epilogue to a referendum. <i>Australian J. Social Issues</i> 3(4), 9-12.<br /><br />Moreh, J. (1988) Group behaviour and rationality. <i>Social Science Information</i> 27, 99-118.<br /><br />Park, R.E. (1950) <i>Race and culture</i> Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press<br /><br />Pears Cyclopaedia (1971) London: Pelham Books. (80th Ed., p. J4).<br /><br />Quinley, H.E. & Glock, C.Y. (1979) <i>Anti-semitism in America </i> N.Y.: Free Press.<br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/cogsimp.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Is antisemitism a cognitive simplification? Some observations on Australian Neo-Nazis. <i>Jewish J. Sociology</i> 15, 207-213. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/antisem.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) Antisemitic types in Australia. <i>Patterns of Prejudice</i> 7(1), 6-16. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/chapters.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/parsindi.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Ambition and dominance among the Parsees of India. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 173-179.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/billig.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Racism and rationality: A reply to Billig.<br /> <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 8, 441-443. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/sydparsi.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) The traits of immigrants: A case study of the Sydney Parsees. <I> J. Comparative Family Studies</I> 17, 127-130. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/auconrac.html">Ray, J.J. & Furnham, A. (1984) Authoritarianism, conservatism and racism. <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 7, 406-412. </a> <br /><br />Rokeach, M. (1960) <i>The open and closed mind</i>. N.Y.: Basic Books.<br /><br /> Rule, B.G., Haley, H. & McCormack, J. (1971) Anti-Semitism, distraction and physical aggression. <i>Canadian J. Behavioural Science</i> 3, 174-178. <br /><br />Stein, D.D., Hardyck, J.A. & Smith, M.B. (1965) Race and belief: An<br /> open and shut case. <i>J. Personality & Social Psychology</i> 1, 281-294.<br /><br />Stein, H.F. (1977) The binding of the son: psychoanalytic reflections on the symbiosis of anti-semitism and anti-Gentilism. <i>Psychoanalytic Quarterly</i> 46, 650-683.<br /><br />Stein, H.F. (1978) Judaism and the group fantasy of martyrdom: The psychodynamic paradox of survival through persecution. <i>J. Psychohistory</i> 6, 151-210.<br /><br />Stein, H.F. (1984) The holocaust, the uncanny and the Jewish sense of history. <i>Political Psychology</i> 5, 5-35.<br /><br />Stephan, W.G. (1985) Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds.) <i>The handbook of social psychology</i> N.Y.: Random House <br /><br />Stephensen, P.R. (1940) A reasoned case against Semitism. <i>Australian Quarterly</i> 12, 52-62.<br /><br />Studlar, D.T. (1979) Racial attitudes in Britain: A causal analysis. <i>Ethnicity</i> 6, 107-122.<br /><br />Sumner, W.G. (1906) <i>Folkways</i> N.Y.: Ginn.<br /><br />Tajfel, H. (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. <i>Annual Review of Psychology</i> 33, 1-40.<br /><br />Tajfel, H. & Fraser, C. (1978) <i>Introducing social psychology</i> Harmondsworth, Mddx.: Penguin.<br /><br />Volkan, V.D. (1985) The need to have enemies and allies: A developmental approach. <i>Political Psychology</i> 6, 219-247.<br /><br />Volkan, V. (1988) <i>The need to have enemies and allies: From clinical practice to international relationships</i>. Dunmore, Pa.: Jason Aronson.<br /><br />Walker, W. & Campbell, J.B. (1982) Similarity of values and interpersonal attraction of Whites toward Blacks. <i>Psychological Reports</i> 50, 1199-1205.<br /><br />Wellman, D. (1977) <i>Portraits of white racism</i>. Cambridge, U.K.: U.P. <br /> <br /><br>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-10766580157254318622007-04-09T22:57:00.001+11:302018-08-11T21:18:22.275+11:00<font color="#ff0000">I have written two large books about Leftism/Rightism (online <a href="http://consheresy.blogspot.com">here</a> and <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-appears-below-is-attempt-to.html">here</a>) but the number of people who have read both right through is probably no more than one -- myself. So for the casual reader, the following brief essay may have to suffice</font> <br /><br /><b><font size="6"> A short essay on Leftism </font></b><br /><br /><br />By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)<br /><br /><br />By "Leftist" I mean here someone more extreme than a mere VOTER for a democratic socialist party such as The Australian Labor Party or the U.S. Democratic party -- though Leftists in my sense may well be members and officers of such parties. I mean by "Leftist" someone who is committed to a high degree of control over society and coercion of people in it with the ostensible aim of "levelling" incomes and other privileges among people in the society concerned. In the 20th Century, such people normally had at least some Marxist sympathies.<br /><br />What I think the facts show is that Leftists are basically angry, hate-filled people who hunger for power over others and enjoy hurting others but who hide their malign and hurtful motivations under a cloak of humanitarian intentions. Their anger at the ordinary people about them leads them to want to control, hurt and change those about them -- by violence and mass-murder if necessary. Their proclaimed humanitarian intentions and concern for "the worker" are, therefore, just deception and camouflage -- perhaps unconscious deception and camouflage in some cases. <br /> <br />There was a poster around the universities a few years back that is rather informative about the Left-wing viewpoint. It said: "I love humanity. It's just people that I can't stand". My own way of putting much the same point would be to say that Leftists (in my sense) say that they "care" for people but will cheerfully murder half of them -- whereas conservatives do not claim to love humanity but they do not want to murder half of them either. <br /><br />I had a Communist girlfriend some years back -- a schoolteacher by trade, funnily enough. She had talents other than her politics. I noticed at the time how much anger she had in her towards all sorts of people and thought how well that fitted in with her support for Communism. She was basically a gentle nurturing person but anger leads to hatred and hatred leads to murder. It is hard for me to understand how any decent person can ever have supported anything as brutal as Communism but the fact that large numbers of intelligent people often did tends to show where anger and hatred can lead otherwise decent people.<br /><br />The characteristic Left-wing slogan is: "Smash X" -- where X can be almost anything -- from the current government, to racism, to big business, to some particular law etc etc. They are very big on smashing things -- with revolution being only the most extreme example of that. If some person or group is not doing what the Leftist wants or thinks that they ought to do, the Leftist immediately wants to coerce them (with violence or otherwise) or murder them. Nice people! They want power over other people at any price. Beware anyone who stands in their way! <br /><br />All the great mass-murders of the 20th Century (under the control of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung) were committed in the name of socialism and "the people". Compared to these crimes, lesser slaughters such as that by the Serbs in Kosovo (who were in any case led by their old Communist boss, Slobodan Milosevic) pale into insignificance. It is hard to think that anything could be worse than Serb troops throwing a 2 year old toddler down a well in front of his mother but "socialists" can do it.<br /><br />My account of Leftist motivations would seem to explain a lot. It does make sense of a lot of seemingly senseless behaviour -- which is a good test of any scientific theory. For instance, only a fool or a scoundrel would advocate such counterproductive nostrums as State ownership of industry or rent control and I do not accuse those on the Left of being fools. They are too smart for their own good, if anything. They think no-one can teach them anything. Advocating State ownership of industry or rent control is nonsense if you really want to improve the long-term lot of the worker but is, of course, perfectly rational if your real main aim is to concentrate as much power and control as possible in your own hands (or in the hands of your clique).<br /><br />In my view the reason why psychologists tend to be Leftist is also that psychology (like teaching) seems to offer the prospect of personal power over the minds of others -- the ultimate form of coercion. Leftists want that and are attracted to studying psychology for that reason. Fortunately their own innate dishonesty makes them very bad at it.<br /><br />As I see it, most real Leftists (advocates of a high degree of State coercion and control -- who in turn are generally intellectuals of some kind) start out with some degree of intellectual orientation but little capacity for intellectual originality. They are, in other words, theologians rather than philosophers. They can debate and rehash an existing body of thought <i>ad nauseam</i> but are barren of new ideas. Anybody who knows the vast lengths to which they go to in debating "what Marx really meant" will see the appositeness of the "theologian" appellation. The excitement over the discovery of Marx's "Grundrisse" was also like the discovery of a new holy book. Nonetheless their intellectual orientation does alert them to the many ways in which the world around us is not ideal and makes them want to propose ways of improving things. Because they are not very good (i.e. unoriginal) intellectuals, however, they can come up with only the crudest of proposals (i.e. <i>make</i> people behave better).<br /> <br />When life eventually forces them to confront the evidence that their crude methods tend to be inhumane and counterproductive they face being shown up as the inferior intellectuals they are. They face being shown up as wrong and foolish, meaning that their self esteem is threatened. So they either abandon the Left-wing romance with coercion and change their views to more conservative ones or if they are really infatuated with coercion they stay Leftist by using any and every device available to aid that. <br /><br />And the most insidious device that they can use is intellectual dishonesty. They simply refuse to believe anything adverse to them and will themselves lie to manipulate others ("for their own good"). Thus I remember Leftists of the bad old days in the '50s and 60's who greeted accounts of Stalin's purges and massacres of his own people as "inventions of the capitalist press". How do you persuade such people? You can say that we have a free press rather than a capitalist one but since mass media do tend to be big businesses this can be made to sound implausible too. The truth is that you cannot persuade such people and waste your time by trying. "There are none so blind as those who will not see". All the evidence on almost any question will seldom be available at any one time and place so all or almost all judgments of fact have to be made on a probabilistic basis. So all the intellectually dishonest person has to do is to keep demanding higher and higher probabilities before he will believe. You soon reach the point where that level is unobtainable so he looks like he has had a polemical victory of sorts. He has. Dishonesty has its rewards. It is still despicable and misleading, however. So a Leftist is also someone who uses dishonesty in support of coercion.<br /> <br />It may be argued that on my account of things Leftists should also tend to be policemen etc. Policemen have a lot of interpersonal power. In fact, of course, policemen, the military etc tend to be very Rightist. There are several obvious answers to this. Perhaps the most obvious is that these jobs are not very intellectual and the Leftist does start out as a (second-rate) intellectual. Another answer is that the ratio of gain to risk is high. Policemen and soldiers risk getting shot and only ever gain temporary power over a few individuals. For a power-mad Leftist that is just not a very attractive offer. It is a bad deal. When the Leftist takes up arms he tends to do so as a guerilla (so he can shoot from safety) and for very big stakes (major social change --a "revolution" -- that will make him a big-shot if it succeeds). He does not want power over just one or two individuals. He really wants power over <i>everybody</i> -- for himself or his clique. A really nice guy(!). Teaching or psychology, of course, offer power without much cost or threat. <br /><br />There is some support for the account I have given in the academic literature. For example, a paper by Winter & Wiecking [Winter, D.G. & Wiecking, F.A. (1971) The new Puritans: Achievement and power motives of New Left intellectuals. <i>Behavioral Science</i>, 16, 523-530] tells a bit about Leftist power motives and the many books and articles by Rothman and Lichter [e.g. Rothman, S. & Lichter, R.S. (1982) <i>Roots of radicalism: Jews, Christians and the New Left</i> Oxford: Univ. Press] tell about Leftists being in love with themselves -- "narcissism" if you are being polite about it, "arrogance" if not. A paper by Himmelfarb gets it pretty right too [Himmelfarb, G. (1989) Victorian values/Jewish values. <i>Commentary</i>, 87(2), 23-31.] <br /><br />As I said at the beginning, one must distinguish between real Leftists (a small but poisonous clique) and those who vote for them. Real Leftists (Communists, Trotskyists and their usually "intellectual" ilk) have virtually no voter support in moderately well-informed societies (i.e. in the developed world) but they do at times manage to dominate mass political organizations of democratic society (e.g. the British Labour party up until the late 90s). People who vote for such parties can often be (as S.M. Lipset points out in his 1960 book <i>Political man</i>) actually quite conservative. They tend to be working class people who simply vote for those who appear to offer them the best deal. In other words, Leftist lies and pretences of good intentions do sometimes gain votes from those least able to be critical. Even then, the Leftists cannot be too overt. The obvious extremism of the British Labour Party in the '70s and '80s was the main reason for the Conservatives' long term in office. Mrs Thatcher's biggest asset was the British Labour Party. People seldom liked her and her Conservative government much but liked the alternative even less. British Labour was in fact still so hopelessly in cloud-cuckoo land in the early 90s that they could not even beat the wimpish John Major in the midst of a recession!<br /><br />I remember saying to supporters of the British Labour Party in the 90s, "But your lot are so hopeless that they couldn't even beat John Major". That remark was obviously far from original to me but it always went home. It tended to strike them dumb in fact. With the pain of having to bear remarks like that, no wonder they gave up most of their old policies soon after. <br /><br />Under Tony Blair they in general became just another bumbling conservative party -- except for a bit of feel-good rhetoric and tokenistic reform (such as further reform of the already emasculated House of Lords and the banning of hunting to hounds). They even started to espouse "family values" -- the old catchcry of the religious Right. The penalty of their pre-Blair Leftist extremism was impotence. They gained power only by abandoning most of their old committments to Leftist causes. That the party of unilateral disarmament became the party of Iraq intervention was truly a seismic shift. Only their love of bureaucracy and big spending survived.<br /><br />About a third of the people (e.g. in Allende's Chile) can sometimes be persuaded to support the Leftists. Some of those can be sincere. In the long run, however, they will learn. At what a price! Generally after many deaths: Tibet! China's Tienanmen Square and Great Leap Backward under Mao! The Hungary of Imre Nagy and Janos Kadar! The Czechoslovakia of Dubcek! The Cambodia of Pol Pot! The incredible human, economic and environmental disaster of Soviet Russia! What a lovely list of achievements for the so-smart Leftist intellectuals (really arrogant ignoramuses) to contemplate! Not that they care, of course.<br /><br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-75604451681999640072007-04-06T23:47:00.000+11:302018-08-11T21:20:00.031+11:00<b><font size="6"> DETECTING RACISM IN THE BRAIN </font></b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)<br /><br /><br />I have not been able to get a look at the original research results behind <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027041644.html?from=storyrhs">this report</a> (from November, 2003) that racism can be detected by measuring brain activity. The report is obviously sensationalized in that it refers to "white" racism only. Presumably black racism could be detected in a similar way. But I guess we are not supposed to mention black racism.<br /><br />But assuming that the report is otherwise accurate, it fits in well with the point I often make that there is much evidence to show that <a href="http://jonjayray.batcave.net/leftrace.html">racism of some sort is universal and natural</a>. So if people are asked to suppress it -- which political correctness forces them to do -- some harm will result. And exactly that is what is reported: Suppressing banned thoughts is difficult and requires a lot of brain activity which could be better devoted to other tasks. And that people who have stronger convictions about the reality and importance of racial differences are the ones who find suppression of such views hardest is equally no surprise. <br /><br />The thing that will disturb most people, however, is that something as private as one's thoughts can now be detected by a scientific machine. Suppressed thoughts about ANY subject would seem to be detectable by such a procedure. Orwell's "Big Brother" has arrived and the old anti-Nazi slogan <i>Die Gedanken sind frei</i> (Thoughts are free) is no longer true! Note however that a Leftist who is trying to suppress (say) his contemptuous thoughts about ordinary people could be similarly caught out. As soon as that realization dawns, I am sure the procedure will be BANNED!<br /><br />I might point out in passing, however, that what the procedure does is not much different from what a traditional lie-detector test does. It just reports an upsurge in neural activity but detects it in a slightly different way. What are the actual thoughts behind that neural activity is, however, essentially a guess and there are ways of spooking the procedure.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>BACKGROUND ON BRAIN SCAN RACISM</b><br /><br />One of my "PC Watch" readers sent in <a href="http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/~richeson/">this link</a> that gives details of one of the people behind the recent "white racism in the brain" study. My reader comments: "I never would have guessed!"<br /><br /><br /><b>FULLER REPORT OF THE BRAIN SCAN STUDY</b><br /><br />I am pleased to find that <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994388">New Scientist</a> has a fuller report of the study about "white racism" being detected by brain scans.<br /><br />Note this comment about how "racism" was measured: "The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is controversial. Gehring says "one must be cautious" regarding any claims that a test is a direct measure of racist attitudes."<br /><br />And this comment on what the brain scan shows: "The team does not know exactly why this brain area should light up in people with biases. "They are either trying to inhibit or control something - but we don't know what that something is," she says. "It could be an emotional reaction, or thoughts that come to mind. Or it could be something as benign as simply trying not to make errors.""<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">In short, they had no good evidence at any point that they were measuring what they said they were measuring.</font><br /><br />There are also some further dismissive comments at the end of the <i>New Scientist</i> article.<br /><br /><br /><b>MORE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST</b><br /><br />There are two articles <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27067-2005Jan21.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36395-2005Jan25.html">here</a> published in 2005 that summarize some further research by Indian psychologist Mazharin Banaji with the Implicit Associations Test (IAT) -- articles which again imply that the IAT is a "covert" measure of racism. The common finding reported from use of the test is that all sorts of people are quicker to pair "good" words with whites and "bad" words with blacks. The most surprising thing about the test is that many people who are conspicuously anti-racist show the same quickness to associate good with white. <br /><br />Finding "covert" measures of anything -- and racism in particular -- has long been a "holy grail" for psychologists and there have been some <a href="http://jonjayray.batcave.net/whyf.html">conspicuous failures</a> in the quest. So is the IAT the holy grail? Sadly, No. The first thing a psychometrician asks about any test of anything is: Is it valid? -- meaning, does it measure what it purports to measure? But there is another question logically prior to that: What does it purport to measure? And the answer in this case seems to be straightforward: It purports to ascertain whether a person has prejudiced, negative or antagonistic attitudes towards various minorities. That being so, the test is obviously NOT valid. It is not valid on what psychologists call a "criterion groups" examination. And it is precisely the feature of interest in the IAT that lots of people who are by any criterion either non-racist or actively anti-racist get high scores on racism according to the test. So the IAT does NOT pick out non-racist or anti-racist people accurately.<br /><br />So does the test measure anything? Anybody who is familiar with the stereotyping literature will find that easily answered. There have now been many decades of research into stereotyping and the findings about it are roughly the opposite of what is popularly believed. There are two literature surveys <a href="http://jonjayray.com/stereo.html">here</a> and <a href="http://johnjayray.com/scots.html">here</a> which document that. The important point for our present purposes is that stereotypes have long been found to have a "kernel of truth", as Allport put it. Far from being rigid or fixed, they are highly responsive to modification through fresh information. They are our first and most immediate response to any new situation -- but to be useful, they also have to be continually modified as information about the situation comes in -- and they are. <br /><br />So what the IAT findings show is that the experience white people have of blacks is generally negative. Whites know from experience or observation that blacks in general are (for instance) more dangerous to them. Given the enormously disproportionate incidence of violent crime among blacks, it would be a sad day indeed if no-one had noticed that. So what the IAT measures is EXPECTATIONS of blacks, not ATTITUDES to blacks. It shows what we see as most probable about blacks but tells us nothing about any more complex attitudes we may have towards blacks. So the IAT simply records our experience of reality without telling us anything about how we interpret that reality.<br /><br />That view of the IAT also explains why even many blacks associate badness with blacks. Blacks are of course the most frequent victims of black crime (for instance). Since it is very common for whites to shun blacks in various ways (no eye contact etc.) however, many blacks will still have most positive associations with their own kind. And the IAT shows that too.<br /><br />There is an academic review article <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wgehring/papers/Gehring_2003_Interracial_NewsViews_Nature_Neuroscience.pdf">here</a> (PDF) which also fairly effectively undermines the claims of the IAT as a measure of racially biased attitudes. It appeared together with the original "brain scan" study but does not seem to have diminished the enthusiasm of IAT devotees for their test. A similar disregard for criticism has also of course characterized use of the old Adorno "F" measure of "covert" racism. See <a href="http://jonjayray.com/oldfas.html">here</a>. Psychologists are very good at believing what they want to believe and damn the evidence! <br /><br />As <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x">Charles S. Taber and Milton Lodge (2006) report</a>:<br /><br /><i>Physicists do it (Glanz, 2000). Psychologists do it (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). Even political scientists do it (cites withheld to protect the guilty among us). Research findings confirming a hypothesis are accepted more or less at face value, but when confronted with contrary evidence, we become "motivated skeptics" (Kunda, 1990), mulling over possible reasons for the "failure", picking apart possible flaws in the study, recoding variables, and only when all the counter arguing fails do we rethink our beliefs</i><br /><br />And sometimes NOTHING will force a rethink.<br /> <br /><br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-10513967124477853182007-03-09T23:12:00.000+11:302007-04-09T23:13:18.423+11:30This is a much abridged version of a full academic treatment of the subject -- which can be found <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/03/for-general-reader-much-shorter.html ">here</a><br /><br />*****************************************************************************************<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b><font size="6"> AUTHORITARIANISM IS LEFTIST</font></b><br /> <br /><br /><br /> By: John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"Revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon"</i> (Friedrich Engels -- from his controversy with the Anarchists).<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>History</b><br /><br /><br />The rather obvious insight from Karl Marx's collaborator quoted above -- which associates authoritarianism with Leftism -- seems to have been totally overlooked by psychologists who purport to study "authoritarianism". This is rather surprising when we realize that the tradition of research into psychological authoritarianism traces back to <i>The Authoritarian Personality</i> by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford (1950). And the leading author (Adorno) of the study concerned was a prominent Marxist theoretician! <br /><br />This overlooking of the obvious by the Adorno team was however symptomatic of their whole approach. Apparently, as committed Leftists, they wanted to explain Nazism and Fascism in a way that discredited Rightists rather than Leftists. But the theoretical convolutions required for that were from the outset truly heroic -- considering that Hitler was a socialist rather than a conservative, considering that Mussolini was a prominent Marxist theoretician, considering that Stalin had been a willing ally of Hitler as long as Hitler wanted him and considering that Hitler's most unrelenting enemy was no Leftist but the arch-Conservative Winston Churchill. From history, then, the obvious conclusion is that Nazism was simply a racist form of Leftism (Ray, 2002). How can one make that harmful to conservatives?<br /><br />But the Adorno group managed their self-imposed and unlikely task after a fashion and the basic conclusions that they produced (that "authoritarianism" underlay Nazism, that authoritarianism also underlies conservatism and that authoritarianism is a "disease") were therefore hardly surprising. Only the generally Left-leaning orientation of social scientists, however, can explain why such a historically and theoretically ridiculous work turned out to be enormously popular and influential among social scientists generally.<br /><br />Regrettably, however, we have known since Galileo that the popularity of a belief is no guarantee of its truth. And <i>The Authoritarian Personality</i> must hold some sort of record for the amount of criticism and disconfirmatory research that it has attracted. There are various summaries of this body of criticism but the first half of Altemeyer's (1981) book and Ray (1988) give a pretty good idea of it. And what the various criticisms have repeatedly shown is that only the most trivially true contentions of the Adorno theory survive the encounter with empirical testing. The most basic postulates of the theory are just plain wrong.<br /><br /><br /><b>A better theory</b><br /><br /><br />The popular press refer to Communists in present day Russia as "conservatives". Yet "conservative" would once have been taken as the antithesis of "Communist". And anyone inferring that conservatives in the USA must also therefore harbour a longing for Stalinism would be rapidly disabused of the notion.<br /><br />Underlying this confusion is of course the old equation of conservatism with a love of the status quo and a dislike of change and new arrangements. Journalists still implicitly use that hoary formula and, in consequence, quite reasonably refer to both Communists in Russia and anti-Communists in the USA as "conservative". Relative to the different traditions of their respective countries both groups do favour traditional values.<br /><br />Clearly, however, modern times have thoroughly upset the notion that political Rightists are principally motivated by a love of the status quo. There are political parties in Russia that have similar goals and policies to what we would call the Right in the USA and in other Western countries yet they are clearly heavily reformist in a Russian context rather than defenders of the old Soviet status quo. And in the West as well, the Reagan/Thatcher "revolution" has made Rightists the big advocates of change and cast Leftists into the role of defending the status quo. <br /><br /><br />But is that a satisfactory account of the matter? Has everything changed so much overnight? Rightists are still Rightists and Leftists are still Leftists and the Left/Right divisions has been associated for so long with attitude to the status quo that there surely must be something still behind that association. <br /><br />My suggested solution to the puzzle is to turn the traditional understanding on its head. It is suggested that attitude to change versus the status quo defines the political Left rather than the political Right. It is not conservatives who are FOR the status quo but rather Leftists who are AGAINST it.<br /><br />Note that this implies that the two sides of politics are not mirror-images of one another. It is suggested that Rightists are simply indifferent to change rather than opposed to it whereas Leftists actively need change. Leftists and Rightists have different rather than opposite goals. <br /><br />Whatever Rightists might want, however, wanting to change the existing system is the umbrella under which all "Western" Leftists at all times meet. Even at the long-gone heights of British socialism in pre-Thatcher days, for instance, British Leftists still wanted MORE socialism. That permanent and corrosive dissatisfaction with the world they live in is the main thing that defines people as Leftists. That is the main thing that they have in common. <br /><br />The Rightist, by contrast, generally has no need either for change or its converse. If anything, Rightists favour progress -- both material and social. So when Rightists are conservative (cautious), it is not because of their attitude to change <i>per se</i>. On some occasions they may even agree with the particular policy outcomes that the Leftist claims to desire. When they resist change, then, it is mainly when it appears incautious -- and they are cautious (skeptical of the net benefits of particular policies) generally because of their realism about the limitations (selfishness, folly, shortsightedness, aggressiveness etc.) of many of their fellow humans (Ray, 1972, 1974 & 1981). So it is only vis a vis Leftists that the Right can on some occasions and in some eras appear conservative (cautious about proposals for social change). <br /><br />Leftists do not of course want just any change. In particular, they want change that tends in the direction of tearing down or drastically revising existing authorities, power structures and social arrangements. And this generally takes the form of advocating greater equality between people. What the Leftist ultimately wants in this direction however is fairly heroic in its dimensions and unlikely ever to be fully achieved in at least contemporary Western societies so the Leftist always has a corrosive discontent with the world he lives in and therefore is permanently in a position of wanting change from the way things are. <br /><br /><br /><b>Leftists in Power</b><br /><br /><br />The analysis above was principally of what Leftism/liberalism is in the economically advanced countries of the contemporary "Western" world -- where Leftists have only ever had partial success in implementing their programmes. So what happens when Leftists get fully into power? Does the same analysis apply?<br /><br />For a start, it should be obvious that the personality and goals of the Leftist do not change just because he gets into power. He is still the same person. And that this is true is certainly very clear in the case of Lenin -- who is surely the example par excellence of a Leftist who very clearly did get into power. In his post-revolutionary philippic against his more idealistic revolutionary comrades, Lenin (1952) makes very clear that "absolute centralization and the strictest discipline of the proletariat" are still in his view essential features of the new regime. He speaks very much like the authoritarian dictator that he was but is nonetheless being perfectly consistent with the universal Leftist wish for strong government power and control over the population -- but only as long as Leftists are in charge. So Leftists in power certainly do NOT cause the State to "wither away" -- as Marx foresaw in "The Communist Manifesto".<br /><br />Obviously, Leftists in power also cease to want change. Aside from their focus on industrialization, change in the Soviet Union was glacial and any institutional change or change in the locus or nature of political power was ferociously resisted. So if a clamour for change is characteristic of Leftists in the "West" but not characteristic when Leftists attain full power, what are the real, underlying motives of Leftism?<br /><br /><br /><b>Why Leftist?</b><br /><br />The theory that would seem to have the widest explanatory power is that Leftist advocacy serves ego needs. It is submitted here that the major psychological reason why Leftists so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting -- and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention, for self-advertisement and self-promotion -- generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction. They are people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power. One is tempted to hypothesize that, when they were children, their mothers didn't look when they said, "Mummy, look at me".<br /><br /><br /><b>Envy</b><br /><br /><br />And, of course, people who themselves desperately want power, attention and praise envy with a passion those who already have that. Businessmen, "the establishment", rich people, upper class people, powerful politicians and anybody who helps perpetuate the existing order in any way are seen by the Leftist as obstacles to him having what he wants. They are all seen as automatically "unworthy" compared to his own great virtues and claims on what they already have. "Why should they have ........ ?" is the Leftist's implicit cry -- and those who share that angry cry have an understanding of one-another that no rational argument could achieve and that no outsider can ever share.<br /><br />The Leftist's passion for equality is really therefore only apparently a desire to lift the disadvantaged up. In reality it is a hatred of all those in society who are already in a superior or more powerful position to the Leftist and a desire to cut them down to size. They are haters who want to subjugate everyone and everything to their rule. As Engels rightly saw, there is nothing more authoriarian than that.<br /><br />So why do Leftist psychologists claim that conservatives are pro-authority whereas Leftists are anti-authority? That this vast and perverse oversimplification became widely accepted among psychologists is perhaps an understandable mistake given the characteristic opposition by Leftists in the modern "Western" democracies to the existing centres of authority and power in their countries and given the characteristic acceptance by conservatives of those same authorities. <br /><br />Looking at history more broadly, however, we see that authoritarianism is central to Leftism and that Leftists are in fact dedicated practitioners of it -- so what Leftists oppose is not authority as such (or there would be no Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.) but only authorities that they do not control; and what conservatives favour is not any and all authority but rather carefully limited authority -- only that degree of central authority and power that is needed for a civil society to function.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <b>REFERENCES</b><br /><br />Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N. (1950) The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper<br /><br />Altemeyer, R. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University Manitoba Press. <br /><br /><br />Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In: Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.<br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20040527/jonjayray.tripod.com/acag.html">Ray, J.J.(1972) Acceptance of aggression and Australian voting preference. <i>Australian Quarterly </I> 44, 64-70. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20040527/jonjayray.tripod.com/chapters.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20040527/jonjayray.tripod.com/conmisan.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Conservatism and misanthropy. <i>Political Psychology</i> 3(1/2), 158-172. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20040527/jonjayray.tripod.com/whyf.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Why the F scale predicts racism: A critical review. <i>Political Psychology</i> 9(4), 671-679. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20040527/jonjayray.tripod.com/scistud.html"> Ray, J.J. (1989) The scientific study of ideology is too often more ideological than scientific. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 10, 331-336. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20040527/jonjayray.tripod.com/oldfas.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) The old-fashioned personality. <I> Human Relations</I>, 43, 997-1015. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/05/leftist-racism-by-john-ray-m.html">Ray, J.J. (2002) Leftist racism. Front Page Magazine October 8th.</a> See also <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3689">here</a>.JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-52047441243987589872007-02-09T23:30:00.004+11:302011-09-12T21:29:03.880+11:30<b><font size="6"> Abortion: Only conservatives care </font></b><br /><br /><br /><br />By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)<br /><br /><i>This has become an absolutely molten issue so I thought I might put up my attempt at good old Anglo-Saxon compromise in the matter</i><br /><br />Abortion is a difficult issue for conservatives. They seem to be fairly evenly divided about it. But Leftists are not. Leftists almost all seem to favour abortion. Why?<br /><br />The key to understanding that is simple. When Leftists get into absolute power -- as they often did in the 20th Century -- we soon see what their "compassion" really adds up to. From Stalin to Pol Pot, Leftists showed that they do not care about human life at all. They murdered millions. So what are a few unborn babies to them? A mere bagatelle!<br /><br />Rightists are divided because they are the only ones who genuinely care and it is a situation of conflict between the rights of the child and the rights of the mother. I myself think it is patently obvious that abortion is murder. A baby that would survive if born premature is destroyed by an abortionist and we are told that no crime has been committed! Absurd. <br /><br />But my libertarian instincts also tell me that coercion is not the way to stop abortion. I leave coercion to the Leftists. Paying mothers to have the baby would work a lot better. Good old capitalism again! A payment of (say) $10,000 to all mothers who produce a healthy baby should do the trick. And with the now catastrophically low birthrates in most of the developed world we probably need such an incentive scheme for all mothers anyway. Australia already has such a payment, set at $5,000 at the time of writing. The payment was introduced by a conservative government.<br /><br />So conservatives should be helping to support and encourage reluctant mothers rather than threaten them with the law -- perhaps even setting up special, discreet, resort-style homes for them during their pregnancy.<br /><br />I am pleased to note that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/politics/campaign/14DTEXT-FULL.html?ex=1117512000&en=9f74bfa9a8670aa7&ei=5070&pagewanted=7">President Bush</a> argued for policies similar to what I have outlined above. I quote him from one of the 2004 Presidential debates:<br /><br /><blockquote> "I think it's important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters. I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life. <br /><br />I understand there's great differences on this issue of abortion. But I believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions. <br /><br />Take, for example, the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. People from both political parties came together in the halls on Congress and voted overwhelmingly to ban that practice. Made a lot of sense. My opponent out - in that he's out of the mainstream, voted against that law. <br /><br />What I'm saying is that as we promote life and promote a culture of life, surely there are ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions. Continue to promote adoption laws - that's a great alternative to abortion. Continue to fund and promote maternity group homes. I will continue to promote abstinence programs". </blockquote><br />Despite much Leftist frothing at the mouth over the "extremism" of Bush's moral and religious views, what we note above is in fact a surprisingly libertarian approach to the abortion conundrum. He starts out rooting his opposition to abortion in <font color="#ff0000">that great intersection between Protestant/Christian and conservative/libertarian views: Respect for the individual and the rights and liberties of the individual</font>. And precisely because he sees that principle as axiomatic, he does not go on to advocate a dogmatic policy of coercion or total prohibition but rather a policy of seeking voluntary ways of just REDUCING the number of abortions. So Bush was preaching a synthesis that was both classically conservative and yet also very supportive of Christian values -- with their view of all human life as the work and gift of God. It's the sort of synthesis that might have served a clever politician of the Left well in a religious country but it was the "dumb" George Bush who actually put it forward and won much kudos among Christians in doing so. <br /><br />I am also absolutely delighted that Australia's most eminent Catholic -- Cardinal Pell -- has actually now put such policies into practice as well. I quote from <a href="http://bussorah.tripod.com/pell.html">a report</a> in early January 2005:<br /><br /> <blockquote>"One of the last announcements Cardinal George Pell made before taking his annual leave this week was to introduce a program, new to Australia and only the third of its kind in the world, to provide support to pregnant women who are contemplating abortion. "We want to respond to the needs of women facing an unexpected or difficult pregnancy by providing them with life-affirming options," he said. "Through the program, expectant mothers and, if required, their families, will be provided with social, emotional and practical support to enable them to continue with their pregnancy to full term. Women need real alternatives to abortion, and this new program is targeted to meet the specific needs of women contemplating abortion." </blockquote><br /><br />And in <a href="http://www.astandforjustice.org/2006/05/05-17-03.htm">Israel</a> too, a similar approach seems to be gaining ground:<br /><br /> <blockquote>"Responding to an issue that Jews often refer to as "the demographic threat", a non-profit Jewish group is encouraging poor, pregnant Jewish women who might be considering having an abortion to go ahead and have a child instead. Set up 29 years ago by Eli Schussheim, a surgeon, the Efrat organisation offers women $1,000 of support for a year, including diapers, a crib and baby clothes, if they decide to give birth rather than terminate their pregnancies" </blockquote><br />And there are similar arrangements in <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/kathrynlopez/2011/05/14/to_stand_up_and_serve/page/full/">some places in America</a>:<br /><blockquote>"Take, for instance, the people of the Northwest Center in Washington, D.C., a pregnancy center and maternity home. They provide a whole host of services to women, children and men: material needs, job training, educational assistance and housing. Established 30 years ago by graduates of Georgetown University, with a modest budget and more demand than it can ever possibly meet, it has served more than 40,000 people.<br /><br />At its fundraising dinner this year, the Center honored Congressman Dan Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, for being a staunch defender of the most innocent human life. In his acceptance speech, Lipinski in turn honored the real heroes of the fight for life and family in a country beset by a culture of death: the volunteers and those who make Northwest Center and its services possible. But even more so, the mothers -- those parents who bravely say yes to the lives with which they have been entrusted. Who, whatever the circumstances that brought them to pregnancy, surrender themselves to service.<br /><br />"I believed no one supported my choice to choose life," a very pregnant Sharnece Ward explains. Ward has faced most obstacles a single mom can have. The father of her child gave her a litany of reasons to abort. "Planned Parenthood was recommended." She lost her job and housing. But she managed to find the Northwest Center and its "effortless support," the help "my family wouldn't give me." She's living there, at no cost. Suffering from gestational diabetes, she is getting the basic and additional health care she needs through the Center's help. And in addition to the parenting skills, she's continuing her education. She was determined to be the mother she already was, despite the option so many around her were all too insistent she pursue.<br /><br />No political party owns social justice. Every individual is called to serve and defend the cause of life. In the face of evil and confusion, we often just need to encourage one another -- help each other with the support and resources -- to answer the call. Bonhoeffer's example reminds us of this. A contemporary martyr in a far-off country reminds us. A mother reminds us. In service, in courage, there is peace. Be not afraid, as a wise, saintly man of the last century implored.</blockquote><br />Laws generally do however tend to have unintended consequences and laws implemented under Leftist influence are particularly noted for destructive consequences. See <a href="http://foxhunt.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html#147186899576391054">here</a> for an example of a California law that lasted only two weeks!<br /><br />And a probably unintended consequences of the SCOTUS verdict in <i>Roe vs. Wade</i> is that black women have eagerly accepted the opportunites for abortion that it opened up for them. Millions of black babies have been flushed down the drain in recent years. Given the high propensity to crime among blacks, this has probably contributed positively to American society -- as <a href="http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf">Levitt & Co.</a> have rather controversially argued.<br /><br />Note however that in all that I have said above there is no claim that opposition to abortion is a characteristic conservative doctrine. As I started out saying, conservatives are divided about it. The REAL opposition to abortion is religious rather than political. And the church which has historically tended to support the LEFT -- the Roman Catholic church -- is the most fervent in the anti-abortion cause. So the claim that conservatives want to impose their own moral views on others in the matter of abortion is quite wrong. Conservatives are indeed the one side of politics to have moral qualms on the issue but they tend to seek a middle road in dealing with it. Taking the issue to the point of legal prohibitions is a religious doctrine rather than a conservative one -- and the religion concerned may or may not be characteristically conservative.<br /><br />Note further that although there is much about the RC church that would lead us to expect conservatism of it, the church is to this day quite Leftist in some parts of the world -- e.g. in Latin America -- and the church has long been centrist in its social doctrines. From <i>de rerum novarum</i> to <i>centesimus annus</i> the extreme of communism has been rejected but government intervention on behalf of the poor has been firmly supported.<br /><br />Note finally that other ways in which conservatives have sometimes been accused of authoritarianism -- such as Sabbath observance and opposition to homosexual marriage -- are in fact distinctively religious, the work of VERY religious people usually. <br /><br />For more on the correlation between conservatism and Chistianity, see <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/xiancons.html">here</a>.JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-2773645107025846172007-01-10T00:15:00.003+11:302012-08-26T19:35:58.521+11:30<br /><b><font size="6"> THE HISTORY OF LIBERTY IN GERMANY </font></b><br /><br /><blockquote><i>"The most popular interpretation of the ascendancy of Nazism explains it as an outcome of the German national character. . . . It is very easy indeed to assemble many facts of German history and many quotations from German authors that can be used to demonstrate an inherent German propensity toward aggression. But it is no less easy to discover the same characteristics in the history and literature of other linguistic groups, e.g., Italian, French, and English. . . . There have been in Germany, as in all other nations, eulogists of aggression, war, and conquest. But there have been other Germans too. The greatest are not to be found in the ranks of those glorifying tyranny and German world hegemony. Are Heinrich von Kleist, Richard Wagner, and Detlev von Liliencron more representative of the [German] national character than Kant, Goethe, Schiller, Mozart, and Beethoven?"<br /></i>From <a href="http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap10.asp"><b>"Omnipotent Government"</b></a> by Ludwig von Mises (who was Jewish)</blockquote><br /><br /><br />By John Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)<br /><br /><br /><b>Germans in Early Times</b><br /><br />When the invaders (Angles and Saxons) from coastal Germany overran Romano-Celtic Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England, they brought with them a very decentralized, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it. <br /><br />This account of English origins is not at all original. Montesquieu, De Tocqueville and Jefferson all saw English exceptionalism and independence of spirit as tracing back to German roots and all relied particularly on Tacitus for their view of the early German character. The work of Macfarlane (1978 & 2000) is however probably the best modern reference on the topic. <br /><br />But let us look at what <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html">Tacitus</a> said. Excerpts: <br /><br /><blockquote>They choose their kings by birth, their generals for merit. These kings have not unlimited or arbitrary power, and the generals do more by example than by authority.<br /><br />About minor matters the chiefs deliberate, about the more important the whole tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people, the affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. They assemble, except in the case of a sudden emergency, on certain fixed days, either at new or at full moon; for this they consider the most auspicious season for the transaction of business. Instead of reckoning by days as we do, they reckon by nights, and in this manner fix both their ordinary and their legal appointments. Night they regard as bringing on day. Their freedom has this disadvantage, that they do not meet simultaneously or as they are bidden, but two or three days are wasted in the delays of assembling. When the multitude think proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by the priests, who have on these occasions the right of keeping order. Then the king or the chief, according to age, birth, distinction in war, or eloquence, is heard, more because he has influence to persuade than because he has power to command. If his sentiments displease them, they reject them with murmurs; if they are satisfied, they brandish their spears.<br /><br />In truth neither from the Samnites, nor from the Carthaginians, nor from both Spains, nor from all the nations of Gaul, have we received more frequent checks and alarms; nor even from the Parthians: for, more vigorous and invincible is the <b>liberty</b> of the Germans than the monarchy of the Arsacides.</blockquote><br /><br />Our modern-day parliamentary procedures are a little more sophisticated but the basic values and principles seem to me not to have changed at all. As Razib at <a href="http://gnxp.blogspot.com/2002_11_01_gnxp_archive.html#85673896">Gene Expression</a> points out, in the 2002 Index of Freedom, all the top countries seem to have a connection to the Anglosphere or are Germanic. Indian institutions and political customs have of course been enormously influenced by Britain.<br /><br />It could also be said that the decentralized nature of the early German communities was no different from the decentralization in Greece before the Athenian Empire, the decentralization in Italy before the ascendancy of the Roman Republic or indeed the decentralization of the original Mesopotamian civilization. The important point, here, however is the much longer survival of that form of organization among Germans -- and it is certainly to Germans that the English must trace it.<br /><br />A picture is said to be better than 1,000 words so <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/anglosaxons/invasion/index.shtml">this link</a> to a BBC educational site should help fix in our minds the fact that the English are historically the Western branch of the Germanic people -- and that the basics of what is German should also therefore be the basics of what is English. Though 1500 years of history can create a lot of differences, of course. The words in the yellow text-box are particularly relevant to my stress on the historical importance of political decentralization among the Germanic peoples.<br /><br /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/8pDuo.gif"><br /><br />There is now even some evidence that the German influence on Britain may have had a much earlier wave as well. When the grave of the so-called <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s781364.htm">"King of Stonehenge"</a> (dating from about 2300 BC) was opened, he was found to be of Southern German origin: <br /><br /><blockquote>"Different ratios of oxygen isotopes form on teeth in different parts of the world and the ratio found on these teeth prove they were from somebody from the Alps region," said Tony Trueman from Wessex Archeology.</blockquote> <br /><br /><br /><br /><b> Germans in more recent times</b><br /><br />Tracing the English love of liberty to the ultimately German descent of most of the English population will to many seem colossally perverse in view of Germany's recent experience. Was not Hitler a German and was he not almost the ultimate despot and centralizer of power in his own hands? One could quibble here by saying that Hitler was NOT a German (he was an Austrian) and the Israeli historian <a href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/burgess1/unger.html">Unger (1965)</a> has pointed out that Hitler was much less of a despot than Stalin was but neither of those points is really saying much in the present context.<br /><br />A very easy way out of this dilemma might be to say that 1500 years of history can make a lot of difference in the evolution of a people. The English could well have retained their traditions of 1500 years ago while the incessant brutalizing wars of Europe could have caused modern-day Germans to have lost their traditions of 1500 years ago. And that could indeed be part of the answer. <br /><br />Another answer that seems superficially plausible is to argue that the undisputed tendency for the German invaders of Britannia to intermarry with the native Celts produced a hybid population in England that is no longer really German. <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/934748/posts">Recent genetic evidence</a> (See also <a href="http://forum.skadi.net/y_chromosomes_rewrite_british_history_anglo_saxons_genetic_stamp_weaker-t3349.html?s=5552b0f2c9cf5190fde3a0516f27cfdc&">here</a> and <a href="http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982203003737">here</a>) does confirm early accounts of intermarriage by showing that modern-day England (as well as Scotland, Wales and Ireland) is still substantially Celtic. So therefore the modern English are not as German as the Germans of Germany. To argue that, however, is to ignore the fact that Germany too has undergone great populations shifts and movements. The Saxons, for instance, were a coastal tribe 1500 years ago but certainly are not that today. So Germans too have undoubtedly intermarried with the more Southerly people into whose lands they moved. And who were the people to their immediate South? Celts! So the population of modern-day Germany too undoubtedly has a strong Celtic admixture -- particularly in the South. Southern and Northern Germans today do tend to see themselves as quite different from one-another. So both modern England and modern Germany are in no sense racially "pure". In both cases we are looking at a diluted ancestral infuence. Different ancestry is not therefore as obvious an explanation for modern day English/German differences as it might initially seem.<br /><br />The explanation for modern-day English/German differences that I incline towards is that England's freedom from invasions over the last 1,000 years has allowed the English to develop their original Germanic traditions and practices with fewer constraints than those suffered by Germans on the Continent. I would argue that English traditions, practices and values are a more highly evolved version of the same traditions, practices and values that Continental Germans have.<br /><br />But that, of course only invites more questions: What is the source of those traditions, practices and values? Can traditions and practices survive enormous vicissitudes for over 2,000 years? And if so, why and how? In answering such questions, I think we have to take into account recent findings in behaviour genetics. I think such findings suggest that the common core that both Germans and the English have built upon in developing their traditions, systems, practices and attitudes is in fact their common genetic heritage<br /><br />There is now ample evidence from twin studies showing that identical twins reared apart are almost as similar to one-another as are identical twins reared together. In other words, genetics accounts for far more of what we are than environment does. And this high degree of genetic influence does extend to ideology. Conservatism is highly heritable (Martin & Jardine, 1986 and Eaves, Heath, Martin, Meyer & Corey, 1999). It seems in fact to be slightly more heritable than stature (i.e. how tall you are). So attitudes and values DO quite strongly tend to be genetically inherited. This clearly does raise the possibility that the original Germanic independence of spirit and respect for individual liberty may have been more than a matter of mere tradition. It may have been genetically encoded. <br /><br />If that is so, we would expect that the Germans of today, despite the various things that have befallen them in the last 1500 years, might still show at least some residue of that original independence of spirit. I believe that they do. Nobody would argue that respect for the individual is as strong in Germany as it is in England but I believe that some German distinctiveness of the same general kind has persevered right down to modern times. So we need to look at the Hitler episode a bit more carefully at this point and ask whether it might not be exceptional rather than typical in German history -- for all the wartime propaganda to the contrary that one still occasionally hears.<br /><br />Before we go on to the historical data, however, some psychological data might help plant a few seeds of doubt about the conventional view of Germans: Koomen (1973) showed that prewar Germany did not have characteristically authoritarian child-rearing practices. He concludes: <br /><br /><blockquote>"Secondary analysis of data concerning periods before and after the war showed that before the war, only differences in parental control with regard to daughters could be demonstrated; parental control concerning sons appeared to be approximately the same in the two countries" [Germany and the U.S.A. (p. 634)].</blockquote><br /><br />And one of my survey research reports is perhaps even more surprising. In <a href="germauth.html">Ray & Kiefl (1974)</a> I reported that Germans in the 1980s in fact had distinctly "Hippy" values. Could Germans have changed almost overnight from robot-like automations to the exact opposite? It does seem improbable and history helps reinforce the view that Germans have not in fact changed much.<br /><br /><b>"Kaiser Bill"</b><br /><br />The first modern historical fact we need to note is that at the outbreak of the <i>First</i> World War in 1914 Germany was a democracy: And a rather enlightened one at that which took better care of its people than almost any other country at that time did. Wartime propaganda which portrayed the war as the doing of "Kaiser Bill" still lives on but the legal powers of the German monarch were in fact not dissimilar to those of the British monarch. This entry about the Kaiser from the <i>Encyclopedia Britannica</i> is a useful starting point for understanding what actually went on:<br /><br /><blockquote>William often bombastically claimed to be the man who took the decisions. It is true that the German constitution of 1871 put two important powers in his hands. First, he was responsible for appointing and dismissing the chancellor, the head of the civil government. Admittedly, the chancellor could only govern if he could get a majority in the <i>Reichstag</i>, but this limitation on the emperor's freedom of choice was more apparent than real, because most members of the <i>Reichstag</i> felt it their loyal duty to support whomever the Kaiser appointed. Secondly, the German Army and Navy were not responsible to the civil government, so that the Kaiser was the only person in Germany who was in a position to see that the policy followed by the soldiers and sailors was in line with that pursued by the civil servants and diplomats. Thus, British journalists and publicists had some justification when during and immediately after the war they portrayed the Kaiser as Supreme War Lord, and therefore the man who, more than anyone else, decided to make war.<br /><br />As time passes, however, historians are increasingly coming to see William as an accomplice rather than an instigator. In the years after 1890 the German upper and middle classes would have wanted a larger say in the world's councils no matter who had been on the throne, and this "urge to world power" was almost bound to bring them into collision with some of the existing great powers. The chief real criticism to be made of the Kaiser is that, instead of seeing this danger and using his influence to restrain German appetites, he shared those appetites and indeed increased them, particularly by his determination to give Germany a navy of which it could be proud. He was a quick-witted, well-meaning man who went with the stream instead of having the vision and strength of judgment to stand out against it.</blockquote><br /><br />So the difference between the British and German monarchies was not so much one of different legal powers but of different styles. The Queen is also legally the one who appoints British Prime Ministers and who is head of Britain's armed forces. Just because the British monarch normally does not exercise visible power may create the illusion that he/she has no power but the power is in fact there. This is best shown in Australia, where the royal powers are vested in the Governors and Governors General. These viceroys have in fact twice in the last century exercised their vice-regal powers to dismiss elected governments!<br /><br />I might add that the Britannica's comment that the German parliament felt duty-bound to support whatever Chancellor (Prime Minister) the Kaiser chose is a gross exaggeration. Even the brilliant Chancellor Bismarck had a lot of trouble with German parliaments. Germany was undoubtedly in 1914 as much a democracy as the Britain it went to war with. And that democracy continued after the war -- so that Hitler himself came to power by essentially democratic means (See <a href="hitold.html">here</a> for an extended discussion of that). So a democracy that was interrupted only by the 12 year rule of Hitler is a pretty persistent democracy. Even England had a dictator (Cromwell) for a short period in its history.<br /><br /><b>Prussia</b><br /><br />Those who know their German history, however, will often reply that it is not so much Hitler as his Prussian predecessors who show Germans as not being democratically inclined. The Prussians were the people who created the modern German nation in the first place. Roughly speaking, Prussia is the Northeastern part of Germany which, over the course of the 19th century, gradually came to dominate the whole of Germany. And the Prussian army had a famous tradition of requiring that its troops be <i>Kadaver gehorsam</i> (corpselike obedient) so how that squares with my claim of a Germanic respect for individual liberty does at first seem very difficult to explain indeed. <br /><br />Perhaps the first thing to note about the Prussians, however, is that they were not originally Germans. They were a Baltic people until conquered by the Teutonic Knights and the Old Prussian (Baltic) language did not die out until the 17th century. <br /><br />The second thing to note is that the militarized and bueaucratized nature of the Prussian State was largely the the creation of one man -- King Frederick William I, who ruled from 1720 onwards. And although Frederick William was undoubtedly German, he may have been assisted in setting up his militarized State by the large non-German element in his subjects. <br /><br />Frederick William's son, Frederick the Great (who reigned from 1740), did nothing to undo the efficient bureaucracy set up by his father and made triumphant use of the army created by his father but he was nonetheless notably tolerant and humane. He was hailed by Voltaire (whose model was England) as the <i>"philosopher king"</i> and was noted for instituting freedom of conscience in religious and other matters. As a result, at one time the only place in Western Europe where the Jesuit order was legally permitted was Protestant Prussia. And Voltaire was welcomed in Prussia at times when he was unwelcome in France. So, under Frederick, Prussia was the acme of individual liberty in the continental Europe of the time! An efficient military did NOT mean an oppressed citizenry. Even in militaristic Prussia, the ancient Germanic respect for individual liberty was alive and well and thriving.<br /><br />So Frederick's Prussia showed that militarism and individualism can coexist. Making it happen is perhaps a difficult trick and perhaps it is a trick that only Germanic peoples can manage but Frederick showed that even extremes of both (for the times) can coexist. It may also be noted that our Anglo-Saxon ancestors were great warriors too but they also still respected individual liberties.<br /><br />The third thing to note is that rigid obedience to orders was NOT a requirement higher up the chain of command in the Prussian army. The famous Prussian general and military theorist, Clausewitz (1976), is clear that an innovative, flexible, opportunistic, improvisatory strategy is of utmost importance among military commanders. <i>Kadaver gehorsam</i> was, in other words, even in the military context a strictly limited requirement. Germans have always been good military men and the strict obedience to orders of the ordinary soldier is an age-old military ideal. It has no necessary implications for what is true of the society as a whole. The armies of many very different societies have endeavoured to impose such an attitude in their troops -- though probably it is only the Japanese who have ever achieved it.<br /><br /><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qR8ac0jfx8c/UDnYp7rjtbI/AAAAAAAAAOs/lsu29vD-3d4/s400/moltke.gif"><br /><br />Perhaps a final potshot at misconceptions about Prussia and Prussian militarism can be found in the reality of the life of a great Prussian general, Helmuth von Moltke, above. A ruthless military robot? Not quite. He was the brilliant strategist and long-time head of the Prussian army who crushed the French at Sedan in 1870. The following is from Wikipedia:<br /><blockquote>Moltke loved music, poetry, art, archaeology, and theater. He knew seven languages (German, Danish, English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Turkish). He was a prolific artist who filled sketchbooks with landscapes and portraits, as well as a popular author... his account of travels in Turkey, released after his return to Berlin in 1840 and illustrated with his own drawings, turned him into a literary celebrity, a role that he embraced by donning a Turkish and giving public lectures... For all his catholicity of interests, Moltke was no closet liberal. He was a nationalist to the core who was appalled by the liberal revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. He placed his faith in the king and the forces of the old regime.</blockquote><br />And a robotic attitude was certainly not true of Prussians generally. Prior to their partial subjugation by another strong figure in German history -- Bismarck -- the Prussian parliament (Yes. They <b>DID</b> have a parliament) was in fact notably liberal (in the 19th century meaning of that term). Though Napoleon himself ran a police State in France, Prussian legislators of the 19th century were influenced by his liberal ideals rather than his authoritarian deeds. As one small sign of that, the emancipation of the Jews was proclaimed in Prussia in 1812. So to mistake Prussian military requirements for the nature of Prussians themselves is a large mistake.<br /><br />In fact even the great Bismarck himself led a dissolute, disorganized and irresponsible life in his youth that went pretty close to what we now would call "hippy". He did not in fact settle down and begin his rise to power as the "Iron Chancellor" until he married -- at age 32. And he was far from alone in having an early life of a very free-wheeling kind. It could in fact be argued that the old German <i>Wanderbursche</i> tradition and the later <i>Wandervogel</i> movement were long-standing adaptations to and acceptance of hippy values in German youth. So the hippy values of Germans today are not remotely the departure from the past that they might at first seem to those who do not know German history.<br /><br /><b>Myths about the Third <i>Reich</i></b><br /><br />And, perhaps surprisingly, Prussia was, for all that, closer to being an autocracy with centralized power than was <i>das dritte Reich</i>. The idea that Hitler's Germany was a nation of bureaucratized automatons under a single iron rule exists only in the popular imagination. Any comprehensive history of <i>das dritte Reich</i> (e.g. Shirer, 1964; Bullock, 1964) will tell you that power was if anything excessively decentralized and unfocused under Hitler. Hitler's immense popularity and respect in the country gave him ultimate authority but he exercised it only in a desultory and general way -- leaving most decisions and all administration to his subordinates. And he deliberately gave his subordinates overlapping jurisdictions so that they continually had to compete with one-another for power. Power in Nazi Germany was polycentric, not centralized.<br /><br />And nor were his subordinates rigid automations. Contrary to the Hollywood stereotype, the Nazi armies were far from being filled with rigid bunglers. Their remarkable initial successes against overwhelming odds (Dupuy, 1986) should alone suggest that but see also Hughes (1986). Both on the home front <a href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/burgess1/singer.html">(Singer & Wooton, 1976)</a> and in the field Hitler's Germany can be shown to be flexible and improvisational rather than rigid and formal.<br /><br />Hitler's closest friend and the person he spent most time with was Albert Speer (his architect and armaments minister) yet when allied bombers destroyed a building containing most of the records of his armaments ministry, Speer rejoiced at the loss. He welcomed the opportunity to make a new start. He was innovative rather than rigid (Singer & Wooton, 1976). He was an exponent of "some of the most advanced, participative and 'humanistic' management theories being endorsed today" <a href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/burgess1/singer.html">(Singer & Wooton, 1976, p. 79)</a>. He called his theory of management "organized improvisation" and he believed in collegial forms of decision-making. He also practised a "loose or fluid manner of structuring organizations" (p. 83). Note that word "collegial" -- meaning that everyone had a say and decisions were collective rather than imposed. <font color="#ff0000"><i>So there was Speer right at the heart of power in Hitler's </i>Reich<i> and yet he exercised his power consultatively and with considerable deference to others rather than autocratically</i></font>. He behaved, in other words, pretty much as Anglo-Saxon kings did 1500 years before him.<br /><br />And Speer's lack of rigidity and formality was also true of Hitler's generals. It was only their flexibility and creative thinking that enabled them to achieve so much against numerically much superior odds. The example of Rommel is of course well known but a better example is in fact von Manstein -- architect of the <i>Blitzkrieg</i> through France. At the outset of the French campaign, von Manstein faced heavily entrenched French and allied forces that were in no way inferior to the German forces but his bold and innovative <i>Panzer</i>-led strike through the Ardennes outflanked the French forces and routed them completely. And later in Russia, von Manstein destroyed two Russian armies even AFTER Stalingrad. And his conquest of the Crimean peninsula is legendary among military historians: a frontal assault against superior forces who had nearly every advantage: a fortified position, command of the sea, the air, and tanks, while his army had not one tank. So even Hitler's Germany was very much a nation that allowed much scope for creative individualism -- as long as you did not threaten the overall power structure, of course. <br /><br />The creativity of Nazi Germany can also of course be seen in the large number of innovative weapons systems that it deployed -- cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, radar and jet aircraft. The Focke company also produced the first workable helicopter -- though it was not used militarily. Perhaps most remarkable of all, Nazi Germany successfully deployed <a href="http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/rpav_germany_hr.html">precision guided bombs</a> nearly 50 years before US forces first used them to any extent (in the first Iraq war) and the Nazi engineers did it all without benefit of computer technology. And one of the guided weapons concerned -- the amazing <i>Mistel</i> -- had a warhead that would detonate on impact in an <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030211024514/http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blsecretkg3.htm">explosion that could penetrate 8 meters of steel or 20 meters of ferroconcrete</a> -- which is significant ordnance even by <a href="http://jonjayray.batcave.net/buster.html">modern standards</a>. <br /><br /><br />So Hitler's Germany was in fact much more individualistic, original, flexible and decentralized than is generally realized. <a href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/burgess1/unger.html">Unger (1965)</a> has pointed out that Hitler's regime was much less totalitarian than Stalin's. We can now suggest one reason why: Because it was German. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4668">This comparison by Hoppe</a> of the Hitler and Stalin regimes may also be worth noting:<br /><blockquote> "From 1929 to 1939, <i>in peace time</i>, Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed about 20 million Soviet citizens, for no predictable reason. Hitler and the National Socialists ruined the businesses and careers of hundreds of thousands of German citizens, but the number of people killed by them before the outbreak of the war was only a few hundred, most of them fellow Nazis and all of them for a predictable reason. Even immediately after the onset of the war, when it became known that the Nazis had begun to engage in mercy killings of the incurably insane (euthanasia), the Catholic bishops, led by Bernhard von Galen, openly protested, and German public opinion compelled the Nazis to halt the program. Bishop (later: Cardinal) von Galen survived the Nazi regime. Under Stalin and the Bolsheviks, any such opposition was impossible and Bishop von Galen would have been quickly disposed of." </blockquote><br /><br />But perhaps the most important thing to note about the Hitler regime is how shortlived it was -- 12 years. That of course makes it a very poor criterion of what is typically German. All countries have tyrannical episodes. The ferocious despotism of Henry VIII or the oppressive Puritanical rule of Oliver Cromwell in England may be noted as well-known instances of that.<br /><br />But even if we overlook its very shortlived nature, we see that the Hitler regime does little to challenge the notion of Germans as individualists rather than conformists and we have already seen that militaristic Prussia is a poor challenge to that notion too.<br /><br /><b>Germany before the Prussian ascendancy</b><br /><br />Perhaps the most important thing here, however, is to see things with an historian's eye and realize that recent times in general have been atypical for Germany. Right up until Prussia's ascendancy in the late 19th century, Germany was remarkable for its degree of decentralization. What we now know as Germany was once always comprised of hundreds of independent States (kingdoms, principalities, Hanseatic cities etc.) of all shapes and sizes: States that were in fact so much in competition with one another in various ways that they were not infrequently at war with one-another. <br /><br />Like many other groups, however, Germans encompass a wide variety of subgroups within their ranks and Prussians are one such subgroup. Prussia, however is only one part of Germany and in fact for most of its history it was only partly German -- including large numbers of Poles, Silesians and other non-Germans. Furthermore, the Prussian ascendancy was also both very recent and very short-lived. It dates essentially from the French surrender at Sedan in 1870 and ended with the flight of the Kaiser to Holland in 1918 -- to be succeeeded by the very un-Prussian Weimar Republic. Those 48 years are undoubtedly of enormous significance to the world but all that they show essentially is that Prussian militarism had some initial success but ended up destroying itself. <br /><br />Prior to Sedan, Germany was a disunited and decentralized agglomeration that generations of Prussians, French and others tried unsuccessfully to subdue. And after Sedan, unity of a sort was achieved and maintained only by the diplomatic genius of Bismarck. And even with the armed might of Prussia behind him even Bismarck had a lot of trouble with the other German States. He could not even get his Prussian monarch declared as being "Emperor of Germany". He had to make do with "German Emperor" as a title. And even Bismarck was not able to shake the independence of the Germans in the Austrian lands. He had to be content with them as not always reliable allies.<br /><br />And after the remarkable restraint provided by Bismarck was dispensed with by the new Kaiser (Wilhem II or "Kaiser Bill"), the German Empire very quickly self-destructed. We know it as World War I. And Hitler's attempt to revive it went the same way. <br /><br />So now Germany is back to something much more like what it always was -- a nation with a strongly decentralized power structure in the form of the various <i>Land</i> (State) governments. And that is of course exactly the same structure that certain other countries of mainly Germanic origin (the USA, Canada and Australia) have adopted too -- a system of State governments which markedly limits central (Federal) government power. And it might be noted that "devolution" is rapidly leading to a similar state of affairs in Britain itself. So the German origins of the English do make their historic dislike of concentrated power at the Centre just one part of a larger picture.<br /><br />To summarize the main points of what has been said so far about recent German history:<br /><br /><blockquote>1). Germany has historically been notable for its decentralization of power and is still relatively decentralized today.<br /><br />2). The Prussian hegemony of Germany and the Nazi domination of Germany were both relatively short-lived (48 and 12 years respectively) by comparison with a history of Germany that stretches back for over 2000 years so cannot by themselves be the basis for much in the way of generalizations about Germans. We might as well argue from the despotism of Henry VIII (38 years) or the Cromwellian Protectorate (6 years) that Englishmen do not value their liberties.<br /><br />3). Although both Prussia and Nazi Germany undoubtedly had strong autocratic features, that is far from the whole story. Both kings and parliaments of Prussia were in fact for much of the time remarkably liberal (in the original 19th century sense of that term) by the standards of their day and Nazi Germany also was remarkably polycentric in its power structure. So even these "worst case" regimes still retained much of the ancient German diffused power structure that the Anglo-Saxons brought with them to what became England.</blockquote><br /><br />For another treatment of the Germanic role in the evolution of Anglo-Saxon liberty see a wide-ranging article by <a href="http://www.gnxp.com/MT/archives/000113.html">Razib</a>. He agrees with my contention here that Germanic origin maps respect for the individual a lot better than the prevalence of Christianity does.<br /><br />And it was of course only the fractionated and competing centres of power existing in mediaeval Germany that enabled the successful emergence there of the most transforming and anti-authority event of the last 1000 years: The Protestant Reformation. Despite the almost immediate and certainly widespread popularity of his new teachings among Germans, Luther ran great risks and would almost certainly have been burnt at the stake like Savonarola, Hus and his other predecessors in religious rebellion had it not been for his (and our) good fortune that he was a Saxon. His Prince, Frederick III ("The Wise") of Saxony gave him constant protection. As one of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick was strong enough and independent enough to protect Luther from Pope, from Emperor and from other German potentates.<br /><br />And the example of Luther highlights why decentralization of power is important: It introduces diversity. In theory, there is no reason why a set of decentralized mini-states cannot all be despotic. So decentralization is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself. It is good because of what it leads to. And what it leads to is choice. And where there is choice people can vote with their feet. A ruler that is too despotic will simply lose "subscribers" (citizens). His population will tend to decamp and put themselves under a less tyrannical ruler next door. So the power of any one ruler is constrained by the knowledge that his more valuable citizens in particular have an "out" if he shows too little consideration of them. And this was true of course not only in Germany for most of its history but also in Renaissance Italy. Especially skilled individuals such as Bach, Haendel or Leonardo did change rulers from time to time in a search of a better deal for themselves.<br /><br />As it happens, however, both in Tacitus and in accounts of the politics of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England, we do see a picture of power that is not only decentralized but also power that is exercised consultatively. And that connection is of course far from automatic. As we see in the case of Prussia and in the case of some of the Italian city-states, this is not always or necessarily so. Decentralized power can still be power that is exercised in a highly undemocratic way. But decentralized power IS fractionated power and the tendency for fractionation to exist not only between states but also within states is obviously strong. This is shown not only in the Anglo-Saxon case but also in the case of the Italian city-States of the renaissance -- many of which (such as Venice) were republics. Italy, however, is perhaps a case where independence of mind is excessive. Italian government to this day is chaotic. The Germanic people are the ones who seem to have struck a balance between individualism and the ability to accept discipline when required.<br /><br />Some extracts from a <a href="http://www.reason.com/rb/rb081303.shtml">review</a> of <i>The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy</I> (2002) by Northwestern University economist Joel Mokyr reflect a similar view of how the technological and social evolution that created the modern world depended critically on individualistic groups who were able to express their individuality because of the decentralization of North-Western Europe.<br /><br /><blockquote>"The rate of technological development has been deeply affected by the fact that people who studied nature and those who were active in economic production have been, through most of history, by and large disjoint social groups." ....<br /><br />Eighteenth century Europe also fractured into many independent sovereignties at the conclusion of the religious wars that had wracked continent for the previous two centuries. This political diversity promoted greater freedom of thought among merchants, scientists, and other thinkers, who would often simply pick and up leave if the government of one place displeased them. .... </blockquote><br /><br /><br />Those who still doubt that there is any connection at all between decentralization of power and individual liberty might reflect on the Magna Carta. It is rightly regarded as the founding document of English liberty and democracy and yet it was signed only because the decentralized power of the barons forced it to be signed.<br /><br /><b>"Germanic", "Teutonic" and the Jews</b><br /><br />Most readers should by now be feeling a bit dubious about my line of argument. Is what I am saying not reminscent of Nazi doctrines of German racial superiority? Am I not attributing at least one type of superiority to Germans just by reason of their being German?<br /><br />In response I have to say that I have been a student of the Nazi phenomenon for most of my adult life and have even written several papers for Jewish journals about it but I still do not know what Hitler thought to be historically Germanic -- other than that it was martial and pagan. On my reading he had no clear idea of it at all: Just confused and contradictory utterances from time to time. As "Robert Locke" pointed out in the August 28, 2001 issue of "Front Page" magazine, Hitler was in fact much <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1280">more vocal about being Aryan</a> than being <i>Germanisch</i>. So it is difficult to show that my ideas are dissimilar to Hitler's without knowing exactly what his ideas were. His speeches are raves rather than anything logically consistent (though they did, of course, have great emotional consistency).<br /><br />I guess, however, that the one lesson he would NOT draw from German history is precisely the one that I DO draw: That the German spirit is inimical to tyranny and in favour of individual liberty. I think it is fairly clear at least that individual liberty was not one of his priorities. The Nazi <i>Fuehrerprinzip</i> (leadership principle) was in fact diametically opposed to individualism of any sort. So does not my view of what is Germanic make me precisely ANTI-Nazi? I think it does.<br /><br />But why should I even try to make such distinctions between my arguments and Hitler's? I do not really see why a rational debate should be distracted by irrelevant comparisons with a populist demogogue. On the other hand, I do not like to give needless offence so I am making this clarification.<br /><br />Actually, I should probably have been using the word <a href="http://www.hostkingdom.net/Teutons.html">"Teutonic"</a> instead of "Germanic" as it is clear that everything I have so far said about the Anglo-Saxons is equally true (if not more so) of the Scandinavians. Those Vikings were certainly an individualistic, independent and decentralized lot! They also treated women more or less as equals and have a great history of democracy. The oldest continuously sitting parliament in the world is in fact the <i>Althing</i> of Iceland -- with a history going back 1,000 years. And Scandinavians are almost 100% Protestant too -- which fits with a spirit of independence and individualism.<br /><br />As to Jewry, I no more believe in Jewish conspiracy theories than I believe in the man in the moon. I will leave such beliefs to the simple-minded of both political extremes. I am and always have been, however, an unapologetic and unreserved supporter of Israel. But I hope nonetheless that I have the sort of balanced view of the Jews that one should have of any group -- seeing both strengths and weaknesses. I think that Jews in general are a remarkable and admirable people but I do not think that they are right about everything and I think that their historic collectivist doctrine that they are a "chosen people" has been both a blessing and a curse to them. <br /><br />And insofar as Christians have adopted such "groupthink" it has been a dubious influence among them too. Fortunately, St. Paul (a Jew) initially set Christianity on a much more inclusive path (Romans 2: 25-29; 1 Corinthians 7: 18,19; Galatians 3: 26-29; Colossians 3:11) than that adopted by Jews before him so group consciousness has not had such good precedents among Christians. The way both Catholics and Protestants have engaged in persecution of those not of their faith does however show that religious groupthink is far from absent among Christians.<br /><br />Interestingly, both modern Jews and ancient Jews have always been fractious and disunited so Jews could be an inspiration to those who OPPOSE collectivist thinking if we looked at what they did rather than what their religion preaches!<br /><br /><b>Protestantism versus Catholicism</b><br /><br />Luther has been mentioned as a beneficiary of Germanic power decentralization but Luther's message received wide acclaim in Germany generally so it seems reasonable to say that German distrust of centralized power not only <i>protected</i> Protestantism but was was in fact <i>a major cause</i> of Protestantism. Because what is Protestantism after all if it is not a rejection of centralized religious authority? So in that sense, conservatism and Protestantism are twin children of Germanic suspicion of centralized power. <br /><br />Looking at it another way, we could say that Protestantism is the Germanic form of Christianity and that conservatism is a political expression of religious Protestantism. There always have been, however, many forms of Protestantism and some forms (e.g. the Puritanism of England during the time of Cromwell's Protectorate) were very restrictive of individual liberty.<br /><br />Further, where the Roman Catholic believes that the sacraments administered by a religious authority (a priest) are essential for his ascent into heaven, the Protestant believes that he can commune with the Almighty directly. Catholicism fosters habits of submission to authority whereas Protestantism inculcates hardy independence. So acceptance of government authority over oneself should come as naturally to the Catholic as it is alien to the Protestant. <br /><br />So German history could at a pinch be seen as a struggle between native decentralizing tendencies and Catholic centralizing tendencies --- with the (more Celtic) German lands closest to Rome remaining Catholic and Imperial while the (Northern) German lands farthest from Rome remained independent, Protestant and decentralized. And the struggle the North had to resist the Imperial South was indeed a titanic one --including the famous 30 years war from 1618 to 1648. <br /><br />As some evidence that there is still something left of that difference, it might be noted that, in interwar Germany, the Protestant North was largely "Red" (revolutionary) whereas the Catholic South was largely Nazi -- i.e. more prepared to operate within the existing power structures and more prepared to accept the Church. Hitler did after all have a Catholic education.<br /><br />So how do we account for the fact that "Christian Democratic" (i.e. Catholic) political parties seem generally to be the major conservative forces within modern European politics? And how indeed do we account for the fact that at least 50% of Germans are to this day Catholic?<br /><br />A essential part of the answer is of course the counter-reformation -- a process that began in response to Luther and which restored the acceptabity of Catholicism to many Germans. This reform process within the Catholic church may have begun in response to Luther (though Luther had precursors) but has in fact been an ongoing process within the Catholic Church ever since --- with the relatively recent Vatican II ecumenical council being a particular highpoint of the process. So the Catholic church could only combat the power of Luther's message by partially bending to it and thus becoming itself to a large degree Protestantized and weakened in authority. And the way a huge proportion of otherwise convinced Catholics now disregard the teachings of their church on such matters as contraception shows vividly that the authority of the Church is now in fact mostly an empty shell.<br /><br />So in various guises Germanic Protestantism has won the day over Roman authority in the religious sphere just as Germanic conservatism has won the day over socialism in the political sphere. We now have Protestantized Catholics and <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,730718,00.html">"Thatcherized" socialists</a> in much of the world.<br /><br />Nonetheless, even in a weakened form, the Catholic church offers a model of "top down" social organization that must make it easier for Catholics to accept political arrangements of a "top down" sort. If you look up to the Pope as an essential part of your salvation in the spiritual sphere, to look up to the government as an essential agency in securing your material wellbeing is surely only a small step. So the fact that the vast majority of Europeans are still Catholic (even if the Catholicism is much watered down from what it was) should make Europeans more accepting of all-pervasive government than Anglo-Saxons would ever be. And so, of course, it has come to pass. In Bismarck, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Horthy, Pilsudski, Antonescu and Papadopoulos, Europe has had authoritarianism in government on a scale unknown in the English-speaking world. And we don't need to mention Stalin and the Russian Orthodox "Third Rome". <br /><br />So how conservatism has evolved in the modern-day English-speaking world is rather different from how conservatism has evolved in Europe. Anglo-Saxon conservatism benefited greatly from Henry VIII, who made England almost totally Protestant. Protestants in Germany failed to achieve this dominance and so England has been better able to stay close to its Germanic and Protestant roots -- whereas European conservatism has never totally escaped Catholicism. European conservatism has therefore mostly lost its anti-centralization principles and conforms much more closely to the stereotyped image of conservatism as being merely a defence of traditional arrangements generally. This of course makes it a much weaker form of conservatism and the huge bureaucratization that now characterizes the European Union is vivid evidence of that. European conservatives have been much less effective as opponents of big government because opposition to big government is much less of a central position for them.<br /><br /><br /><b>Scotland, liberty and the creation of the modern world</b><br /><br />My sole focus in discussing the Germanic tradition so far has been on individual liberty. There are however other ways in which Germanic and Protestant civilization is often alleged to have played a leading role in shaping the modern world. In particular, the German reformation is seen as enabling a freedom of thought that eventually brought about the English industrial revolution and hence modern civilization as we know it. And as part of that process the scientific technical and engineering innovations that enabled the modern world do almost all seem to have flowed from Germanic countries -- principally Germany itself and Britain. From the printing press to the steam engine the creation of technological civilization seems to have flowed almost entirely from the Germanic peoples of Northwestern Europe.<br /><br />I think that there is a large element of truth in this account but do not place any great reliance on it. It seems to me that the account overlooks very substantial contributions from France and Italy for a start (e.g. Marconi, Pasteur etc.) -- though it could also be argued that both the Northern French and the Northern Italians have substantial German elements (e.g. the Franks and the Lombards) in their ancestry. <br /><br />Another objection is the role of the Scots. In his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609606352/103-2694781-9665431?vi=glance">How the Scots Invented the Modern World</a>, Arthur Herman points to the very substantial contribution made by Scots to the the development of modern Western thinking and the invention by Scots of much in modern Western technology. So how does that square with the contention that the modern world was essentially a Germanic invention? Surely the Scots are Celts rather than Germanic!<br /><br />I doubt however that the Scottish case constitutes a crucial objection. Some reasons why:<br /><br />* To my knowledge both the Chinese and the Russians make similar claims to have produced many great inventions. Most things seem to have had more than one "inventor"<br /><br />* There is an awful lot that the Scots did NOT invent -- from the printing press onwards.<br /><br />* The Scottish lowlands (where most Scots live) were thoroughly colonized by the Anglo-Saxons so most Scots have substantial Germanic ancestry.<br /><br />* The Celtic Scots got at least Germanic culture via Protestantism and the English hegemony generally.<br /><br />The reviews in the Amazon site linked above are well worth a read.<br /><br />On the political front however, the Scots show very clearly the Germanic difference. Scotland has long been heavily socialist, returning very few Tory members to the Westminster parliament. When English voters swung very heavily towards Margaret Thatcher in 1979, Scotland actually swung away from the Tories! So the greater Celtic element in the Scots ancestry does seem to make a marked difference in politics. Where the Germanic English favour individualism and conservatism, the Celtic Scots favour collectivism and socialism. <br /><br />I have more on the Scots <a href="scotland.html">here</a> and <a href="scotjew.html">here</a><br /><br /><br /><i>Full citation details for all references given above can be found <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/01/detailed-reference-citations-for-papers.html">here</a>.</i><br /><br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-12320527567120191372006-12-10T23:53:00.000+11:302007-04-10T23:53:23.119+11:30<b><font size="6"> Is the term "liberal" still meaningful? </font></b><br /><br /><br />By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)<br /><br />I am constantly bemused by the way people use the word "liberal" as if it had some sort of clear meaning. It doesn't. In America it is used to describe the mainstream Left. In Australia it is used to describe the mainstream Right and in Britain it is used to describe the naive and dreamy Left. The word is also used to describe the sort of doctrine preached (but not practiced) by John Stuart Mill, though a clarifying "neo" prefix is sometimes attached in that case. <br /><br />The word also has vaguer meanings along the line of "broad-minded", "tolerant", "enlightened", "relaxed" etc. Thus we hear of a "liberal" education -- which is an education in basically useless subjects. We also hear of "liberal" democracy but I am not at all sure how such a democracy differs from any other sort of democracy. Is there an "illiberal" democracy anywhere? Perhaps it means a democracy that respects the rights of the minority but it generally seems to have a much warmer glow attached to it than just that. <br /><br />I myself almost never use the word. I sometimes use it to refer to the American mainstream Left but I always put it in quotes on such occasions out of respect for the origins of the word -- the Latin "liber" meaning "free". Since the American Left seem to believe in as little freedom for the individual as possible, their adoption of that word as a self-description seems particularly perverse to me.<br /><br />Perhaps most confusingly of all, paleoconservatives (itself a term of several meanings) sometimes claim that BOTH the Left and Right of modern-day politics are "liberal". By that they seem to mean something like "ignoring genetic constraints and racial differences". I find that usage perhaps the most puzzling of all since conservatives are quite emphatic that there is a genetically inherited "human nature" that constrains greatly what we can do or can be made to do. So how can they be "liberal" in the paleoconservative sense? And even Leftists do admit genetic constraints in one case only -- the case of homosexuality. So I think the paleoconservative meaning has to be decoded as "denying the importance of inborn racial differences". Even that decode has its problems, however, as a majority of psychometricians (who are almost all Left-leaning in one way or another) admit inherited racial differences in IQ, which is a very important difference indeed. Does that make them paleoconservatives? The psychologists concerned would almost all vigorously deny it.<br /><br />Amusingly, the term "liberal" seems to be falling out of favour among the American Left. The term has so often been attached to silly and unrealistic policies that the term "progressive" is now coming back into favour as a description of the broad Left. If the modern-day users of that term were aware of the eugenic, militaristic and nationalistic policies of <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html">the early 20th century "Progressives"</a>, however, they might be less keen on applying it to themselves.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the term is undoubtedly going to be with us for a long time as a description (however inappropriate) of the mainstream American Left so we will undoubtedly have to put up with that. I do wish however that other usages of the term would be dropped in favour of more informative descriptions of the policies or philosophies concerned.<br /><br /><i>The racial dimension</i><br /><br />A curious complication in use of the term "liberal" is what the "liberal" attitude to race might be. Insofar as "liberal" means tolerant or broad-minded, we might expect liberals to be racially tolerant and judge people as individuals rather than as group members. Yet that has never been the case for "Progressives" or those on the Left generally.<br /><br />Most people today are totally unaware that the mainstream Left were great racists before World War II. Racist beliefs were almost universal at that time but Leftists were the great preachers of it. Even Marx and Engels were furiously racist and if they were not Leftists, who would be? I have documented all that at length <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html">here</a> and <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/07/slightly-edited-version-of-this.html">here</a> and <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html">here</a> and <a href="http://marxwords.blogspot.com">here</a>. <br /><br />Conservatives, by contrast, have generally been moderate in their racial views -- which is why the British Conservative party made an outspoken Jew their Prime Minister at the height of the British empire. And to this day conservatives take a moderate view of race -- rejecting for instance the Leftist claim that the problems of blacks are all the fault of whites. As always, conservatives think in terms of individuals rather than in such crude racial terms. Leftists have now reversed the polarity of their racism but they are still the ardent racists they always were. It is just another instance of their characteristic simplistic thinking. The dreadful Hitler episode made pro-white racism unmentionable just about everywhere but since they really believe in nothing at all other than their own entitlement to power, sophisticated Leftists immediately became anti-white without a qualm. Because of their claim to have an explanation for everything, they NEED that sort of simplistic thinking.<br /><br />Less sophisticated and more down-to-earth Leftists could not do a backflip so quickly or easily of course -- as we saw in the American South. The opponents of racial integration in the 1960s American South (George Wallace, Orval Faubus etc) were of course prominent Democrats, members of America's mainstream party of the Left. And the Southern Democrats had not long before been the great bastion of support for the socialist FDR. Even in 1932, Roosevelt won all the southern states. Even the <a href="http://www.gilderlehrman.org/teachers/module17/intro_pop15.html">Ku Klux Klan was basically a Democrat organization</a>. A former Klansman (Byrd) sits in the U.S. Congress as a Democrat to this day. See <a href="http://liberalscum.com/democratsracist.html">here</a> (or <a href="http://bussorah.tripod.com/demracist.html">here</a>) for more extensive details. <br /><br />And as for FDR, note <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040712190129/http://www.inklingbooks.com/inklingblog/C1539669634/E1578049096/index.html">this quote</a> showing that FDR too was a typical (racist) Leftist of his era:<br /><br /><blockquote> "For an excellent illustration of just how little FDR cared for the desperate plight of southern blacks, you can study what happened to the Scottsboro Boys, eight young black men unjustly accused of raping two white women in 1931 Alabama. Even the more level-headed Southerners eventually came to see that no rapes had occurred and that the accused were innocent. But given the region's fierce pride, untangling the legal mess created by their conviction took many years. FDR could have waved it all away with a single signature on a federal pardon, knowing that the party's southern leadership would see that it never became a political issue. Instead, he did nothing." </blockquote><br /><br />So I think racism is another way in which "liberal" is a great misnomer for mainstream Leftists. They still judge people by the colour of their skin rather than by the content of their character. <br /><br /> <br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-31889412283512120662006-11-09T21:19:00.000+11:302007-04-09T21:19:46.952+11:30<b><font size="6"> Happiness, money and politics </font></b><br /><br /><br /><br />By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)<br /><br /><b>Summary</b><br /><br />I have been thinking and reading about happiness ever since I came across the work of <a href="http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/obits/argyle.html">Michael Argyle</a> on the subject in the 1970s. And, despite many complexities in the research findings, I think in the end the facts about it are surprisingly simple:<br /><br />It seems that happiness is to a quite extraordinary degree a trait rather than a state. In other words, we are born happy, unhappy or somewhere in-between. There are a lot of people who are always miserable (most Leftists, for instance) and some who are always sunny in mood no matter what. Even when we find that some classes of people (e.g. married people) are happier than others, it seems likely that it is more a case of happier people tending to marry rather than marriage making you happy.<br /><br />That is of course rather counter-intuitive. We can all think of events that have made us happy or unhappy so we assume that it is events (or at least external things) that are responsible for our degree of happiness. But it is not so. The events only ever have a transitory effect. We soon settle back to how we were before. The most striking evidence of that is that people who have accidents that leave them paraplegic or quadriplegic (i.e. with very limited use of their limbs) do not sink into irretrievable depths of despair but in fact report after a year or so that they are roughly as happy after their accident as they were before their accident.<br /><br />So policies aimed at making people happy are pissing into the wind. They are trying to alter what basically cannot be much altered. So in a democracy, political policies have to be aimed at what people WANT, not at what will make them happy -- because nothing can do that.<br /><br />Which is very pesky for the Left. They have recently discovered the happiness research literature and it has perked them up greatly. "If money will not make you happy, then there's no problem with us taking it off you", has been their hopeful cry. <font color="#ff0000">By the same reasoning one might argue that if losing your legs does not make you lastingly unhappy, then there is no harm cutting everybody's legs off either.</font><br /><br /><b>The Research</b><br /><br />What I have just said is a rather bald statement, however, so let me look in more detail at what we know:<br /><br />How happy we are does NOT seem to depend strongly on external circumstances, though it does of course depend to SOME degree on what happens to us. So one person will be happy in circumstances that would make another person miserable. I know. I have observed perfectly cheerful people among the street-sleepers of Bombay. Some people are almost always happy. Some people are almost always whining. Some people just have happy natures and some do not. So looking at what it is that makes people happy is largely futile. In statisticians' terms, you are looking for variance in something that is invariant. Or, putting it another way, correlations with something that is invariant will NECESSARILY be zero. So if you are interested in running a public policy that respects other people, you need to look at what they CHOOSE, not at what makes them happy. And most people choose (for instance) more money rather than less.<br /><br />And I think that <a href="http://www.health-news.org/breaking/178/patients-with-serious-illness-appear-to-adapt-well.html">this article </a> shows beyond doubt that degree of happiness is a stable disposition: <br /><br /><blockquote> "Most people who live with serious disability or illness, such as kidney failure, appear to adapt well and maintain a healthy outlook on life, new research reports. This trend may be surprising to some -- the report also found that people without serious illnesses tended to underestimate the level of happiness in these patients. "We think it is encouraging that for at least some illnesses, life seems to (eventually) go on and that people come to experience good and even normal mood levels," study author Dr. Jason Riis of Princeton University in New Jersey told Reuters Health. "We cannot adapt to anything. But we are generally more resilient than we think," he said. In the <i>Journal of Experimental Psychology</i>, Riis and his colleagues note that this is not the first study to show that people can adjust to good and bad life events. For instance, a nearly 30-year old study found that paraplegics were not that much less happy than lottery winners."</blockquote><br /><br />And note further <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=45070&nfid=nl">this report</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote> "The senior author of the new paper, Peter Ubel, M.D., has conducted several of these studies, and has found that ill people are often surprisingly happy, sometimes just as happy as healthy people. This suggests an adaptability or resilience in the face of their medical problems. Ubel is the director of the Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, an advisor to the RWJ Clinical Scholars Program, and author of You're Stronger Than You Think: Tapping the Secrets of Emotionally Resilient People (McGraw-Hill, 2006). <br /><br />"People often believe that happiness is a matter of circumstance, that if something good happens, they will experience long-lasting happiness, or if something bad happens, they will experience long-term misery," he says. "But instead, people's happiness results more from their underlying emotional resources <br /></blockquote><br />And <a href="http://bussorah.tripod.com/happiq.html">some more evidence that happiness is a personality trait</a>: <br /><br /><blockquote>"In a boost for exam-flunkers everywhere, a study published yesterday in the <i>British Medical Journal</i> found the levels of satisfaction with life recorded by 550 Scottish men and women aged 84-85 were unaffected by their mental abilities, either when they were young or much later.... The study group, all born in Lothian, Scotland, in 1921, were remarkable for the fact they had all undergone tests of mental ability when they were about 11 years old, and the records had been preserved. The tests were repeated a few years ago, when they were about 79. They each ranked their happiness on a scientifically validated satisfaction scale."</blockquote><br /><br />So it is interesting to note that there is a <a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_dissectleft_archive.html#105909091518028500">long history of evidence</a> showing that conservatives are happier. The most recent is from <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051689/posts">Gallup</a>: "Even when accounting for partisan differences in marital status and household income, Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats and independents to be very happy." Leftists are miserable sods, to put it plainly -- but you just have to hear their constant whining about everything in our society to know that. The implication is, then, that conservatives are born with a happier and more contented disposition and that Leftists want to change things in a futile attempt to alleviate their inborn unhappiness. <br /><br />In recent years, Left-leaning economists such as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/13/1031608327871.html">Ross Gittins</a> (see also <a href="http://foxhunt.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_foxhunt_archive.html#112450540821236929">here</a>) have discovered the academic psychology literature on happiness -- and it seems to have given them some relief. The research shows, of course, that higher incomes do not automatically buy you more happiness. Any observer of Hollywood knew that long ago and I guess people have in fact known at least the times of ancient Lydia and King Croesus that money does not necessarily make you happy. In 1 Timothy 6:10 St. Paul probably went a bit too far in saying that "The love of money is the root of all evil" but you get the idea. And the whole story of Job in the Old Testament runs along similar lines. But these days, "If money does not make you happier, then take it away!" is the Leftist reasoning. So that old bit of wisdom has found a new use as the latest pathetic excuse to hike taxes. There is for example a Left-leaning academic (Richard Layard) reported <a href="http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3555887">here</a> who points to the fact that getting richer does not necessarily make you happier and who thinks therefore that government meddling is indicated.<br /><br />So why SHOULD we worry about giving everyone higher incomes if that will not make them any happier? The simple answer: "Because almost everybody WANTS higher incomes" does not seem to have occurred to everybody yet. They seem to think that if money will not necessarily make you happy then governments should not bother with efforts to get more of it to you. But satisfaction, comfort, convenience, leisure options, security etc are not the same as happiness. The strongest external influence on how happy you are is probably your relationships with others. Given satisfaction with your relationships, you will probably remain roughly as happy through a wide range of incomes. But you will still want more of the things that money can buy if you can get them. So you will still say "Yes, please" to the possibility of more money.<br /><br />There is a reply to Gittins on the economic issues <a href="http://www.brookesnews.com/030407gittins.html">here</a> but it should also be noted that money does appear to have SOME influence. As <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Money-buys-happiness-but-not-on-credits/2004/11/04/1099547322626.html">this article</a> reports: "A new survey of national wellbeing has found the people happiest about their lives are those earning more than $150,000 a year. Those least happy earn less than $15,000 a year". We must again be careful about making causal influences there, however. That happier people are more economically successful seems highly reasonable in view of the role that personal relationships can have in ecopnomic success.<br /><br />But <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/15/1087244918438.html">this article also</a> tends to show that there are ways in which money <i>can</i> buy happiness: "Two studies released yesterday shed new light on the importance of economic circumstances, and undermine earlier findings that poor people are just as happy as the rich. <i>Money doesn't buy Happiness - or Does It?</i> by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, at Melbourne University, shows that when wealth - not just income - is measured, the rich are indeed happier than the poor. Earlier research that focused only on income found very little difference in the reported happiness of high-income and low-income people. Mark Wooden, the study's co-author, said: "This has led some people to say money is not that important, relative to other things." However, when people's assets were taken into account - the value of their houses, cars, art works, even stamp collection - a different picture emerged."<br /><br />So what is going on? Is happiness static or is it not? We certainly DON'T usually think of happiness as a trait. We see it as something that happens to us -- as a temporary state rather than as an enduring trait. We mostly seem to think of it as the sort of thing that happens inside us when we win a prize or a lottery of some sort. And we see UNhappiness as event-related too. If a man's wife leaves him that will usually make him unhappy and if his dog dies that will make him VERY unhappy. But a new love and a new dog will of course immediately restore or even improve the man's happiness. But even without a new love or a new dog, happiness levels will eventually creep back to where they were. In fact even clinical depression (where people are having suicidal thoughts) usually wears off after a couple of years. So it doesn't really matter what a shrink says or does to help a depressed person as long as he can manage to keep the patient alive for a couple of years. <br /><br />There might be some conceptual confusion in all this. Perhaps the language we use to talk about the subject is inadequate. And a cross-cultural note tends to confirm that. There have for many years been international surveys done which purport to find out which countries have the happiest people. But the big difficulty that the researchers found was that happiness is not always an adequately translatable concept. Perhaps the most surprising case of that is that even a language as closely related to English as German does not have any real equivalent to our word "happiness" (nor do they have a good equivalent for our word "pink" and nor do we have anything like an adequate translation of their word "Reich"). The commonest German translation of "happiness" is "gluecklich" but that really means "lucky", and I well remember an old German Jewish man with whom I was discussing that many years ago. He told me: "gluecklich I am but happy I am not". He meant that he was lucky to have escaped Hitler but still missed much of his old life. So can we really have as a key economic variable something that is not even translatable into German? <br /><br />One approach that might seem hopeful for researchers into the subject is to talk about "happiness state" versus "trait happiness" but from my point of view as a psychometrician, however, that seems unlikely to help. I spent 20 years measuring psychological traits and have had many papers published on that subject but I have always regarded the measurement of psychological states as too difficult for me. Why? Because what people say about their states seems to be almost the same as what they say about their traits. The best-known example of an attempt to measure both states and traits in the same field is almost certainly Spielberger's work on state/trait measurement of anxiety and I have myself worked with Spielberger's questionnaires. But I found that the questions used to index the two gave generally interchangeable results: People who described themselves as anxious "at the moment" were also highly likely to describe themselves as anxious "in general". And that is not necessarily just a measurement problem, either. It surely stands to reason that people who are anxious "in general" are also more likely to be anxious on any given occasion. That implies to me that very short-term changes in states may be detectable (e.g. the "high" someone gets on being told they have won a lottery) but the sort of medium term change economists are looking for probably is not.<br /><br />Yet given that traits are by definition both stable and general behaviour tendencies and given that traits are almost always shown to be highly genetically inheritable, any consideration of traits as an economic variable is surely beside the point. Economists are looking for the <i>results</i> of something, i.e. a change of some sort, and something that is inherently not very susceptible to change is surely a strange place to look for change. So it seems to me that any study of happiness as an economic variable must specifically look at states or "moods" -- and that does not generally seem even to be attempted. And the tradition of mood research in psychology exemplified by Joe Forgas and others usually seems to treat moods as short-lived rather than as being the sort of long-lasting change that economists have been looking for. <br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">So I think it is clear that happiness research still has a long way to go and attempts by economists and others to use it for political purposes are totally premature and irrelevant. </font> And, in that context, I think it is time I noted that Leftists are not only using the static nature of happiness to justify higher taxes but they are also using it to attack freedom and variety of choice.<br /><br />There was a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/opinion/22SCHW.html"> 2004 <i>NYT</i> article </a> (reprinted <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/secondguesses.html">here</a>) arguing that too much choice can be bad for you. Too much choice is said to be confusing, paralysing and dissatisfying. This is actually a very old idea -- one made much of in Alvin Toffler's 1971 book, <i>Future Shock</i> -- and it is ideal fodder for Leftists who want to dictate to people. As good totalitarians have always said, they can say: "See. Choice is bad for you. WE will make all your decisions for you". <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/com0402e.asp">This article</a> has some reasonable comments on that: <br /><br /><blockquote> "In a recent <i>New York Times</i> op-ed touting his book, <i>The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less</i>, psychology professor Barry Schwartz criticized political reforms aimed at expanding choice. He argued that "for many people, increased choice can lead to a decrease in satisfaction. Too many options can result in paralysis, not liberation."... There is much to be said against this thesis. First, if choice makes us unhappy, why do so many of us stop patronizing mom-and-pop stores and rush to Wal-Mart the moment we get the chance?... Choice in the marketplace grows out of individual freedom. I want shoes. Many people are free to sell me shoes. That presents me with choices, requiring me to pay attention and to discriminate. What's the alternative? Government control aimed at limiting choice. Where's the evidence that that makes people happy?... Schwartz is a professor. If someone were to suggest that too many books, journals, and magazines crowd the shelves, that all this choice makes people unhappy, and that government could serve us better by restricting the number of choices, Schwartz and his ilk would scream like banshees". </blockquote><br /><br />There is of course some truth in saying that choice can be "blinding", as Toffler put it, but everything has its costs and the key question to ask is what if YOUR particular choice (of jam or anything else) were taken away? You would not like it. I myself feel irritated by the vast range of jams, mayonnaise etc that I have to go through in the supermarket to find just the one I want -- but I get REALLY irritated if my particular favourite is not among those on offer. The basic conclusion is that if we want our OWN choice of something, we have to tolerate OTHER people being given their choice too. Freedom has its costs. Nobody has ever pretended otherwise. But take that freedom away and you run into REALLY big costs -- in contentment and much else besides.<br /><br />And there is the larger question of whether getting what you want makes you happy. Often it may not. As Oscar Wilde memorably wrote in his 1892 play <i>Lady Windermere's Fan</i>: "In this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it". And having choices and options may be an instance of something that people seek but which does not make them happy. But surely only someone who thinks he is a very superior being (e.g. the typical Leftist) would see that as a reason to stop giving people what they want. Who are we to sit in judgment on other people's choices and on what will make them happy? As Queen Elizabeth I asked the King of Spain centuries ago: "Why cannot Your Majesty let your subjects go to the Devil in their own way?"<br /><br />One finding from happiness research that seems secure is that happiness has a relative component. An article to that effect is <a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=402984&in_page_id=2">here</a>. Having more of some desideratum (like money) than others around you do seems to matter more than the absolute amount of that desideratum that you have. Note this quote, however, "Another survey, by Town & Country magazine, found those with more money tended to have better marriages, were happier with their friends and found their jobs more interesting." So again the direction of the causal links has to be speculative.<br /><br />And note that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/17/1076779970333.html">this report</a> shows that although money in general may not buy you happiness, SOME of the expenditures that a higher income enables DO make you happier. And <a href="http://ofint2.blogspot.com/2004_01_11_archive.html#5228418218766481046#5228418218766481046">this article </a> summarizes the same set of findings as: "Money can buy happiness and the best investment advice may be as simple as the sports shoe slogan: just do it. That's the conclusion drawn by researchers who set out to identify what sort of spending made people happiest. The psychologists, from Cornell University and the University of Colorado in the US, compared "experiential purchases" - things such as holidays, concerts or dining out - with "material purchases" such as clothing, beauty products, stereos or personal computers." <br /><br />And money can have an indirect role too. There are <a href="http://foxhunt.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_foxhunt_archive.html#108069665392383219">here</a> some excerpts from an anti-individual, pro-Green rant by an Australian professor that had a possibly correct point in it that the author may not have fully thought through: <br /><br /><blockquote> "The findings fit those of other studies that have shown people for whom "extrinsic goals" such as fame, fortune and glamour are a priority tend to experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards "intrinsic goals" of close relationships, self-understanding, acceptance, and contributing to the community. These results are, in turn, consistent with other research that shows materialism - the pursuit of money and possessions - breeds not happiness but dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation and alienation. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life." </blockquote><br /><br />And that is where capitalism comes in. Because it makes us all richer, it enables us to concentrate more on non-material things instead of spending all our time scrabbling for a living. I have shown <a href="parsindi.html">elsewhere</a> that materialistic ambition is highest in poor countries and lowest in rich countries.<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">So we have three mutually-contradictory findings reported in the happiness research literature so far: 1). Happiness is static. Nothing much alters it for long; 2). Happiness can be improved, but only at the expense of others doing less well than us; 3). Some things can make us happier in absolute terms regardless of what others do. <br /><br />If that does not represent strong confirmation of my previous conclusion that happiness research is still in its infancy and hence not useful for guiding policy, I don't know what would. My suspicion is that what we will eventually find is that happiness is like most other personality traits -- mostly genetically determined but with some room for environmental influences.<br /></font><br />In the meantime, however, as <a href="http://cei.org/gencon/019,04266.cfm ">this article</a> says: "Psychologists and 'happiness researchers' are using the finding that Calcutta slum-dwellers and Masai nomads are as happy as American businessmen to argue not only that wealth doesn't necessarily make you happy, but that this shows that investment in economic growth should be replaced by social programs. The trouble is that one conclusion doesn't necessarily lead to the other." <br /><br />Or as <a href="http://www.techcentralstation.com/091604C.html">Tim Worstall</a> notes with only a touch of sarcasm: "So-called 'happiness research' has been discussed at length recently with economist and TCS contributing editor Arnold Kling writing and blogging about it, and economist Tyler Cowen responding at his blog. That exchange, and the mention of a new book on the subject piqued my interest and some further research led me to the answer: 60% marginal tax rates, that's what will make society happy."<br /><br />In other words, Leftists are arguing from the findings about static happiness that "If we take your money away it won't hurt". Odd that people do seem to get really peeved if you rob or defraud them, though! And ask anybody if they would rather spend their own money or have someone else spend it instead and there is not much doubt about what the answer will be. And that's the point: <font color="#ff0000">What people want matters</font>. If some arrogant git claims that he can spend my money better than I can, he deserves to be treated like the con-man he is. The fact that overall level of happiness is mainly a personality disposition or trait which remains fairly stable across a wide range of circumstances does NOT mean that people are uninterested in improving those circumstances or getting the occasional "high". But Leftists don't care what people want, of course. "We know what's best for you" is their arrogant mantra.<br /><br />When Leftists argue from the relative nature of happiness, however, they have a slightly better point. There is some logic in saying that if everybody had exactly the same amount of money, nobody would be made unhappy by others having more. Leaving aside the totalitarian nature of a society that would be needed to achieve such a situation, however, it overlooks that there are heaps of ways that people envy one-another. If they did not envy the next guy for having more money they might envy him for having better looks etc. Trying to equalize people is just a battle against human nature. But Leftists have always ignored the evidence about human nature of course.<br /><br />I am going to call my discussion of happiness to a halt here but there are some further interesting readings <a href="http://www.techcentralstation.com/080504C.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/09/the_economics_o.html#more">here</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/magazine/20WWLN.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14645">here</a> and <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/com0402e.asp">here</a>. Gregg Easterbrook's book on the subject is reviewed <a href="http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14645">here</a> and I must of course mention the work of <a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072079&entry=2072402">Martin Seligman</a>. As a prophet of happiness, Seligman's surname is very apt. It means roughly "Blessed man".<br /><br /><b>ADDENDUM ON THE IMPORTANCE OF WORK: </b><br /><br /><a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/04/the_joy_of_mark.html">Bryan Caplan</a> points to the perils of overgeneralization in the happiness field. He notes that, beyond a certain fairly low point, earning more money does little to increase your happiness. Does that mean that unemployment does not matter as long as your welfare payments are adequate? Not at all. Having a job or not is one thing that DOES affect your level of happiness:<br /><br /><blockquote> "If you delve into the <a href="http://www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/seminars/ls/paper.pdf">life satisfaction literature</a>, you learn two fun facts.<br /><br />1. Once you reach a modest standard of living, additional income does not increase life satisfaction very much. Marginal utility of wealth decreases rapidly - maybe even more rapidly than you thought. (Having been a happy grad student on $6000/year, it's not more rapid than <em>I</em> thought).<br /><br />2. Unemployment <em>per se</em> has a large effect on life satisfaction. If you compare two people with equal incomes, one employed, one unemployed, the unemployed one is typically a lot less happy. <br /><br /><p>Just to get a feel for these results, Donovan and Halpern <a href="http://www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/seminars/ls/paper.pdf">report</a> (Chart 11) that about 80% of people in almost every occupational category is "fairly" or "very" satisfied with their lives. Manual laborers and white collar workers are nearly equal in satisfaction. Managers are a bit higher, around 90%. But the unemployed are fully <strong>20 percentage points</strong> less likely than most workers to be satisfied with their lives....<br /><br />If you think this is remotely accurate, you will flee in terror from any regulation that might marginally push up unemployment. Flexible labor markets are more than just efficient. Contrary to popular prejudice, they also make a lot of people happy by making it easy to find a job"</blockquote><br /><br />So the high unemployment that tends to go with socialistic economic policies DOES affect happiness -- adversely. The socialist claim that through all their regulations they can make people happier than evil capitalism can seems to be the reverse of the truth.<br /><br /> <br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-82139748528294254422006-10-22T17:12:00.000+11:302007-04-22T17:12:52.191+11:30<b><font size="4"> Peak oil theory and the ethanol alternative to gasoline </font></b><br /><br /><br /><br />By John Ray<br /><br />The recent big rise in crude oil prices and hence gasoline prices has really sharpened what has long been a concern across the political spectrum -- the fear that oil is running out. There are probably even libertarians who share that fear. The main concern for libertarians however is that the idea seems to be a fertile source of schemes for government intervention in all our lives -- from making air travel more expensive to herding us all onto buses instead of cars. Any oil supply problems are in fact greatly exaggerated but here I simply want to show why ethanol is in any case a viable alternative to gasoline.<br /><br />There is an article <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL">here</a> that surveys the arguments for and against using ethanol (industrial alcohol) as a motor spirit from a Greenie viewpoint. But what he says is largely irrelevant to how ethanol would be used if its usage was market-driven rather than Greenie driven. Under free trade and under conditions of higher oil prices, ethanol could be produced much more efficiently than it is. For a start, the basic feedstock used for production of ethanol in the USA is sugar extracted from corn. This is lunacy in economic terms as free-market sugar produced from sugarcane is only about a quarter of the price that Americans are forced to pay for their sugar by their government's trade controls. There would be no corn-sugar industry under free trade. <br /><br />And traditional sugar-mills in countries like Australia and Brazil are powered almost entirely by burning bagasse -- the pulpy waste that is left over when the cane is crushed to extract the sugar-laden juice. So little or no fossil fuel is needed to drive the process of sugar production. The sugarcane in effect crushes itself. And after the sugar is produced, little bugs (yeast) turn it into alcohol. That's how the alcohol in beer gets there. And the bugs are not powered by fossil fuel either. They do it for us for free, all by their little selves -- as they have been doing for thousands of years. You could in fact feed the cane-juice fresh out of the crusher directly to the bugs if you wanted to be really energy-efficient about it. There is no need for an intermediate stage of sugar production. And you could get good hooch out of doing that as well. If I remember rightly, that is how rum originated<br /><br />I should add that sugar production (and hence ethanol production) could be ramped up very quickly. Most sugar-producing countries are so restrained by EU, U.S. and Japanese import policy that they are producing way below capacity. Australia, for instance, could double its production within a year just by being allowed to. The crushing mills are so under-used these days that a lot have shut up shop. And there is a huge area in Western Australia (the Ord) that is suitable for cane that could be brought into production as soon as mills were built. It takes only one year for a cane crop to go from planting to maturity. . <br /><br /><i>Some background</i><br /><br />Sugarcane is a huge grass that grows like mad in the tropics and somewhat less insanely in the subtropics. It is thus growable on a huge slice of the earth's surface. One year after planting it has huge stems which are absolutely full of sugary juice. And the technology for getting the juice out is prehistoric. You just crush the stems and the juice flows out. In most of the tropics (though not in Australia) there are vendors who will sell you for a few rupees (or whatever the local currency is) a fresh drink of very palatable cane juice which they produce by feeding cane stems through a little hand-powered crusher. So a sugar mill is a very simple thing. The only complexity arises out of the need to extract granular sugar out of the juice. <br /><br />If however cane-sugar were to be used solely for ethanol production, the sugar-production step would not be needed. You could just feed the freshly-crushed juice to yeast bugs in a nice warm environment (and the tropics ARE warm) and they will excrete alcohol as a waste product of their metabolism. And since alcohol has a different specific gravity from water, it is very easily separated out. And that alcohol can go straight into an internal combustion motor and will make the motor roar like a lion -- which is why racing cars use it. <br /><br />And in Brazil they do precisely that: the cane goes straight from the fields to a distillery which crushes out the juice and then ferments it. So I am not talking blue sky there.<br /><br />The only reason ethanol is not widely used is cost. When crude oil was $30 a barrel, ethanol cost about twice as much to produce as gasoline. All those cane-farmers had to be paid. But crude is now around $60 a barrel so if that price stays there fairly permanently, I suspect that you are going to see ethanol-compliant engines going into mass-production worldwide. They already have them in Brazil, of course. Depending on your car, you drive up to either the ethanol or the gasoline pump. There ARE a few adjustments needed to run a car on pure ethanol for any length of time -- mostly to do with corrosion control if I remember rightly.<br /><br />Because they are such a big producer of cane-sugar, Brazil long ago set in train moves to run everything on ethanol rather than gasoline. They were rightly criticized at the time for making motor fuel more costly than it needed to be (when crude was at $30 a barrel) but they seem to be having the last laugh now. <br /><br />And producing ethanol from cane is extremely "sustainable". It needs no complex inputs or technology and cane can be grown on the same soil year after year as long as there is a suitable input of nitrates. And the nitrates can come either from superphosphate application or from rotating the crop with legumes (beans and peas). Australian sugar farmers do both -- and have been doing so for around 150 years. So there are no mysteries or significant problems with it.<br /><br /><i>More on the Brazilian experience</i><br /><br />Brazil is not these days as keen on ethanol as it once was as they have now discovered oil -- which is cheaper than ethanol -- but their big experiment with ethanol does show how it would work for everybody if that became needful. I reproduce below some extracts from an excellent summary in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasohol">Wikipedia</a> -- which tells you all you never wanted to know about ethanol. The excerpt gives some real-life facts on how gasoline could over time be replaced by ethanol with little disruption and with a number of beneficial side-effects. I have highlighted some of the secondary advantages in red.<br /><br /><blockquote>"In Brazil, ethanol is produced from sugar cane which is a more efficient source of fermentable carbohydrates than corn as well as much easier to grow and process. Brazil has the largest sugarcane crop in the world, which, besides ethanol, also yields sugar, electricity, and industrial heating. Sugar cane growing requires little labor, and government tax and pricing policies have made ethanol production a very lucrative business for big farms. As a consequence, over the last 25 years sugarcane has become one of the main crops grown in the country.<br /><br />Sugarcane is harvested manually or mechanically and shipped to the distillery (usina) in huge specially built trucks. There are several hundred distilleries throughout the country; they are typically owned and run by big farms or farm consortia and located near the producing fields. At the mill the cane is roller-pressed to extract the juice (garapa), leaving behind a fibrous residue (bagasse). The juice is fermented by yeasts which break down the sucrose into CO2 and ethanol. The resulting "wine" is distilled, yielding hydrated ethanol (5% water by volume) and "fusel oil". The acidic residue of the distillation (vinhoto) is neutralized with lime and sold as fertilizer. The hydrated ethanol may be sold as is (for ethanol cars) or be dehydrated and used as a gasoline additive (for gasohol cars). In either case, the bulk product was sold until 1996 at regulated prices to the state oil company (Petrobras). Today it is no longer regulated.<br /><br />One ton (1,000 kg) of harvested sugarcane, as shipped to the processing plant, contains about 145 kg of dry fiber (bagasse) and 138 kg of sucrose. Of that, 112 kg can be extracted as sugar, leaving 23 kg in low-valued molasses. If the cane is processed for alcohol, all the sucrose is used, yielding 72 liters of ethanol. Burning the bagasse produces heat for distillation and drying, and (through low-pressure boilers and turbines) about 288 MJ of electricity, of which 180 MJ is used by the plant itself and 108 MJ sold to utilities.<br /><br />The average cost of production, including farming, transportation and distribution, is US$0.63 per US gallon (US$0.17/L); gasoline prices in the world market is about US$ 1.05 per US gallon (US$0.28/L). The alcohol industry, entirely private, was invested heavily in crop improvement and agricultural techniques. As a result, average yearly ethanol yield increased steadily from 300 to 550 m3/kmy between 1978 and 2000, or about 3.5% per year.<br /><br />Sucrose accounts for little more than 30% of the chemical energy stored in the mature plant; 35% is in the leaves and stem tips, which are left in the fields during harvest, and 35% are in the fibrous material (bagasse) left over from pressing.<br /><br />Part of the bagasse is currently burned at the mill to provide heat for distillation and electricity to run the machinery. <font color="#ff0000">This allows ethanol plants to be energy self-sufficient and even sell surplus electricity</font> to utilities; current production is 600 MW for self-use and 100 MW for sale. This secondary activity is expected to boom now that utilities have been convinced to pay fair price (about US$10/GJ) for 10 year contracts. The energy is especially valuable to utilities because it is produced mainly in the dry season when hydroelectric dams are running low. Estimates of potential power generation from bagasse range from 1,000 to 9,000 MW, depending on technology. Higher estimates assume gasification of biomass, replacement of current low-pressure steam boilers and turbines by high-pressure ones, and use of harvest trash currently left behind in the fields. For comparison, Brazil's Angra I nuclear plant generates 600 MW (and it is often off line).<br /><br />Presently, it is economically viable to extract about 288 MJ of electricity from the residues of one ton of sugarcane, of which about 180 MJ are used in the plant itself. Thus a medium-size distillery processing 1 million tons of sugarcane per year could sell about 5 MW of surplus electricity. At current prices, it would earn US$ 18 million from sugar and ethanol sales, and about US$ 1 million from surplus electricity sales. With advanced boiler and turbine technology, the electricity yield could be increased to 648 MJ per ton of sugarcane, but current electricity prices do not justify the necessary investment. (According to one report, the World bank would only finance investments in bagasse power generation if the price were at least US$19/GJ.)<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">Bagasse burning is environmentally friendly </font> compared to other fuels like oil and coal. Its ash content is only 2.5% (against 30-50% of coal), and it contains no sulfur. Since it burns at relatively low temperatures, it produces little nitrous oxides. Moreover, bagasse is being sold for use as a fuel (replacing heavy fuel oil) in various industries, including citrus juice concentrate, vegetable oil, ceramics, and tyre recycling. The state of Sao Paulo alone used 2 million tons, saving about US$ 35 million in fuel oil imports.<br /><br />Most cars in Brazil run either on alcohol or on gasohol; only recently dual-fuel ("Flex Fuel") engines have become available. Most gas stations sell both fuels. The market share of the two car types has varied a lot over the last decades, in response to fuel price changes. Ethanol-only cars were sold in Brazil in significant numbers between 1980 and 1995; between 1983 and 1988, they accounted for over 90% of the sales. They have been available again since 2001, but still account for only a few percent of the total sales.<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">Ethanol-fuelled small planes</font> for farm use have been developed by giant Embraer and by a small Brazilian firm (Aero~lcool), and are currently undergoing certification.<br /><br />Domestic demand for alcohol grew between 1982 and 1998 from 11,000 to 33,000 cubic metres per day, and has remained roughly constant since then. In 1989 more than 90% of the production was used by ethanol-only cars; today that has reduced to about 40%, the remaining 60% being used with gasoline in gasohol-only cars. Both the total consumption of ethanol and the ethanol/gasohol ratio are expected to increase again with deployment of dual-fuel cars.<br /><br />Presently the use of ethanol as fuel by Brazilian cars - as pure ethanol and in gasohol - replaces gasoline at the rate of about 27,000 cubic metres per day, or about 40% of the fuel that would be needed to run the fleet on gasoline alone. However, the effect on the country's oil consumption was much smaller than that. Although Brazil is a major oil producer and now exports gasoline (19,000 m3/day), it still must import oil because of internal demand for other oil byproducts, chiefly diesel fuel (which cannot be easily replaced by ethanol).<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">The improvement in air quality</font> in big cities in the 1980s, following the widespread use of ethanol as car fuel, was evident to everyone; as was the degradation that followed the partial return to gasoline in the 1990s.</blockquote><br /><br />So the scare about running out of oil is nothing like the problem people pretend. If American cars were kept going by tankers of ethanol from Australia and Brazil rather than tankers of oil from the Middle East, what's the problem? You would have a lot more price stability that way too. And since the tropics are the best place to grow cane, it would give much of the third world a cash-crop alternative to subsistence farming -- which would undoubtedly be of benefit to all concerned (though Greenies would find fault of course. There is no such thing as a happy Greenie)<br /> <br /> <br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-341092871805760032006-10-07T21:27:00.000+11:302007-04-07T21:27:38.990+11:30<b><font size="6"> HOW IMPORTANT IS CULTURE? </font></b><br /><br /><br /><br />By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)<br /><br />How important to us today is the Protestant Christian culture that appears to have been so central in creating the modern world? Most conservatives I know would answer: "VERY important". And Leftists of course would also say that it is important -- but only as something that needs to be eradicated as quickly as possible. <br /><br />I don't agree with either. I hark back to another important and historic conservative belief -- in the importance of human nature. I think that what is normally attributed to culture is in fact almost all due to genetics. And the studies that are now coming out of genetics research are pretty startling confirmation of that. It is in fact something of a wonder to me that conservatives do very often seem to maintain in their heads two rather contradictory beliefs -- in the importance of culture and in the importance of genetics. It is obviously true that what we are is the product of both but I don't see how conservatives can assert the central importance of human nature (which they normally do) and also give a large role to culture. Anybody I put that point to normally retreats into saying that BOTH are important -- perhaps 50-50 or perhaps 60-40 but that neither can be downplayed or ignored.<br /><br />But that's not what the evidence shows as far as I can see. I don't want to beat people over the head with genetics research findings (though I think I will in a minute) so let me initially point to some things that are widely known. I am however going to have to offend just about everybody to do so. Take the importance of Christian culture. There is a very vigorous flow of claims from Christians to the effect that it is only America's Christian heritage that keeps America civil. Yet that is patently false. The overwhelming source of uncivil (to put it mildly) behaviour in the USA is undoubtedly the black population -- who are at least as Christian as the whites -- perhaps more so overall. So the source of destructive and disruptive black behaviour is not in their culture. It is in their genetics. Yes. I know all the Leftist tosh about the legacy of slavery suppressing their self-esteem etc but since all the studies shows that blacks tend to have unusually HIGH self-esteem, I am not going to waste time on that one.<br /><br />I suppose I have just spoken an unmentionable truth that you need to blot out from your consciousness in order to get by in American society today but, unlike Leftists, I think the truth is vitally important and I intend to persist with my lifelong habit of exploring it wherever it may lead. And what we see in the black/white behavioural difference is a huge gap that certainly cannot be attributed to Christianity or the lack of it. It is true that there has evolved in recent years a black "rap" culture which is just about as antisocial as you could conceivably get but the black/white behavioural gap goes way back -- to long before the evolution of rap culture. Rap culture is more an effect than a cause.<br /><br />And I am now going to mention something else that is going to lose me friends. Most Leftists lead perfectly decent personal lives whether or not they subscribe to any form of Christian thinking or values. I myself prefer to deal with Christians where I can because I think that Christianity does have some effect in keeping people honest but I normally don't know anything about the beliefs of the people I come across in everyday life except that on average about half must be Left-leaning and about half must be Right-leaning. But I have yet to be able to detect any person's politics from just the way they behave. So culture doesn't seem to matter there either.<br /><br />And it is not just that I lead a sheltered life. For twelve years I taught sociology in a major Australian university -- where most of my colleagues were Marxists of one sort or another. And I always made clear my view that Marx was just an obsolete economist. In the middle of my time there I even wrote a big <a href="http://www.joinme.net/heresy/">book in defence of conservatism</a>. So how did my colleagues treat me? With the greatest civility. Even though my views were clearly anathema to them they even used to invite me to some of their parties! So how much difference to everyday behaviour did their cultural beliefs and my cultural beliefs make? None that I can see.<br /><br />Now let me mention something else. I like Indians. I even have four of them living in my house with me (two Hindus, one Sikh and one Muslim). And if there is any group of people I know who are outstanding for warmth, civility, good humour, patience and sociability it would have to be Indians. Their culture could hardly be more different from my own Presbyterian heritage but their behaviour sets a standard that makes Westerners a pretty rough lot by comparison. If I thought culture was important for making decent human beings I would be recommending that we all take up Hinduism.<br /><br />To help readers to explore the issues I have raised so far in more detail, I have an article on the role of Christian culture <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/christianity-authoritarian-or.html">here</a> and two articles touching on the central importance of genetics <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/08/leftists-are-born-that-way-john-ray-m.html">here</a> and <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/12/race-genes-and-iq-some-observations-by.html">here</a>. Which do you think genetics has more influence on: How tall you are or your political beliefs? You may be surprised at what the geneticists have found.<br /><br /><i>But some environmental factors <b>DO</b> matter. Culture is not all there is among environmental factors</i><br /><br />I received in response to what I wrote above the following interesting email from a man who might well be the "father" of the blogosphere -- in the sense of being the oldest blogger there is. <a href="http://dickmcdonald.blogspot.com">Dick McDonald</a> is in his 70s and is as lively as a cricket. <br /><br /><blockquote>You said something yesterday about blacks that didn't ring true with my personal experience with the black population when I was a kid. Compared to other kids of the era, I believe I had a bird's eye view of their culture and "maybe" their genes. You wrote: <br /><br /><blockquote><i>"The overwhelming source of uncivil (to put it mildly) behaviour in the USA is undoubtedly the black population -- who are at least as Christian as the whites -- perhaps more so overall. So the source of destructive and disruptive black behaviour is not in their culture. It is in their genetics. Yes. I know all the Leftist tosh about the legacy of slavery suppressing their self-esteem etc but since all the studies shows that blacks tend to have unusually HIGH self-esteem, I am not going to waste time on that one." </i></blockquote><br /><br />This statement is valid when you look at today's conditions in the USA. But I grew up in a very different world and I can attest to the fact that "black aggressiveness and self-esteem" were the furthest thing from your mind in assessing "colored people" of that day. <br /><br />We lived in a whites only neighborhood in West Hollywood, California. But I visited the "black" bars and chicken joints of South Central Los Angeles on a regular basis from 1940 through 1946. I accompanied my father who during that period owned and operated the largest record company in the world exclusively devoted to black singers, Giltedge Records. As Dad's singers were comparable in station to the gangster rapper's of today, they couldn't be more dissimilar. <br /><br />The blacks I knew personally and culturally were painfully passive and their self-esteem on a scale of 1 to 10 was hovering just above 1. They were depicted in movies mostly as servants. When observed the word "massa" came to mind. They always were portrayed in movies as being frightened of their shadow and that is the way they came across in real life. The only violent minority of that time were the Mexican "Cholo's and they were more "Zoot Suit" than dangerous. Then the streets of South Central were calm compared to the war zones they are today. <br /><br />At the time blacks were barred from participating in professional sports with whites. So I would say that I had a cat bird seat in watching black genes at work in the entertainment joints where among their own their self-esteem was the highest. It just wasn't there. Then they were as polite as the ever-bowing Chinese of the era and would generally run from any confrontation. They were not fighters then. They also were never angry.. <br /><br />Their transformation here in LA was slow. It started with the spectacular success of Jackie Robinson at UCLA and later with the Dodgers; with UCLA's Doctor Ralph Bunche who climbed the ladder to head up the UN.and Sidney Poitier in "Look Who's Coming To Dinner". Somewhere along the line, their attitudes changed, their self esteem soared and they changed to the super-aggressive anger that instructs us today. <br /><br />I have to say my university played a big role in the transformation with Bunche, Robinson, Kenny Washington and Rafer Johnson. But the times were passive and so were blacks. The anger had yet to be stoked by the MSM and black opportunist leaders looking for a paycheck or a story. I harken back to Marshall McLuhan's admonition "The media IS the message" or something like that. <br /><br />You are the expert on genes and culture. I was just an casual untrained observer of the scene. But the "blacks" of my youth are not the blacks of "today". Not by a million miles. If there was such a thing as a dormant gene, it sure got juiced in the last 20 years. It surely was absent or in hiding then.</blockquote><br /><br />Dick makes a very good point that is almost never mentioned today: That the oppressive discrimination against blacks that was normal in America up until the 60s did make them very submissive and hence much less threatening to whites. Blacks were afraid, rightly or not, that if they got "uppity", they would end up hanging from a tree. They had learned to "know their place" (at the bottom). So Dick's point about a generally low level of black self-esteem at that time is undoubtedly true. It would be surprising if the oppression which blacks suffered from at that time did not have a severe impact on their self-esteem. American Blacks were very largely a cowed population at that time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1024/p09s01-coop.html">All recent studies</a> (See also <a href="http://bussorah.tripod.com/selfest.html">here</a> and <a href="http://jonjayray.bravehost.com/alverson.html">here</a> and the academic review abstracted at the foot of this article) however show that black self-esteem is now at higher averages than that of whites -- reflecting a recovery to natural levels now that systematic oppression has ended. And with that, of course, the fear of whites has also vanished and something like 80% of violent crime against whites is now inflicted by blacks. <br /><br />I am not quite as old as Dick and I am also not American so in none of these matters can I speak from personal experience. I can however speak from experience of another very similar situation -- South Africa under <i>apartheid</i>. I was in South Africa in 1979 doing field research into -- would you believe? -- racial attitudes. The resultant research report was published in a widely-circulated academic journal and you can read it <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20040527/jonjayray.tripod.com/whitesa.html">here</a>. <br /><br />While I was there I got to know one of the local libertarians well. He was then and still is someone devoted to using libertarian ideas to improving the lot of blacks. Like most white South Africans at that time, however, he was greatly frustrated by the false and simplistic views foreigners tended to have about South Africa in that era. As part of re-educating me, he took me at one stage for a drive through Soweto -- the big black township just outside Johnannesburg that was already at that time internationally notorious for crime and violence. His first point was to show me that there were no checkpoints or other barriers. You could just get into your car and drive there. And his second point was that it was generally a safe and friendly place for whites to go -- at least during daylight hours. We could get out of the car at will and without fear -- which we did -- and in fact a common response in blacks who saw us driving past was to wave! Which is of course a friendly gesture. I noted the same thing when I took the train from Johannesburg down to Bloemfontein. The train's occupants were almost all white but as it passed various black settlements (with roofs generally held down by rocks!) along the way, the people in the settlements would all come out and wave to us.<br /><br />Now most South African blacks were then and still are enthusiastic Christians. And Soweto (and South Africa generally) was then and still is a place with enormous levels of black-on-black violence. And in this post-<i>apartheid</i> era you would soon be either dead or very sorry for yourself if you tried to do in any black South African township what Leon and I did in 1979. So the idea that Christianity leads to high levels of pro-social behaviour -- as American Christians often claim -- is as patently falsified among black South Africans as it is among black Americans. That the heavy hand of entrenched white oppression can deflect black aggression away from whites (and perhaps to a degree to suppress it generally) in some eras does nothing to falsify that.<br /><br />In fact, if it were culture that made the difference, present-day international comparisons would lead us to conclude that Christianity is an antisocial influence. I certainly don't always agree with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/opinion/26kristof.html?ex=1112763600&en=5f49d92b2c1f6adc&ei=5070">Kristof</a> but he is right about Africa and religion:<br /><br /><blockquote> "If on a Sunday you want to attend a lively, jammed full, fervent and life-changing service of Christian worship, you want to be in Nairobi, not in Stockholm," notes Mark Noll, a professor at Wheaton College. He adds, "But if you want to walk home safely late at night, you want to be in Stockholm, not Nairobi."</blockquote><br /><br />Nairobi is of course in Africa. But high levels of lawless and violent behaviour are characteristic of African-origin populations worldwide -- no matter what system they live under or what their history is -- so it is in fact clearly black genetics that matter, not their culture.<br /><br />But if we include in our meaning of "culture" the effective laws and other enforced requirements we operate under, then culture does indeed matter to how we live. In this article, however, I have been using the word "culture" to mean the common rules in our environment that we follow (or not) of our own free will.<br /><br />---------<br /> <br /><b>Reference:</b> (with abstract)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12002695&dopt=Abstract">Twenge, J. M., & Crocker, J. (2002). Race and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 371-408.</a> <br /><blockquote><i>Abstract</i>: These meta-analyses examine race differences in self-esteem among 712 datapoints. Blacks scored higher than Whites on self-esteem measures (d = .19), but Whites score higher than other racial minority groups, including Hispanics (d = -.09), Asians (d = -.30), and American Indians (d = -.21). Most of these differences were smallest in childhood and grew larger with age. Blacks' self-esteem increased over time relative to Whites', with the Black advantage not appearing until the 1980s. Black and Hispanic samples scored higher on measures without an academic self-esteem subscale. Relative to Whites, minority males had lower self-esteem than did females, and Black and Hispanic self-esteem was higher in groups with high socioeconomic status. The results are most consistent with a cultural interpretation of racial differences in self-esteem.</blockquote><br /> <br /><br /> FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-10590817786647324402006-09-05T22:34:00.000+11:302007-04-12T12:28:01.392+11:30<b><font size="6"> RACISM: WHY I STEER A MIDDLE WAY </font></b><br /><br /><br />By John Ray (Written September 2006)<br /><br />People who drive down the middle of the road tend to get smashed up and I risk that frequently in my writings. For instance, when I mention such things as low average black IQ and the high rate of black criminality, Leftists shriek "racist" at me. But I also like Asians and think that they in general make highly desirable citizens. And various Rightists call me "far-Left" (or worse) because of that!<br /><br />So I want to set out here exactly how I see racial matters and why:<br /><br />Ethnicity and group membership is one of the great preoccupations of the human race .... possibly second only to sex. It is also an almost taboo subject among modern-day white liberal Anglo-Saxons. Race is to the modern-day civilized and educated world what sex was to the Victorians -- unmentionable. In other words the strength of resistance to discussion of it is a measure of the threat to a civilized order that it is seen as posing.<br /><br />Amid this fearful silence, I, of course, have always continued to call a spade a spade: Not a recipe for popularity among modern-day intellectuals! My position is really only a classical Anglo-Saxon attempt to find the golden mean between conflicting extremes. It seems to me, in short, that there ARE real differences between races and other groups but that only a few of these differences are of any importance. In other words, I reject the blind Leftist assertion that we are all the same under the skin and I also reject the view that only people like us are any good. This causes Leftists and humanists to see me as a racist and racists to see me as a Leftist pointy-head! In other words, the whole issue is such an emotive and explosive one that the middle-ground tends to be a rather lonely and uncomfortable place.<br /> <br />Group-sentiment is an amazingly pervasive thing. To take some examples from where I live in the State of Queensland and in Australia generally: Queenslanders all know what Queenslanders generally think of "cockroaches" (residents of the State of N.S.W.) and "Mexicans" (Southerners generally) and most know how Sydneysiders and Melbournians regard one-another but such sentiments fade into insignificance if you talk to a Launceston resident about Hobart people! Residents of the two largest towns in a quite homogeneous place like the State of Tasmania hate one-another! And non-Tasmanians would notice no differences at all between the two! So what hope is there for the Protestants and Catholics of Ulster, the Tamils and Sinhalas of Sri Lanka, the Jews and the Arabs of Israel, the Serbs and the Croats of the former Yugoslavia, the Xhosa and the Zulus of South Africa, the Sikhs and the Hindus of Panjab, the "untouchables" and the caste Hindus of India, the Southerners and the Northerners of Italy, the French and the English-speakers of Canada etc etc etc? <br /><br />And to think that for the whole of my active career as a social science academic, my colleagues virtually universally believed that only maladjusted deviants were racists. I have always thought it to be crystal clear that EVERYBODY is a racist to some degree! My colleagues obviously thought that all the world was out of step and only they were in step. I did my best to disabuse them of their silly notions but there are none so blind as those who will not see. <br /><br />Of course, discriminatory attitudes towards other groups such as those I have listed ARE generally nonsense. You do not have to be sick in the head to believe nonsense. If you did, most of my academic colleagues would be VERY sick in the head. In fact, of course, they are simply wishful thinkers -- like most of humanity. Wishful thinkers are not scientists, however.<br /><br />To help see why discriminatory attitudes to other groups are generally nonsense, consider, for example, that Catholic and Protestant Ulstermen come out here to Australia and live side by side with no problems at all. Nor does a Launceston person who moves to Hobart or a Melbourne person who moves to Sydney thereby undergo any sort of personality change. All that is going on with discriminatory attitudes is that the old human preference for familiarity is raising its head. We like people who are like ourselves and people who have made the same decision as we about where to live (or happen to live where we live) become thereby more "like us" and are therefore preferable to others.<br /><br />So I sound like a nice safe liberal in saying that do I not? Where I get into trouble with liberals, leftists etc is that I go on from there to say "But NOT ALL differences are imaginary". Most loyalty-provoking group differences are either imaginary, trivial or evanescent BUT SOME ARE NOT. As I see it, those who deny ALL intergroup differences are just as dogmatic, irrational and sweeping as the racists they claim to oppose. They are in fact accusing 99% of the human race of being totally blind and preoccupied with something that does not exist! Even I am not misanthropic enough for that! I think it is pretty clear who the blind ones are.<br /> <br />As I see it then, the differences between people of Northern European race are objectively (but not subjectively) mostly trivial. They have been invading and taking over one-another for so many thousands of years that the national gene pools must overlap almost totally. When they emigrate to countries like the USA and Australia, their children cannot tell one-another apart and get on as well with one-another as they do with anybody else. <br /><br />But some groups ARE different and probably will remain so. The outstanding example of this is of course the negroids. Whether they are discriminated against (as in the old South Africa), discriminated in favour of (as in the USA from about the '70s on) or treated reasonably impartially (as they long were in Britain), they always as a group end up the same -- at the bottom of every heap, mired generally in criminality, violence, incompetence, drug abuse, promiscuity and poverty. And this is not peculiar to white-run countries. They are no different when they live in the African-run countries of Africa and the Caribbean. So for those who will see it, we now have mountains of evidence for the view that, <font color="#ff0000">as a group</font>, negroids are always going to be a vastly problematical population with very limited potential for achievement in many spheres and a very great potential for disrupting the lives of others. Only the disagreeableness of that conclusion could blind one to the evidence for it. But THAT conclusion, it seems to me, is important.<br /><br />I must emphasize here, however, that I am clearly speaking about groups and <font color="#ff0000">do NOT assume that what is true of the group is true of all individuals in that group</font>. So individual blacks may be very highly civilized indeed. The person I quote most often on my blogs is an American black (Thomas Sowell). And, unlike Leftists, I don't think group problems can be solved at the group level. I think that treating people according to what they as individuals do (regardless of any group to which they may belong) is the only way to solve problems that the group as a whole may pose.<br /> <br />And note that what I say has nothing to do with skin-colour. Indians are just as brown as Africans but are vastly different. They tend to move towards the TOP of the heap outside their native land, and, as a group, are extremely patient, polite, hard-working, law-abiding and family-oriented. I personally like Indians very much. And Arabs are as white as many Europeans but would be in a very poor position indeed except for their oil wealth. The characteristic Arab achievements at the moment seem to be religious fanaticism, treachery and incest.<br /> <br />Obviously, we should all continue to treat individuals from different groups according to their individual merits but people who report that IN GENERAL they do not like members of a certain group are certainly not to my mind necessarily irrational, misled, deluded, ill-informed or ill-educated. They MAY be perfectly rational, balanced and well-informed. And anyone who doesn't want to live around negro populations is just looking after his own skin! And the phenomenon of "white flight" shows that most Americans understand that very well -- regardless of what their expressed attitudes might be.<br /><br />Real ethnic differences need not of course be aversive. People would hardly travel so much if they were. The eminent French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss regards racial discrimination as DESIRABLE precisely on the grounds that it fosters diversity. I do not go that far but I do nonetheless enjoy all kinds of ethnic diversity in a way that, I suppose, makes me an ideal citizen of a multicultural society like Australia.<br /><br /><i>My personal background</i><br /><br />I have lived my entire life in a highly multicultural society so I am acutely aware of racial and ethnic differences. I grew up in an Australian country-town that was only half Anglo. The rest were Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Maltese, Yuogoslavs, Chinese, Sikhs, TIs (Melanesians) and Aborigines (blacks). And when with that perspective I look at my fellow Anglo-Australians I see people of admirable restraint, fortitude, good humour and moderation in all things. But that is only the majority of them. There is also a minority for whom I have no kind words.<br /><br />Now I could sound like an uncomprehending elitist in saying that. Maybe I am just wiping off working class people and glorifying middle class people like myself. It is however if anything the reverse. If anything I find something like three times as much good sense in the workers as I do in the bourgeoisie. But there are problem-types in both camps. And I find that even the difficult cases among the workers are not much of a problem to me personally. Because I was born into an Australian working class family, working class thinking and conventional wisdom is an open book to me. I know all the key words and key phrases and I defer to no-one in my knowledge and enjoyment of the brilliant Australian slanguage. And I certainly did put all that to the test when I spent a couple of years as a boarding house proprietor in a "depressed" area (Ipswich) of Brisbane. I was really dealing with the hard cases there. A significant number of them in fact came to me directly from "the big house" (jail). Yet such is the power of a shared culture that I was in all cases able to handle to my satisfaction the people concerned. I always knew the right words to use. The people concerned were a considerable problem to others (and to themselves) but they were well within my capacity to handle -- though the time I threw a druggie through a closed door was approaching my limits. Words are wasted on druggies. So there is no doubt that I am as much an insider to basic Anglo-Australian culture as anyone ever will be. I am of my culture and I appreciate it and enjoy it.<br /><br />But much as I am at home among my own people, I am still delighted at the sterling qualities I find in Asians. I find scarcely any problem-types among them. And I actually share my large house with Asians -- mostly South Asians. None of them are of course flawless human beings but when I think of their relaxed good humour, their intelligence and their unfailing politeness and restraint I cannot see that they are inferior to anyone or that they are anything but an asset to any environment they inhabit.<br /><br />Now somebody will want to tell me that it is different in England. And it certainly is different superficially. The way just about EVERY small business in London is run by South Asians is pretty amazing (though the way English shop-assistants treat their customers makes it a lot less amazing). And when I am in England and I walk into one of those Asian shops I am greeted with the wariness and reserve that experience has taught the proprietors concerned. But I only have to exchange half a dozen words with the people concerned before all that changes. Because I genuinely like and admire Indians, that message gets through almost as fast as a bullet and it is soon smiles all round. I remember once when I was in an Indian shop in London and some old English prick was telling the Indian proprietor how great the English were and how the world owed them a living. As I walked out, I "accidentally" shouldered him hard enough to knock him over. I felt embarrassed that a fine Sikh gentleman had to put up with such crassness from the prick concerned.<br /><br />And nor am I talking about immigrant Indians only. I have also lived in Bombay and I can only admire the cheerfulness, enterprise and good humour of the street-people there. <br /><br />I certainly don't think that all races are equal but I also think it is absurd to say that there is something special about someone just because his skin is pink. Each case must be judged on its individual merits but it seems to me that on any non-racial scale of values the Asians average out well ahead. And we live in a century that will see that proven. Ironically, the poison that has held the Asians back so far is of Western origin -- socialism. If any people are instinctive capitalists it is the Indians and Chinese.<br /><br />And the claim that Asian cultures are tribal is a grave misconception. Asian culture is a culture of reciprocity. So if you treat them well or do them a good turn you generate enormous feelings of obligation in return. So when I walk into an Indian shop where I am known and buy three samoosas for my lunch I will occasionally get a fourth one popped into the bag as a gesture of goodwill. What is problematical about a culture like that?<br /><br /><i>"Racist" as a term of abuse</i><br /><br />As I have said, I particularly like Indians. And if we are going to use the term at all, Indians are clearly a race. I also like the Han (majority) Chinese. And almost any member of the Han will assure you that the Han are a race apart. I also admire the Japanese and regard Israel as one of the great adventures of the human spirit. So I am clearly a racist, am I not? If not, why not? Just using the word "race" is pretty close to taboo in much of the modern world. The fact that I DO use it probably keeps my blogs much more marginal than they otherwise would be. <br /><br />How has that come about? It's no mystery is it? The deeds of Hitler showed the world what colossal evil can be done in the name of race and, in their usual way, the Left hopped onto that bandwagon and pushed the idea to simplistic extremes. Not only unreasonable uses of ideas about race were condemned but ALL ideas about race were condemned. So the Left absolutely shriek and go ballistic about any mention of race. Which tends to make people think that there really is something wrong with even using the term. It's rather like the woman who has bad experiences with one or two men and who then concludes that ALL men are "no good". Her response just puts a roadblock in front of her finding out WHICH men are good or bad and probably denies her much happiness that she could have. Similarly, talk about race can be good or bad. The intelligent thing is to discuss and look into the matter. Up until 1945 the whole world did just that. So all our ancestors were "racists"?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong: As both a conservative and a libertarian, I think that the individual comes first and that each case (or each person) must be judged on its (his/her) individual merits. So while I like most Indians and Chinese I don't like them all. And I don't like all Jews either. Jews who hate Israel I find particularly contemptible. The United Nations charter says that each case must be judged on its individual merits and that is one of the few things about the United Nations that I agree with. That must have been the bit that the conservatives put in.<br /><br />Because the Left DO judge people in terms of race. The entire Leftist mentality is group-oriented. The individual hardly exists to Leftists. Individuals are too complicated and messy. Leftists can think only in terms of vast groups of people -- such as "blacks", "Hispanics" and "Native Americans" (and "gays", "women", "the workers" etc.). <font color="#ff0000">So you can talk about races after all -- just as long as you don't CALL them races. </font><br /><br />What utter stupidity! The only way to combat such stupidity is to defy it and talk about race in sensible ways and just ignore all the hypocritical Leftist shrieking. I do. For example, I make no apology for saying that people of Northwestern European origin (principally the Anglo-Celts and the Germans) are the ones who have made the modern world what it is and I am delighted to be myself of that ilk. I have pictures of my Australian pioneer ancestors on my walls and I am forever grateful to them for what they have bequeathed me.<br /><br /><i>Multiculturalism</i><br /><br />I don't think that an ethnically homogeneous society is a particularly good thing. Yet I am at the same time as pleased as Punch about my English, Scottish and Irish ancestry and am also proud of the country that my forebears have created here in Australia. And I also think it is incontestable that Protestantism has been an overwhelming influence in creating the modern world. And having been brought up as a Presbyterian, that is easy for me to say. <br /><br />What disturbs many people, as well it might, is the woes that the English and Americans now suffer as a result of past and present unselective immigration. I am in company with the vast majority of Australians in saying that only SELECTIVE immigration makes sense. And Australia practices it too. Though recent admissions of "refugees" appear to have been much less selective and have had some worrisome effects.<br /><br />But I also think that the egg is thoroughly scrambled now. I can see NO way in which the "internationalization" of the U.K. and U.S. populations is going to stop. Nor will it stop in Australia. Australia's selection criteria do not include race and, as a result, we are said to have a greater percentage of our population foreign-born than any other country except Israel. There is however a huge difference in the COMPOSITION of the Australian population. Where the U.K. and U.S. have large numbers of people of African ancestry, we have large numbers of people of East Asian ancestry. The difference that makes is considerable, to put it mildly. I think Australia is very lucky indeed to have a large minority of hard-working, intelligent, enterprising, law-abiding family-oriented East Asians.<br /><br />What about the loss of community? Wouldn't it be nice to live in a sort of large village where everybody is of similar ancestry? Yes and No. I must admit what a relief it is when I can go into an Australian shop or cafe and speak relaxed broad Australian with the staff there instead of having to struggle to communicate with people who know little English. But as someone who actually grew up in a large village (the Australian country town of Innisfail) I know there is a downside too. There are huge pressures towards conformity in a village and a lot of back-biting and gossip. Everyone knows everybody else's business so privacy is very restricted. And I shudder to think of the inconvenient opening hours and limited range of services (such as restaurants) that we would have without the ethnics. <br /><br />So I don't think much of mono-ethnic or village-style life at all. And in a modern society we create our own communities anyway. By and large we associate with whomever we choose and if we are comfortable only with people of a similar ethnic background, then people of that background will become our community. We are no longer restricted to the community that we live geographically next-door to. We create our own communities to suit ourselves. So we in fact get the best of both worlds these days: We live in a virtual community without the limitations of an old-fashioned geographical community.<br /><br />So regardless of whether the U.K. or the U.S. ever come to their senses about illegal immigration, loss of community and continuity will not occur.<br /><br /><i>The moral case against racism</i><br /><br /> On my reading of the psychological research, preference for the similar and the familiar is in general more common than not so it would be fairly hard to argue that such preferences are of themselves morally wrong when applied to one's social environment. But what I myself DON'T do is judge individuals by their group membership. Should my brother be hanged because I commit a murder? All principles of justice as we know it (some systems of tribal justice excepted) say No. Similarly, should all Muslims be discriminated against because a minority of Muslims are dangerous religious nutcases? Again the answer has to be No. Yusuf might be a very decent man while Ali is a psychopath. And there are plenty of Yusufs. I know a few. So to treat the Yusufs like the Alis is a breach of all natural justice. Each case must be judged on its individual merits.<br /><br />And that applies to Anglos too. There are plenty of dreck Anglos. And they should be treated like dreck while decent Anglos are treated as they deserve. So I make no judgement about Anglos IN GENERAL that can be applied to any individiual. The group level of analysis is interesting and may even be important but conclusions from it CANNOT justly be applied to any individual in that group. Any particular individual may be an exception to the rule.<br /><br />So while I see no virtue in living in a monoracial homeland, I DO see great virtue in living in a homeland where immigrants are selected for generally desirable characteristics. And Australia is a fair example of the latter. We may have lots of immigrants here but they are generally GOOD immigrants! And some immigrant groups -- Asians mainly -- do in my view leave Anglo-Australians for dead in generally desirable characteristics -- such as low crime-rate, family-orientaion, proclivity to work hard etc. I am happy to have them around.<br /><br />Mind you, I thoroughly sympathize with "white flight". As a group, Africans are undisputably BAD "minorities". White flight shows that most Americans think that and who am I to argue? What I have seen on my visits to America has certainly convinced me that a wise white person keeps as far away from groups of blacks as he can. On Hispanics as a group I reserve judgment. There clearly are lots of "good" Hispanics. I have met a few.<br /><br />So I think there is no reason for seeking a monoracial homeland that can be deduced from any external fact or set of facts. You just feel the need for such an environment or you don't. I don't. I DO however feel a need to keep undesirables out of my country and the fact that both the U.S. and U.K. governments have failed to do that seems to me a tragedy of the first order. And some populations have such a high proportion of undesirables (one third of black American males are said to have spent at least some time in jail) that selective admissions of people from those populations should only be on the strictest of criteria. In other words, I think they should be judged as individuals but need to be looked at particularly carefully -- with evidence of good character and educational attainment (for example) being insisted on. At the moment, unfortunately, Australia does the opposite of that. African "refugees" are admitted with what seems very little scrutiny.<br /><br />As a psychometrician, I am acutely aware of the low average IQ of Africans, Arabs and Australian Aborigines -- while at the same I stress that I am talking about averages, not individuals. As I have noted before, the person I quote most on <a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com">my main blog</a> is of African ancestry -- Thomas Sowell. As I have set out at length <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/07/race-racism-and-stereotyping-by-john.html">elsewhere</a>, however, there are some circumstances in which we do have to make judgments about groups and I make no apologies for saying that I like my environment to be one with as low a frequency of the three groups I have mentioned as possible. I don't think it is in any way morally questionable to want to live in a safe and trouble-free environment.<br /><br /><i>East Asians:</i><br /><br />I have said a fair bit about Indians above so I want to close with just a few personal anecdotes about my own experiences with East Asians:<br /><br />When my son Joey was about 2 he discovered that putting things into rubbish bins was great fun. So once when we were dining in a Chinese restaurant I had used a paper napkin and screwed it up after use. Joey immediately spotted his opportunity and declared loudly "In the Wubbish". He seized the napkin and trotted towards the back of the restaurant. In their usual observant way, the Chinese staff of course saw within seconds this little blond moppet trotting towards them and by the time Joey got to the back of the restaurant, there were three Chinese staff bending over and giving Joey every attention with huge smiles on their faces. They directed Joey carefully to a bin and shepherded him gently back to us with every sign that they had had as much fun out of the episode as we did. And anybody who knows anything about the Chinese love of children will not be remotely surprised by any of that.<br /><br />The second story is about the time I took a ride on the Hong Kong Metro (subway, underground railway). It was offpeak and my wife and I were the only occidentals in the carriage. A little Chinese boy came trotting down the carriage and spotted this strange white individual (me). Being just as much a tease then as I am now, I made "big eyes" at him. And of course in Chinese iconography, wide eyes are associated with demons etc. So the dear little boy ran screaming back to his parents. Again in their usual observant way, however, the Chinese in the carriage had observed what went on and saw the joke. They had a great (but of course restrained) laugh. There is nothing wrong with the Cantonese sense of humour!<br /><br />And there is this Malaysian Chinese restaurant that I go to regularly. And there is one dish that I particularly like and I always order it. So when I walk in, not only am I greeted with a big smile by the receptionist, but the kitchen staff wave to me and smile at me too. And my dinner arrives with express speed. They put it on as soon as they see me.<br /> <br />And my next two stories are about the Japanese. Again when Joey was about 2 we took him to a local Koala sanctuary here in Australia. And the Japanese love Koalas so there were lots of them there. But when they saw this little toddler with golden-blond hair, sky-blue eyes and paper-white skin being wheeled about they were utterly entranced. I think there were as many photos of Joey taken that day as there were of the Koalas!<br /><br />And finally there is the Sushi Train restaurant that I often dine at. There are Sushi train restaurants everywhere these days so I am sure readers will know what I am talking about. And my local version does seem to be staffed entirely by Japanese -- a head chef and two assistants. And the amazing thing about them is that they are utterly silent. If the restaurant were staffed by Cockneys it would be an absolute bedlam of chatter. But the Japanese are so well-organized that they need to say nothing to one another. They just silently and steadily go about their great art of producing the most wonderful fresh Japanese food. And they are totally impassive 99% of the time. I greatly value my British heritage and thoroughly appreciate British reserve. But Japanese impassivity makes British reserve look like emotional outpouring. So the head chef misses nothing but the expression on his face never changes. But guess what? They too have noticed that I am a dedicated customer so I do occasionally get a fleeting smile from the head chef when he sees me there again. And to get a smile from him is an honour indeed.<br /><br />And with such experiences of these gentle, hard-working, family-oriented and utterly civilized people of Asia, how can I not respect them?<br /><br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal" align="center"><br /><font size="+3"><b>Some Addenda</b></font></p><br /><br /><b>THE PERILS (AND OCCASIONAL REWARDS) OF OBJECTIVITY</b><br /><br />It is always amazing to libertarians when we are referred to by the Left as "extreme Right" or even "Nazis". Libertarians tend to see ALL governments as fascist and that is exactly what we oppose. So to be accused of believing in what you spend most of your time arguing against is pretty weird. But to the simple minds of the Left, anyone they do not like is a "Fascist", of course. But libertarians often get conservatives offside too -- mainly because we believe morality is a personal matter that the government should concern itself with only when a practice clearly attacks the liberties of others. So, as a libertarian, I am used to being a defender of unpopular views.<br /><br />And it is a good thing that I am. Because as well as being a defender of liberty, I am pernicious in another way: I am also a defender of truth -- historical truth in particular. And THAT can annoy people from both sides of the aisle too. As frequent readers of this blog know well, the history of the Hitler era in particular has interested me for many years -- mainly because the distortions about that era that we are generally fed as history are so unbelievably gross. What I try to do is to UNDERSTAND Nazism as it really was. Merely to condemn it is puerile in my view. And in <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html">my big article on Nazism</a>, I do point out the reasons why Nazism was attractive to prewar Germans. And I also, of course, point out that in its day, Nazism was fairly mainstream Leftism. Racism, eugenics and antisemitism were common beliefs among Leftists worldwide in the prewar era. <br /><br />And my identifying Nazism as socialist (which Hitler himself did) does get me furious emails from Leftists at times. They seem to think that they can counter my careful documentation of everything I say merely by making abusive assertions. The idea that Nazism was Leftist is so foreign to them that evidence just does not matter. So it was interesting that I received recently an email from a real Fascist -- evidently a leader of a Norwegian Fascist group. So what did he have to say about my writings on Fascism? Did he furiously reject them as being all wrong? Not at all! He loved them! He thought that I summarized well what Fascism was all about. So modern-day Leftists -- who generally know next to nothing about ANYTHING in history -- think I am all wrong but people who, as practitioners of it, certainly DO know what Fascism is all about, think I am spot-on. I think that is not a bad endorsement of my endeavours to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Even though I am extremely unsympathetic to Fascism, I achieve enough objectivity about it for those so inclined to recognize the attractive side of it in my writings.<br /><br />And here is where I am going to make a lot of people critical of me: I feel that it is important to note that Hitler and Mussolini were extremely POPULAR Leftists. Fascism is probably the most attractive form of Leftism that has ever been invented. Mussolini was outspokely admired in his day by such diverse figures as Winston Churchill and Frankin Delano Roosevelt and Hitler was really LOVED by many Germans. Modern-day Leftists tend to HATE their fellow-citizens. Hitler loved his fellow Germans and they loved him back. We should be very glad that modern-day Leftists have been so thick as not to learn what they could from history. If they had emulated Hitler instead of Stalin, the whole world would now be completely under their domination. I was actually reluctant to say that -- in case Leftists learn from it. But they are so rigid in their ideas that I think there is little fear of that. If you want to see in full WHY Hitler and Mussolini were so popular, it is all in my articles <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html">here</a> and <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/06/this-is-expanded-version-of-article.html">here</a>.<br /><br />And that brings me to my final point here and the one that will get outraged screeches aimed at me: I think it is always important to look at both sides of every question and that includes looking at the Nazi viewpoint. And there is a modern-day site <a href="http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archivesindex.html">here</a> that does defend the Nazi viewpoint in a careful way. I certainly do not at all agree with everything on the site but it does nonetheless serve to highlight some of the little-known elements of history that led to the final catastrophe (or catastrophes) of WWII. For instance, in <a href="http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html">an article</a> that has <a href="http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/09/aaup">attracted a lot of justified criticism</a>, it points out that Jews around the world were well aware of the dangers Hitler posed and in the mid-30s mounted a big campaign to boycott German goods etc. The article's claim that Hitler was before that campaign not antisemitic is of course absurd -- as every reader of <i>Mein Kampf</i> will know -- but it is clear that the campaign achieved only one significant thing: It thoroughly confirmed Hitler's claim of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy against him and against Germany. It helped to make Hitler seem reasonable to other Germans. And partly for that reason, many German Jews opposed the campaign. <br /><br />Sadly, German Jews had no good options at that time other than to emigrate. And even that was not much of an option. In 1939, a German ocean liner, the SS <i>St. Louis</i>, with 1,000 Jewish refugees aboard, got so close to Florida that they could see the lights of Miami -- but that great Leftist hero, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, would not let them land. They returned to Germany to be exterminated. Leftist "compassion" at work all-round there.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>REPUBLICANS ARE RACISTS! -- BUT</b><br /><br />There is a 2006 "Republicans are racists" screech <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html">here</a>. This version of the screech is dressed up in the language of social psychology, however. I know that language very well. I have myself written <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/all-published-papers-by-j.html">many academic publications</a> in it and have come to similar conclusions. When the screech ends ""We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting", the article is quite right. The correlation between expressions of conservative attitudes and expressions of racially negative attitudes does not always emerge but mostly it does.<br /><br />For an intelligent person, WHY that happens is the interesting question, however. That the finding might arise because conservatives are more honest in saying what they really think or that it might arise because Leftists are more deluded (including self-deluded) is never to my knowledge examined. Instead, complicated Freudian explanations for the correlation are offered that <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/03/for-general-reader-much-shorter.html">fall apart</a> when closely examined.<br /><br />I have myself done umpteen surveys of what people say about their thinking (attitude surveys) and have come to the commonsense conclusion that "You can't trust 'em". People "put their best foot forward" when answering surveys and often do not say what they really think. Psychologists do have some ways of coping with that. They include in their surveys "lie scales" or "social desirability scales" -- sets of questions that try to detect how frank and honest the respondent is being. I myself routinely included such scales in my surveys. But the most common such scales -- the ones I used -- examine lying about one's behaviour and one cannot assume that lying about behaviour and lying about attitudes are the same. To do so assumes a generality that may not exist. I hate to state the obvious, but people may lie about one thing and not another. You can never tell. <br /><br />And that people who do not in general lie might lie about particularly sensitive issues such as race should, I hope, be supremely obvious. And given the always tense relationship between Leftists and the truth (as evidenced by the long history of Leftists denying the evils of the Soviet empire) that the liars concerned might be mostly Leftists seems in only marginal need of proof.<br /><br />So my final conclusion is that attitudes surveys are unreliable sources of information. I rely on behaviour. And when <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html">history's most infamous racist</a> said this, <br /><br /><i>"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."</i> <br /><br />I think you can see why. The expressed attitudes associated with a given behaviour may vary greatly with time and place. Expecting a permanent link between one set of expressed attitudes and one set of behaviours is something that only a psychologist would be stupid enough to do. Which is why I study history these days instead of psychology. <br /><br />The truth of what I have just said has however begun to seep into some psychological skulls and some do therefore make an effort to use brain scans rather than expressed attitudes as a source of information about what people think. The limitations of using such gross measurements of such finely articulated phenomena as brain processes should, I hope, be obvious to all but some of the findings so far have at least been amusing. Such procedures have on some occasions shown <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27067-2005Jan21.html">fanatical Leftists</a> to be "prejudiced". How awful! I say more about such studies <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2007/04/detecting-racism-in-brain-john-ray-m.html">here</a>.<br /><br />The link I have just given does deal with the work of Banaji -- the main protagonist in the latest screech -- but I might perhaps make one additional observation. At best, Banaji's research technique shows who has bad feelings about blacks. And on her results many Leftists do but there is nonetheless a preponderance of Republicans. Again however, the interesting question to non-simplistic people is: WHY? There is an old saying that "a conservative is a liberal who was mugged last night" so perhaps the technique is detecting those who have had REASON to be negative about blacks. And that such people might vote for a party that panders less to blacks would surprise only a psychologist.<br /><br />Leftist psychologists are very keen to point the finger at possible instances of <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2007/01/academic-fakers-by-john-j.html">"motivated social cognition"</a> ("bias" to you and me) so <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004410.htm">Michelle Malkin's</a> comment on the latest screech does a good job of lobbing that ball back into their court. Or to put Michelle's point in the language of academic psychology: One wonders what precautions were taken to avoid a <a href="http://www.envisionsoftware.com/articles/Rosenthal_Effect.html">Rosenthal effect</a>. But of course who needs such precautions when you know the answer before you start?<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>BLACK AGGRESSION</b><br /><br />That populations of African ancestry worldwide are characterized by enormously high levels of aggression, violence and crime is beyond question. It happens in Africa. It happens in Britain and <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/blacrime.html">it happens in the USA</a>. It can of course be suppressed. Apartheid South Africa and pre-1960 America certainly kept it down to much lower levels than it is these days. But the extremity of the measures needed to suppress it tells a tale in itself.<br /><br />The only really interesting question is why the levels of black aggression are so high. The kneejerk Leftist explanation is of course that it is all due to white "racism". How that explains the huge levels of violence in the all-black countries of Africa is not mentioned. Generations have now grown up in Africa who have scarcely even SEEN a white man and the violence seems to have escalated rather than diminished. So I propose simply to ignore here brain-dead Leftist "explanations".<br /><br />The higher level of black aggressiveness COULD be explained as an outcome of the exhaustively-documented black/white difference in average IQ. Stupid people have fewer ways of getting what they want so often resort to violence as a last resort. For that reason, Australia's prisons are full of dumb whites. <a href="http://www.amren.com/0207issue/0207issue.html">Lynn</a>, however, points to statistical studies showing that the higher level of black aggressiveness cannot be explained by IQ differences alone. He shows that there must be personality differences involved as well and goes on to make a carefully-reasoned case for saying that Blacks are more psychopathic than whites. <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275958221/701-9541146-6613160">In a slightly earlier work</a>, Lynn interprets psychopathy as being itself the manifestation of two more basic traits. To quote <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/lynn.htm">Itzkoff's summary</a> of Lynn: <br /><br /><i>"He demonstrates convincingly that from all the available research, psychopaths along with low intelligence are responsible for society's problems with crime, drug addiction, unwed mothers, drug abuse, rape, child abuse, unemployment, etc. These people are the underclass. And they result from the combination of two behavioral traits. They almost universally have low conscientiousness and agreeableness or altruism. (Lynn explains that "altruism" would be a better term than "agreeableness" but that term has now "stuck" as the common descriptor for this behavioral trait). That is, people who are both highly unconscientious and disagreeable are pathological, and both of these traits are highly heritable." <br /></i><br />So there is a reasonable case for saying that many blacks have personality deficits on top of ability deficits. And the results are all to obvious in the form of massive black crime -- often crime of the most callous sort. <br /><br />What the above analysis overlooks to some extent, however, is that whites can be pretty aggressive and violent too. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were blacks and the recent barbarities in the former Yugoslavia are surely second to none in brutality. The obvious difference is, of course, that aggression is not a daily experience amongst most whites, whereas it certainly is a constant undertow in most black populations. It can certainly be argued that the occasional explosive outbursts of aggression that characterize white populations are in fact worse than the constant bubbling of aggression that characterizes black populations but I am here concerned with the factual rather than the evaluative aspects of the matter.<br /><br />And it would seem that there is at least one place where whites have a pretty high level of constant aggression too: Scotland in general and Glasgow in particular. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1930740,00.html">Glasgow is an enormously violent place</a> in some ways. Knifing people to death in drunken Saturday night brawls is an old tradition among the Glasgow "Jimmies". Yet Glaswegians do not at all come across as particularly aggressive people. In 1977 I personally did a doorknock survey of a random sample of Glaswegians -- including slum-clearance suburbs such as Easterhouse. And, accent aside, they seemed to me to be no different from the average Anglo-Australian. And <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/diffscot.html">the results of the survey</a> tended to confirm that lack of distinctiveness. On the two major personality variables that I measured (aggressive dominance and ambition), Glaswegians were found to be no different from Londoners. <br /><br />So I think that in Glasgow we have a very clear case of a difference being solely attitude-driven -- attitudes which are themselves in turn tradition-driven. I found that Glaswegians were as different to Londoners in attitudes as they were similar in personality. And the tradition at work in the Glasgow fighting is really no mystery. Clan warfare was long endemic in Scotland until the accursed English suppressed it. But attitudinal remnants of that warfare survive. To this day you can hear in Glasgow derisive words such as "Choochtah" applied to Highlanders. In short, I think a culture of pugnacity was long ago generated in Scotland (presumably due to rivalry over very scarce resources) and that the persistence of culture has ensured that considerable remnants of that pugnacity survive into modern times.<br /><br />That similar traditions would be at work among blacks is obvious. They really are victims of "three strikes and you are out". They are disadvantaged by their abilities, their personalities and their attitudes. Changing ability and personality is is not at present within our reach but there are some possibilities for changing attitudes. So those who aim to improve the situation of blacks should concentrate on the attitudes that blacks have. The attitudes that are at present being inculcated in blacks (that they are helpless "victims") would however seem to be the exact reverse of what is required if improvements in black welfare are seriously desired.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>RACIST BABIES</b><br /><br />I was not initially going to comment on <a href="http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060212_racefrm2.htm">this article</a> (summarizing research by David J. Kelly reported in <i>Developmental Science</i> and Yair Bar-Haim reported in <i>Psychological Science</i> ) but perhaps I should. What it shows is that babies are "racist" from 3 months old. White babies prefer white faces and black babies prefer black faces. But it all depends on exposure. White babies exposed to an equal mix of black and white faces in their early weeks show no preference. <br /><br />That finding was actually highly predictable from what we already knew about developmental psychology. It is a safety mechanism for babies to know when they are in the "wrong" hands and they turn on their alarm (cry) when they detect it. Any mother who has given her babe to a stranger to hold will have experienced that. So babies learn rapidly what is normal to them and prefer that. And, like all human beings, babies are quick to generalize (Read, 1983; Hamill, Wilson & Nisbett, 1980) in search of safety. The one thing they know much about is faces and they usually know more than one safe face so it helps to find what is general to the "safe" faces. And if there is a prominent feature (such as colour) that is NOT general, they react accordingly. <br /><br />The reason why I am making this comment, however, is the wrongheaded response that could arise from the findings. It could be argued that the findings present a perfect case for "diversity". Perhaps all white babies need to be given extensive exposure to blacks from early on. That would of course be a fairly Orwellian proposal but, surprisingly enough, it has been tried. White babies in South Africa are normally cared for most of the time by black nannies and maids. And yet white South Africa produced what is arguably the second most racist (<i>apartheid</i>) government of the 20th century! As any conservative will tell you, nothing about human society is simple. And it is certainly hard to predict.<br /><br />For a more systematic account of what goes on in racial generalizations, see <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2006/01/this-article-was-written-for-academic.html">here</a> and <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/cclash.html">here</a><br /><br /><b>References:</b><br /><b>Hamill, R., Wilson, T.D. & Nisbett, R.E.</b> (1980) Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from a-typical cases. J. Personality & Social Psychology 39, 578-589. <br /><b>Read, S.J.</b> (1983) Once is enough: Causal reasoning from a single instance. J. Personality & Social Psychology 45, 323-334. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>AN ABORIGINAL SUNDAY</b><br /><br /><i>This note will yet again encourage Leftists to shriek "racist" and "Nazi" at me but they regularly shriek that at George W. Bush and heaps of other conservatives so I am going to disregard such shrieks as devalued currency. </i><br /><br />I grew up with Aborigines (Australian native blacks) in my class at school and I have seen plenty of them since -- particularly as a landlord (Yes. I HAVE let rooms and houses to them. Racists do that, you know) -- so I think I know a bit about them. And if you are looking for "cultural" differences, Aborigines must be as different from people of Northern European ancestry as you can get. And the reason why is that they were isolated in Australia from other populations for up to 60,000 years (on some estimates). So they evolved separately. And they evolved to suit Australia as it originally was. And the abilities they evolved -- particularly a remarkable capacity for observing and remembering minute details of the landscape -- do in some ways leave the rest of us for dead. In other ways, however, they are badly lacking in what is needed to fit into modern Western society -- a strikingly poor ability to plan ahead being their most obvious handicap. They very much "live for the day". <br /><br />One thing I have always envied them is their ability to relax. They can sit around under a tree all day happily doing exactly nothing. I, however, am one of those instinctively hard-driving people who is genetically from the far North of the world. And the fact that, <font color="#ff0000">in my retirement</font>, I post daily to seven blogs of my own and contribute frequently to four group blogs is, I think, some testimony to that. It is as hard for me to sit back and do nothing as it is easy for Aborigines. But recently I managed it. Just as Aborigines often do, I spent the whole day sitting around and doing practically nothing other than some intermittent chatting. Anne accompanied me in this experience, of course. She is probably more full of beans than I am these days, however, so she caved in first and shot off to do something at about 7pm. She spent many years as a remote-area nurse working with (and getting on with) Aborigines so knows them even better than I do. So she knew all about the model I had in mind when I said we were having an Aborigine day. She enjoyed it but she couldn't keep it up! Genetics will out.<br /><br /><br /><b>SOME WORD FUN</b><br /><br />There are a lot of foreign words that are not really translatable into English -- which is why English has adopted so many foreign words. Two German words that we have lost from English seem particularly useful to me: <i>Reich</i> and <i>Volk</i>. I discuss the meaning of <i>Volk</i> <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/sweden-fascism-in-slow-motion.html">here</a>. I sometimes use both words in my postings on Majority Rights -- where they are fairly likely to be understood. The reason why they are rarely used in English these days is probably that Hitler used both words a lot, and used them prominently. So part of the reason why I use them is to "stir the possum": I have been waiting for some Leftist to pounce on me and accuse me of being a Nazi for using them. But, sadly, nobody has given me that pleasure. So I have given up waiting and will outline here the crushing reply that I had ready:<br /><br />On all the products exported from the old Communist East Germany, there was a "brand name" -- which was "VEB". And what does "VEB" stand for? It stands for <i>"Volkseigene Betrieb"</i>, which translates as "The People's own Enterprise" (though that translation could be argued about too). So if Communist East Germany put the word <i>"Volk"</i> on everything it produced, how come it is a Nazi word? The truth, of course, is that it is an ordinary German word that was in common use for at least 2,000 years before the Nazis came along.<br /><br />And as for <i>"Reich"</i>: For starters, the East German State Railway was known as the <i>"Reichsbahn"</i>.<br /> <br /> <br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-50524783201314472972006-09-01T23:03:00.000+11:302007-04-16T23:04:55.460+11:30<i>The C.V. below was written in 1975 and I have reproduced it here as a good illustration of my lifelong practice of telling it like it is and damn the consequences. The CV concerned would communicate clearly to the average timorous social science academic that I was not one of them and I did not in fact get a single job interview out of it!</i><br /> <br /><b><font size="6">CURRICULUM VITAE -- John J. Ray </font></b><br /> <br /><br />I was born in 1943 in Innisfail, a small rural town at the heart of the sugar industry in North Queensland, Australia. My father is Frank Edward Ray and my mother is Margaret. Both my parents were Australian-born of Anglo-Saxon stock and my father's family was in fact one of the pioneer families in North Queensland. At the time of my birth my father was working in his favoured occupation as a timber feller (in North American parlance, a "lumberjack"). I have two sisters and one brother -- all younger than I. <br /><br />I had my primary education from Innisfail State Rural School. In the examination that one took at the end of one's primary schooling (called the "Scholarship" exam), I obtained the overall mark of 79.7%. My only extra-curricular activities of any note during that time were my reasonably regular attendances at the local Presbyterian Sunday School and young people's group. <br /><br />Owing to a family move, my secondary education was obtained at Cairns State High School. Cairns is a small seaport and tropical tourist resort 60 miles to the North of Innisfail. In the the fourth form examination (called "Junior") I obtained passes as follows: "A"s in English, German and Geography; "B"s in Latin, Maths A and Maths B; "C"s in Chemistry and Physics. This examination is equivalent to the New South Wales "Intermediate" and the English "0" level in rough terms. <br /><br />I left school after this exam and became a State Government clerk (in the Public Works Dept.). The next three years were ones of intense evangelical Christian religious preoccupation, which ended in the bathos of complete atheism at age 19. During my religious period, I was however very active as a lay preacher and leading light in the local congregation. It was at that time that I leant the twin arts of public speaking and hair-splitting debate which have been so invaluable in later years. Social science and theology often do sound very similar. During this period, I left the public service for the purposes of taking part in a three-months long missionary drive. I finished my years in the faith therefore as an accounts clerk at a local Department store. <br /><br />With the arrival of atheism, I decided to renew my secondary studies -- only to be much chagrined to hear that I would have to spend three years as an evening student to catch up the remaining years before matriculation. I had, however, just moved to Brisbane (the State capital) at this stage and I could find one subject which was taught over a one year period only up to the matriculation level. This was Botany. Being nothing lacking in self--confidence, I decided that the remaining four subjects I wished to study I would teach myself. I therefore obtained the syllabus and enrolled for the 1963 "Senior" examination. My results were: "A"s in English and German; "B"s in Italian and Ancient History and a "C" in Botany. I thus matriculated in one year as an evening student instead of the two that it normally takes a day student. I was during this year working behind a counter in a small hardware store.<br /><br />From 1964 to 1967 I studied for the B.A. with honours in Psychology at the University of Queensland. 1964 and 1965 I spent as an evening student but I still managed to complete the degree in the minimum four years. While an evening student, I was working as a third-division Commonwealth Public Servant in the Dept. of Customs and Excise. My subject results were as follows: "Distinctions" in Psychology I and English IIB; "Credits" in Psychology IIB, Psychology IIIA, German I and German II; "Passes" in Psychology IIA, English I and Philosophy I. My thesis was on the topic: "Determinants of interpersonal distance" and got me a lower second class honours mark.<br /><br />During my undergraduate days I was, appropriately enough, much involved in politics. I was a member of many organizations: From the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society and the Students for Democratic Action on the Left to the Young Liberals and the Queensland branch of the Nazi Party on the Right <i>[The foregoing is a simplification for the sake of brevity. While I have never made any secret of the fact that I spent a lot of time associating with the local neo-Nazis -- see <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/cogsimp.html">here</a>, <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/antisem.html">here</a> and <a href="http://jonjayray.bravehost.com/nazimail.htm">here</a> -- there was in fact no real party that one could join, just people of similar mind who knew one-another]</i>. It was remarkable how similar they all sounded. Another interest at that time was a poetry club which I was in fact for some time President of. From those days date the few poems I have had published. During my two years as a full-time student, I was also a member of the Australian Army Psychology Corps -- in the local C.M.F. (militia) unit. I obtained the rank of Sergeant and gained much valuable experience in the practical side of psychology.<br /><br />At the beginning of 1968, I moved to Sydney and enrolled in the M.A. (honours) psychology programme at the University of Sydney. Since only day students were permitted to do this degree in one year, my customary impatience of bureaucrats telling me I cannot do something which I know perfectly well that I can reasonably do caused me to enrol as a day student even though financial need did in fact oblige me to work as a Graduate Clerk in the State Government Department of Technical Education. I did seminars in Abnormal, Social and General (philosophical) psychology and presented at the end of 1968 a thesis entitled " Authoritarianism and the Liberal-Conservative Dimension". I was awarded the M.A. with second-class honours in 1969. -- in a year where I am given to believe my marks were in fact the highest awarded for that course. Not being kept busy enough by a full-time postgraduate degree and a full-time job, I also in 1968 completed Economics I at the University of N.S.W. I was awarded a pass. My thesis was subsequentiy published as <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ma.html">Chapter 2 in <i>The Psychology of Conservatism</i></a> by Glenn Wilson. It was however somewhat revised and shortened for publication purposes. In 1968 I also founded the Baroque Music Club --- which continues to this day. Early music has always been one of my major recreational interests -- though only from the standpoint of a listener.<br /><br />In 1969 and 1970 I was enrolled as a Ph.D. student at Macquarie University in the School of Behavioural Sciences. I transferred from Sydney to Macquarie because Macquarie was much stronger in Social Psychology -- which had by then become my field. As I still had not yet gotten a Commonwealth Postgraduate Award, I again had to work to support myself. This I did both by a heavy programme of part-time tutoring in the School of Behavioural Sciences and by teaching economics in a regional Catholic school nearby -- also part-time. My economics pupils did, as a matter of interest, get outstanding results in the Higher School Certificate examinations of that year. As I recollect, four were on the order of merit list and one came fourth in the State. All passed. The school was Cerdon College, Merrylands -- a girl's school run by the Marist Sisters. Merrylands is a very working-class area not normally noted for scholarship. In the School of Behavioural Sciences at Macquarie, I tutored in Learning (white rat experiments), Comparative Psychology (mouse experiments), and Introductory Psychology(half-baked experiments) as well as Measurement (half-baked surveys) and Social Psychology itself. With my surplus energies I began the programme of research and publication that continues to this day. This resulted in about a dozen published articles before I left Macquarie and a Ph.D. thesis entitled "Authoritarianism and working-class ideology". I presented this thesis initially at the end of 1970 but incredible delays over marking meant that the degree was not actually awarded until 1974. My thesis later appeared in print in condensed form as chapter 43 of my book <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2005/12/conservatism-as-heresy-australian.html"><i>Conservatism as heresy</i></a> (A.N.Z. Book Co., Sydney, 1974), In addition to the thesis, I also completed two seminar courses in Person Perception and Philosophy of Psychology. The philosophy course was in fact an undergraduate course including lectures which could also be counted for postgraduate credit in Behavioural Sciences. It was thus the third lecture and tutorial course in philosophy that I had completed. (The others being Philos. I at Qld. and General Psychology in the M.A. programme at Sydney).<br /><br />At the beginning of 1971 I took up a lectureship, with tenure, in Sociology at the University of New South Wales. My main fields of teaching since then have been in Measurement and Social Attitudes. The former has always been a very unpopular topic with both students and staff -- who are more speculatively-oriented than data oriented. I find this rather exasperating and tend in consequence simply to do my own thing as far as research and writing are concerned. This policy has resulted in over forty articles so far published in academic journals and an equally large number of chapters in books. Most of these articles report results of research but all have a substantial theory content. There are in addition a significant number of purely theoretical articles in the total set. I have also published one book.<br /><br />The fields of my interest are best read off from my list of writings. Although my name is perhaps usually associated with studies in authoritarianism, papers directly on that topic number only twelve out of more than eighty papers all told. I have had one year of experience in course administration in 1973 when I was second-year course director. Because I refused to bow to student pressure to remove all practical work from the Measurement course in that year, however, there was sufficient unrest for me not to be reappointed in subsequent years. So much for academic standards.<br /><br />Some years ago, I also spent one year as a part-time teacher of economics and geography at one of Sydney's progressive schools. I did this with permission in addition to my normal university teaching duties. This activity was an outcome of my interest in educational philosophy and did serve to strongly reinforce my impression that progressive education can only ever be for the few. For all that, my students did again do quite well in their H.S.C. examination. <br /><br />Another form of participant observation research I have been involved in is taxi-driving. Again, I have been doing this with permission and find it serves very well to keep me in contact with what ordinary Australians are like. I usually take only one shift a week but even this does have the curious effect of enabling me to claim more Maoist righteousness than any of my colleagues -- whose Leftist enthusiasms seldom stretch so far as to actually go out and do workers' work. As I am most un-Maoist by conviction, the whole thing can be very amusing.<br /><br />One skill which I have acquired not at any particular time but rather over all of the last eight years is is FORTRAN programming. Ever since my B.A. honours work, I have used the computer to make my research easier and I have got to the point where several of the programs I have developed are in print. To be honest, computer programming was in fact for some years one of my major recreational interests but this has now passed. Nonetheless all the things that an academic is supposed to do I would do even if I was not paid for it. I <i>enjoy</i> teaching, I <i>enjoy</i> research and I <i>enjoy</i> writing.JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-1156928067383095932006-08-20T20:23:00.019+11:302021-10-08T10:45:47.841+12:00
<br><br>
<b><font size="6"> Who am I? (2021 edition) </font></b>
<br><br><br><br>
By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
<br><br>
<b>Quick summary</b>:
<br><br>
<blockquote>At age 78, the most salient thing about me for many people will be my age. So I think I should start out with a note that although my energy levels are what you would expect of someone that age (low), I am in fact in exceptionally good health. Scans and tests show that I have high levels of good functioning in my heart, liver, kidneys and bones. Unusually for my age, I take no pills at all for my health. And I still have a fair bit of hair (Not bald). My BP is usually around 140/80 (normal). I have however shrunk a bit in height -- from an original 5'10" to 5'8" (173 cm). I do suffer from recurrent skin cancer, which makes me look a bit blotchy. I get the cancers removed regularly so it is only a minor problem
<br><br>
Aside from that I am a jocular former High School and university teacher. I am Australian born of working class origins and British ancestry. My doctorate is in psychology but I taught mainly sociology. I also made significant money in real estate so retired when I was 39. I live in a big house in central Brisbane but I am not flash in any way. My style is Bohemian. My main interests are blogging, classical music, history, current affairs and languages. I have been married four times to four fine women with whom I am still on amicable terms. I have one son born in 1987. I am totally non-sporting </blockquote>
<br><br>
Contacts: Ph 07 33914168; 034154416 or 0448285691<br>
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com; jonjayray@gmail.com<br>
Blogs: dissectleft.blogspot.com or awesternheart.blogspot.com
<br><br><br><br>
<b><i>A brief photographic history</i></b>
<br><br><br><br>
Aged 4 with sister jacqueline<br>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/h2Xtu.jpg"><br>
<i>Did that boy go on to have a good life? I think he did. </i>
<br><br>
I actually remember what I was thinking in that photo. I was thinking how odd it was that the photographer was doing -- with false backgrounds etc
<br><br>
<img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49378958647_8aebd0bdb7_m.jpg"><br>
Soapbox orator in 1966. Age 23<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/young.jpg"><br>
A brief clean shaven interlude in 1980 -- with a lovely lady, 2nd wife Joy. I was aged 37
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/john.jpg">
<br>A photo of me in my early 50s
<br><br>
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/p1s6vaS.png"><br>
<i>In my late 50s</i>
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/jon0903.jpg"><br>
In 2009 when I was 66
<br><br>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/jd6eXWd.jpg">
<br><br>
A photo from my 70th birthday. I get spottier as time goes by.
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/jon77.png">
<br><br>
Shortly after I turned 77
<br><br>
<br><br>
<A name=1111></A><b>Origins</b>
<br><br>
I was born in 1943 (i.e. during the Second World War) at the Innisfail hospital by the Johnstone river in far North Queensland, Australia. Innisfail is mainly famous for very high rainfall, sugar-cane and bananas. I was baptized into the Innisfail congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Australia on 30.1.44. We lived in Innisfail until the family moved to Stratford in Cairns when I was 13
<br><br>
My father was for a time a cane-cutter but mostly a timber contractor during my stay in Innisfail. In American parlance he was a "lumberjack". He had tried to enlist in the Army during the Second World War but was rejected as unfit on medical grounds because he had a slight limp. The limp was a legacy of his falling off a hotel verandah in Townsville when he was a toddler. He fell off when he thought he was being chased by a koala! Apparently his hip was the main part damaged and he spent a year or so of his childhood in irons to get it right again.
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/frank.jpg"><br>
My father Frank Ray in retirement
<br><br>
My mother was born Margaret (but was always called "Peg", in the Irish way). My mother had been employed as a domestic servant prior to marriage but never worked again during marriage. She just did not want to. She would rather read books and have afternoon naps. I think I must have got my own love of afternoon naps off her.
<br><br>
She was a great talker, however: always ready with her tongue. She was one of those women of whom it is sometimes said that "She would talk under wet cement". She even used to talk back to the TV in her latter years. I have always been much more a listener than a talker so that could well be because I was brought up to be such. I grew up
thinking that women talked and men listened.
<br><br><br><br>
<b>A more detailed self-description</b>:
<br><br>
<A name=1112></A> PHYSICAL: For most of my life I was about 178cm tall (just over 5'10") but in old age I have shrunk to 173 (5'8"). My weight is a bit above average for my height (perhaps average for my age!) and I have very fair skin, very blue eyes and grey (formerly dark brown) hair. I have no handicaps or serious health problems and even have a full covering (just) of hair. I am no Clark Gable in looks but have usually been described as "presentable", I am clean shaven these days but wore a short beard for most of my life.
<br><br>
<A name=1113></A>ATTITUDES: I am more a listener than a talker but am often quietly jocular when I do talk. I see the funny side of a lot of things. I can get on well socially with most people but am not a big partygoer. I am a complete atheist now but was once religious so get on well with most religious people as well as with unbelievers. I find many political issues interesting, lean towards the Right (i.e. I find the idea that governments can do anything well to be contrary to all experience) but am more a political skeptic than anything. I suppose I have mostly old-fashioned values but I am also at ease with most modern ways. I try to follow Christian values even though I am an atheist! My chief passion is for rationality.
<br><br>
<A name=1114></A>INTERESTS: I used to have a lot of the recreational interests that most people have -- i.e. reading, swimming, going for walks and drives, having picnics and occasionally watching TV (mostly non-commercial in my case) but I do all those things seldom now. I just enjoy a quiet life these days. I do however still eat out (mostly at ethnic restaurants) rather a lot. I have never been a big movie-goer and I absolutely refuse to go to violent movies. Perhaps because of my interest in history, the few movies I have seen seem usually to be set in the past. Other less common interests that I have are listening to classical music (Bach is my favourite composer) and going very occasionally to theatre, classical concerts, talks etc. I am also a great fan of Viennese operettas, which I watch at home off DVDs. I have no pets at the moment but was once a registered dog-breeder. I am NOT interested in any form of sport or in dancing. I neither do any sport nor watch it on TV.
<br><br>
I do a lot of reading and things that I like to read and occasionally talk about include philosophy, politics, medicine, psychology, sociology, theology, history, economics, business, poetry, computers, current affairs and science generally. For fun I have in the past read science-fiction and whodunits. I also like languages. I matriculated in both German and Italian but I also have dabbled in Latin and Classical Greek. To most people I seem very inactive but that is only partly true. What I do now is mainly in the life of the mind. I enjoy looking at the big questions.
<br><br>
I have travelled quite a lot -- with 3 trips each to India, Britain and the U.S.A. plus other trips to South Africa, The Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Mexico, Thailand, Singapore, Fiji and Canada. I particularly like London. I spent a year there in 1977. I have no plans to travel again, however, as I saw in my youth all that I wanted to see. In some of my earlier years I went overseas twice in one year. So I am one of those pesky "been there; done that" people. When I was in London, I did once go down to Glyndebourne, for those who know what that is all about.
<br><br>
<A name=1115></A>HISTORY: I am Queensland-born of English, Scottish and Irish ancestry and have in fact two convict ancestors! I inherited strong Scottish traditions so on special occasions sometimes wear full Highland dress (kilt etc.)! I came to Brisbane from my home in Cairns when I was 19, spent 5 years here and then went to Sydney for 15 years. I have now been back in Brisbane for over 20 years.
<br><br>
<A name=1116></A>EDUCATION: I am just about as educated as it is possible to be. I hold the university degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy. Unfortunately, this does tend to freak some people out a bit but it doesn't really mean much in everyday life. The Doctorate of Philosophy is the degree that scientists normally get and that is what I am basically. I am a social scientist. So I understand more about people than some do but there is also an awful lot about them that I don't understand. I give some of the history of my education <A href="intbio3.html#1122 ">below</a>.
<br><br>
<A name=1117></A> WORK: I taught in the School of Sociology at the University of NSW in Sydney from 1971 to 1983. I was very good at my job by most criteria but by 1983 (when I was 39 and a Senior Lecturer), I had made a lot of money out of various real estate investments (doing up properties etc.) so no longer had to work for my living. I therefore retired to Queensland at that time. For the last 20 years and more I have mostly lived on my private income. I do however like to keep a low profile and am not very materialistic. I do however enjoy tracking my stockmarket investments. I seem to be very good at picking growth stocks so enjoy seeing myself getting richer all the time. It is basically just a game to me, however. I mostly just let the money sit there and laugh as I watch it grow. So I am one of the rare academics who is good in business too.
<br><br>
<A name=1118></A> MARITAL: I have had two long-term relationships (of 7 and 10 years) which resulted in marriages. The second lady of those is below.
<br><br>
<img height=650 width=600 src="https://i.imgur.com/T2172og.jpg">
<br>
<i>Jenny and I in 1985</i>
<br><br>
She left me in the early '90s -- so I am well past my upset over that. (I have felt on top of the world for most of the subsequent time, in fact). I was helped to readjust by the fact that while the marriage failed, good will between us continued. We still see one another frequently -- a quarter of a century after the divorce
<br><br>
I have one son born in 1987 who did well at university and who now has a good job in IT. He has his own home now -- a nicely renovated '50s house. I saw him regularly during his childhood and still see a lot of him. I have always liked children and tend to get on well with them. I even got on well with my three stepchildren when I had them. And I still think marriage is great for those who are lucky enough to fall in love!
<br><br>
As well as the two long-term marriages, I had two that lasted only a short while (my first and my fourth). <br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/dawn.jpg"><br>
Marrying Dawn, my first wife
<br><br>
Out of respect for the ladies concerned I mention very little here of my relationships life but I don't think it will be amiss for me to put up below a photo from my most recent (4th) wedding (in 1995) and a photo of me with my first girlfriend, many years ago:
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/kathwed.jpg">
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/johnjan.jpg"><br>
<i>Over 50 years later I am still in contact with her -- by email. She no longer lives in Australia</i>
<br><br>
<A name=1119></A> HOME: I live in a large "Old Queenslander" (timber) house. It has polished timber floors -- which I particularly like -- and is very centrally located in the heart of Brisbane.
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/house.jpg">
<br><br>
<A name=1120></A>VICES: In times past I always used to have a bottle of wine with dinner and was something of a wine-buff but I am now a very light drinker. I do like a good cup of tea, however! In fact, I don't smoke, drink much, gamble, take drugs or buy much chocolate so what are my vices? The main one is spending too much time on the internet and my second vice is a tendency towards impatience.
<br><br><br><br>
<font size="+3"><b>Some recollections:</b></font>
<br><br>
<A name=1121></A>EARLIEST TIMES: I must have been about 9 when the King died. I remember crying on that occasion. King George VI was held in great affection by many of his subjects and I felt the tragedy of the occasion. Everything we had in the house at that time seemed to be labelled "Made in England", knitting-needles, sewing machine, you name it. In other words, I actually remember when England was the workshop of the world. Nowadays, of course, everything seems to be made somewhere in Asia.
<br><br>
At that time my father was cutting sugar-cane for a living. They did it by hand in those days. He used to ride to work on a bike and get back home in the evening as black as the Ace of Spades from cane soot. They used to burn the sugar-cane before harvesting in those days, to get rid of pests (rats, snakes and centipedes, mainly), disease (including leptospirosis aka Weil's disease) and the characteristic great clumps of dead leaves. Cane fires are so fierce that even the green leaves are consumed. Anyone who has noted how badly green cane leaves can cut you will know how desirable that would be to the men cutting the cane. We lived in Innisfail at the time
<br><br>
Perhaps partly because my father was away from home a lot (He cut cane for a while but usually spent the week in "the bush" cutting timber and came home only on weekends), I used to do a lot of handyman jobs about the house. I would always fix the electric jug when the element blew and also the (pre pop-up) toaster. I also fixed power fuses when they blew. There were no circuit-breakers then. I think I used to fix locks too. I do at least remember taking rimlocks apart. I never however managed to fix clocks. All I used to end up with was a collection of parts. My Meccano set was a favourite toy. I obviously had some mechanical aptitude -- but mechanical aptitude does correlate highly with general intelligence so that is not really of any significance. Details of my secondary schooling are given <A href="intbio3.html#1126 ">below</a>.
<br><br>
<A name=1123></A>INNISFAIL GENERALLY: It was while we were living at Campbell St that we had a cyclone. I loved it! The house over the road was not destroyed by the cyclone but it did develop a noticeable lean. I enjoyed walking about in the high winds and having to lean over at 45% or thereabouts in order to walk forwards at all. In retrospect I am slightly surprised that my parents let me out in it. But children generally were less protected (less mollycoddled?) in that era.
<br><br>
Another memory from Campbell St days is of Augie Sorensen, the milkman. Augie had a farmlet not far from us on which he ran dairy-cattle. He used to supply unpasteurized milk (probably illegally) to quite a few Innisfail households -- including ours for a while. People would leave out a container and Augie would come along and fill it with very fresh milk. The memorable thing about him however was his milk delivery vehicle -- a white horse-drawn cart that looked rather like a Roman chariot. It did however have pneumatic tyres. The milk was stored under cover at the front of the cart and Augie stood up at the back to "drive". I can still see Augie, tall and thin with his typically Scandinavian golden-brown skin and wearing his white pith helmet while standing up proudly in the back of his white cart guiding it along with his long reins. His big chestnut horse always used to have blinkers on -- probably needed if it was to be driven among motor vehicles. My mother did not patronize Augie for long. She went back to bottled milk -- probably because of health concerns. I think Augie's cattle were eventually found to have TB or brucellosis and he was shut down.
<br><br>
Another early memory is of the Innisfail railway station -- which I always liked. It is a very old timber structure. It was great when the big black steam trains used to come in: Hissing steam, gleaming pistons and an engine sound like panting. I remember my Grandmother arriving on one and can still almost smell the coal smoke.
<br><br>
<img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTnLi10ftFI/VGl-UCblxLI/AAAAAAAADnU/VDFQgHeuQ1Y/s1600/Innisfail%2BRailway%2BStation%2Bentrance%2B2014.jpg">
<br><br>
I also remember the Chinese Joss house. It was a small temple with a couple of old Chinese men as custodians who lived out the back of it. Once when I was about 9 (I suppose) I went in there and banged the big ceremonial drum they had there. One of the old Chinese men popped out and, far from scolding me for misusing the drum gave me a mango. I guess he thought that little blond-haired kids were cute. The drum is still there but these days is out of the reach of kids.
<br><br>
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_c9B1Ds3W0is/SOWmSKIa4zI/AAAAAAAACSY/Lgpul6ErKPs/s200/SNC12149.JPG">
<br><br>
Other memories of Innisfail at that time are the Greek Orthodox church down the road where all the Greek kids used to go after school for "Greek School", Lee Long, the Chinese grocer where my mother shopped, and the old cable-driven ferry that used to take cars across the Johnstone river. I spent a lot of some weekends riding to and fro on the ferry. My parents knew but did not care. Seeing I was only inches from the water most of the time I find this in retrospect rather surprising. They certainly must not have been worriers. Or perhaps I just seemed competent enough around age 8 and 9.
<br><br>
<A name=1124></A>EARLY POLITICS: While the family were in Innisfail I remember there being an election (presumably Federal). I found all the posters and leaflets around the Town Hall rather exciting and remember my mother explaining that the Labor Party stood for the worker and the Liberals stood for the nation as a whole. The latter has of course remained a Liberal theme (it goes back at least as far as Disraeli) and was in fact being voiced with undimmed vehemence by John Howard in his victory speech after the 1996 Federal election. In Australia, the Liberal party really still is liberal, in a broadly 19th century sense.
<br><br>
<A name=1125></A>CAIRNS: The family moved to Cairns when I was 13. It was just after my father's father (Jack Ray) had died and we went to live in the house formerly rented by him. As a result I inherited a store of old children's books which I promptly set out to read. I remember a nursery rhyme in one of them: "Our greatest battleship the Hood is made of iron, steel and wood". No wonder the sinking of H.M.S. Hood by one salvo from the Bismarck in the early phases of World War Two made such an impression. (H.M.S. Hood was actually a battle cruiser, of course -- which explains why it was sunk so easily, doesn't it?).
<br><br>
<img src="https://www.italeri.com/uploads/products/0501_tavolaLR.jpg"><br>
HMS Hood
<br><br>
Some of the books even predated World War I. They were mostly books given as presents or won at Sunday school to the children of my father's family. After I left home, my mother gave them all away! All the maps of the world in them did of course show vast splashes of red. I wonder how many people in future will know what that signified? So I got strong doses of Victorian ideas from those books. When they were written such ideas were still current. I still to this day agree with most of them (such as the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor). Luckily for Britain Mrs Thatcher did something towards reviving them.
<br><br>
I do remember Jack Ray (my father's father) from a visit we made to Cairns before he died. He was fairly tall (perhaps 5'9"), his nose was a Roman one like mine and he never said much.
<br><br>
<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/gAf0ANNFAm4l7_BV3riGzEMyPOUHLSCQJgjj4adc5IAv3k5maqn0iXdUBdZizOM1nxo=s0-d">
<br><br>
He had a squint in later life because he got a bit of steel in his eye at work and would not see a doctor to have it removed. He didn't trust them. So he squinted for the rest of his life. He had been a bullock-driver in his early life so he was just a tough old bushman. His daughter Lucy was still alive in the late 1980s when I visited her in Innisfail and she said that Jack was a lovely father to her.
<br><br>
<A name=1122></A>EARLY EDUCATION: I first went to school at Innisfail State Rural School. I remember being plagued during my primary school years with the fact that my name was the same as that of a popular American "crooner" of the day -- Johnny Ray. I was called the "little white cloud that cries" and suchlike by teachers and students alike from time to time but I just ignored it. A "Rural" school meant a school that offered both primary and secondary classes. It was only after my time there that a separate High School was built at Innisfail.
<br><br>
<img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U-suuFROLnw/VwEJK1S9d0I/AAAAAAAAB80/N3N7TN0ta5obSJA6ImOvj1dWxCqZPvvZw/s1600/rural.jpg">
<br><br>
That I was "different" first came to the fore in grade 2. Our "English" lessons consisted of the class repeatedly reading a story out of our school reading book until every pupil knew and understood every word in it. And we could eventually all do that. One kid would read one sentence and the next kid would follow with the next sentence and so on.
<br><br>
Then one day the teacher did a dastardly thing. She asked us to close our reading books and tell the story as usual. And all the kids could do that -- except for me. I had no idea what the next sentence was. To the slack-jawed amazement of the other pupils, I was mightily praised for that. The teacher realized that I was the only one who had actually been reading. All the other pupils had simply been memorizing the story.
<br><br>
I was treated very warily by the other pupils from that point on. They clearly saw me as some sort of alien and mostly avoided me. But I had never known anything else so it bothered me not a whit. I was after all having a lot of fun reading. For many years I used to borrow and read 2 to 3 novels a week from the local library.
<br><br>
Then there was Grade 3. An episode there that lingers is when the teacher read out the <a href="https://memoirsjr.blogspot.com/2011/01/wonders-of-internet.html">"Little boy blue"</a> poem. I burst into tears at such a sad poem -- again to the slack-jawed amazement of the other pupils. I was the only kid that had understood the poem. The teacher was much upset at my upset and we heard no more of that poem thereafter.
<br><br>
Something that occurred throughout primary school at that time were frequent spelling tests. The teacher would read out words and we would have to write them down in correct spelling. I of course always got 10 out of 10 for that, which again saw me looked at askance by the other pupils. And when a new word popped up in our reading, I always knew what it meant -- which led to my primary school nickname of "The Walking Dictionary"
<br><br>
Another memory of those days was when we were doing parsing. Yes: Grade school kids at that time learnt grammatical parsing. It is not even taught in High School these days I gather. Anyway there came a day when the teacher (Mr. Madden) had a trick question for us. He asked us to parse the word "Please!". Slack jaws all round of course and even I had to think about it for a few seconds. I promptly popped my hand up and said: "Verb with subject and object understood". I remember the teacher looking at me with some disgust. No-one was supposed to be able to answer that. But he gave me an early mark anyway.
<br><br>
Something that only I knew about at the time concerned our school reading books. At the beginning of each year we were all issued with a book that formed the basis for all that year's English lessons. We would spend the whole year ploughing though about a quarter of the stories and poems in the book, trying to make sure that each pupil understood them.
<br><br>
I enjoyed the stories in our reading books and to this day consider them well-chosen. They were mostly moral and sentimental stories and I still think well of morality and sentiment.
<br><br>
So from about Grade 4 on I would sit down and read right through the reading book from cover to cover as soon as it was issued. I would do four times the year's work in one day, in other words. Quite disgusting, of course. I would even read through the prefaces and introductions, a strange habit I have to this day.
<br><br>
That did make lessons rather boring but I would amuse myself by always knowing the answers to the teachers' questions. It would get to the point where the teacher would say: "Yes, John. We know that you know but does anyone else know?" He would then look around hopefully but often find all the other pupils with heads down. So then he would call on me. So I entertained myself in my own way.
<br><br>
I started borrowing boy's yarns from both the school library and the School of Arts library in Innisfail when I was about 8 and generally read 2 or 3 books a week --- Enid Blyton, Capt. W.E. Johns, Percy F. Westerman etc. I also read a lot of non-fiction -- Ion Idriess and the like. My parents had a lot of trouble getting me to go to bed at night. I used to sit up in my bed reading.
<br><br>
While I was at school in Innisfail I usually went home for lunch -- though I was sometimes given sixpence to buy a meat pie from one of the two pie carts that pulled up outside the school every lunch hour. That was the only fast food at the time. Where we lived (Campbell St) was quite close to the school. I always made my own way to and from school. At first I walked and later I rode a bike. I was never driven as my mother never learned to drive.
<br><br>
One of my few memories from primary school time is picnics at Etty Bay (outside Innisfail). Whether they were school picnics or Sunday School picnics I cannot remember but suspect the latter. I loved Etty Bay even then. I remember that a popular softdrink on such occasions was Hanush's "Cherry Cheer" -- a sweet red drink. I preferred Sarsaparilla. Icecream used to be served on such occasions in small cardboard "buckets" out of a big stiff green canvas bag otherwise filled with dry ice (Frozen carbon dioxide -- itself something of a wonder). Much watermelon was also eaten. There were also egg©and©spoon races and suchlike that I used to avoid as far as possible.
<br><br>
<br><br>
<A name=1126></A>SECONDARY SCHOOL: When I moved to Cairns I got on the bus from Stratford one morning and found my new school by myself. My mother or father did not go along to help enrol me. I did not think much of it at the time but in retrospect I see it as another example of my mother's indolence. Though I suppose I was an independent little bugger. At Cairns State High School my nickname changed. I was now "The walking dictionary" instead of "the walking encyclopaedia". I read a bit of the works of Karl Marx at the local Cairns library around this time and occasionally talked about what I had read. For this reason I was sometimes at that time called "Commo John". I was never however subjected to any significant bullying and abuse. Although I did not have any really close friends at school I got on well with several other kids and don't think I really stood out in any way that would have made me a target -- though my total lack of interest in sport was a bit isolating, of course. I used to refuse to salute the flag on parade (for religious reasons) but I think that mainly earned me respect from the other kids.
<br><br>
The teachers I had for years 9 and 10 were in my recollection of them generally very good. The fact that Cairns was a very pleasant resort area may have had something to do with that. I liked several of them and learnt lots from all of them. My English teacher was one Murray Fastiere, of partly French ancestry, I believe. He was a very cultured man and a former pupil of organist Marcel Dupre and one day invited his class to an organ recital he was giving at St Andrew's Presbyterian church (where I normally went for Sunday School). I went along by myself to the recital. It must have been Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor he played because I was entranced and the name Bach rang in my head for years so that when I first got myself a record-player about 5 years later, about the first 20 records I bought were of Bach. All I had ever heard at home was the Top 40. The only songs I ever heard at home that I liked as a child were "Lady of Spain" and "Granada". An instrumental work that I liked was "That Happy Feeling".
<br><br>
As well as Murray Fastiere, I also remember my German teacher and Latin teachers. In sub-Junior (year 9) we were taught Latin by "Mr. O'Sullivan" -- who was, however, universally referred to as "Deadbeat". He was a tall, thin, rather hesitant man who taught Latin in an old-fashioned grammar-oriented way. In Junior (year 10) we had for Latin a Mr Kuskey, a young and rather untidy man who also started an after-hours music appreciation group for the students. It was there that I first heard Dvorak's "New World" symphony -- something that again left a lasting impression. Our German teacher was Leonard Gavrishchuk -- a Ukrainian, I gather from the terminal "uk" in the surname. He died without issue some time in the '80s but when I knew him he was a small, dark-haired, unassertive young man but with bright twinkling dark eyes. His favourite saying seemed to be: "You must be precise" -- generally accompanied by an upraised thumb. As a teacher, he had a bit of trouble keeping order but I was one of his favourite pupils because of my instant memory for what I was taught. He and I used to chat about things after hours too, but I cannot remember what the topics were.
<br><br>
I was an occasional pesky question-answerer in High school too.
<br><br>
One one occasion we were looking at an excerpt from Joseph Conrad that mentioned <a href="http://www.classicreader.com/book/1587/19/">the "throbbing" of a ship's engine</a>. Our English teacher (Fastiere) asked what was meant by that. I popped my hand up and said (approximately): "That would be the triple expansion steam cycle at work". Fastiere responded hastily: "Yes, yes, reciprocating engines". The marine triple expansion cycle probably used by the engines at that time was apparently well beyond his ken so he rapidly changed the subject.
<br><br>
In High School, a much wider range of subjects was covered than in primary school. So my general knowledge came more to the fore there. Again I always seemed to have all the answers and again it was noticed, so that my High School nickname was "The Walking Encyclopedia".
<br><br>
Throughout my schooling I encountered IQ tests fairly often. We seemed to get one about once a year. They were as fashionable then as they are unfashionable now. The most predictive part of a IQ test is the vocabulary scale: A list of words in increasing order of rarity -- where you have to pick the correct meaning for each one. The last word on the list is so rare that only oddballs are expected to know it. But I always got all of them right without effort.
<br><br>
Then one day I got a shock. The final word on the list was one I had never seen before: "Inchoate". And the derivation wasn't obvious either. But I knew how English compounds are formed and I knew the use and meaning of the common English prefixes and suffixes. So after a minute or two under my gaze the word emerged as meaning something like "unformed". So I ticked the answer "just beginning", which was of course right.
<br><br>
Note that I got the answer not from luck or a guess but as a deduction from a prior body of knowledge. That is how a clever clogs works. He doesn't know everything. Nobody does. But he has a set of strategies that enable him to figure out the right answer from the knowledge that he does have.
<br><br>
I was pretty solitary throughout my schooldays. I was just not like the others and I and everybody else knew it. I would be at home reading books when most other kids were outdoors. I played no sport of my own accord and when I was forced to play something I made a hash of it because of my natural clumsiness. Being excessively bright and non-sporting must have been as good barrier to social life as you can get in a small country town. In country towns "everyone" follows some sport. It meant that my social skills were slow in developing but they became generally pretty good eventually anyway. Intelligence can overcome all sorts of obstacles, including lack of social skills.
<br><br>
When my Junior German examination came around, I got mixed up about the date and forgot to attend -- my "professorial" memory again. Mr. Gavrishchuk, my German teacher, noticed my absence and sent another student around on a pushbike to my home at 308 Mulgrave Rd. to remind me. I arrived 1.5 hrs late for a 3 hour exam but still completed all questions with half an hour to spare and was awarded an "A" (the top category of marks) anyway. Doing academic things in much less time than anybody else has always been a forte of mine. I can never really understand why so many things take so many people so long. I guess my nervous system just runs much faster than most. To be a bit cybernetic about it, my brain must have a high "clock-speed".
<br><br>
Only two report cards from my Cairns schooldays have survived. The 1956 report shows that in form 1C, my position in class for the term 3 examination was 3rd for English, 7th for Maths and 9th for Social Studies. There were 43 in the class.
<br><br>
My 1958 report for Form IIIA2, the Term ended 9th August, shows that my position in the class was 1st for English, 6th for Latin, 7th for German, 15th for Geography, 14th for Maths A, 13th for Maths B (Geometry), 6th for Chemistry and 5th for Physics. There were 26 in the class. The teacher comments were: "Has a remarkable command of English" and "Academic interest should be encouraged. Examination results and the attitude towards study indicate good prospects for the Senior". I suspect that that particular report card survived only because it was the only one where I ever came first in anything. My results in the Junior examination were: English, Geography & German -- As; Latin, Maths & Geometry -- Bs; Chemistry & Physics -- Cs.
<br><br>
It was at Cairns State High School in Sheridan St. that I first wore shoes! Up until I was about 15 or 16 I had never worn shoes at all. I lived in a country area and, like lots of other kids around, went everywhere in bare feet. The soles of my feet were as a result so thick that I could even walk over sensitive plant ("mimosa pudica") without being bothered by the prickles. The school laid down the law, however, so, most reluctantly, I eventually had to wear shoes to school, at least for my Junior year. I have never got to like wearing shoes, however, and mostly now wear the next best thing to bare feet -- thongs (or "flip-flops", as the English call them). Because I did not wear shoes during my childhood I have to this day ten fairly evenly spaced toes that point straight ahead -- efficient toes. Kids who grew up in shoes tend to have toes that are all crammed together towards a point.
<br><br>
Partly because my father felt that it was time for me to go out and get a job and partly for religious reasons, I did not go on with school after year 10 -- although my teachers were of course rather aghast at that. I went and got a job as a junior clerk in the State Public Service instead. After a few years, however, I realized that my vocation was academic and picked up the remainder of my secondary schooling in short order. See <A href="intbio3.html#1135 ">below</a> under the heading "MATRICULATING".
<br><br>
<A name=1127></A>EARLY READING: I became a great reader of books as soon as I learnt how to and while I was in Cairns during my teenage years I read a great deal of what most people would encounter only in University courses. Of the ancient Greeks, I read all of Homer, Herodotus and Thucydides plus lots of Aeschylus, Euripedes, Xenophon, Sophocles and Plato. I loved the Greek Gods as presented in Homer; after I read Thucydides I felt I understood politics. And I still marvel at how modern Socrates (as recorded in Plato) sounds. I had my own paperback copies of all of the works I have so far mentioned (in translation, of course). Of English literature I read around the same time lots of Oscar Wilde, Ruskin, Thackeray, Fielding, Sterne, Congreve, Sheridan, Pope, Dryden, Shakespeare, Dickens, G.B. Shaw, Austen, Steinbeck, Sinclair Lewis, Tennessee Williams, Shelley, Keats, Milton etc etc. In other literatures I read Ibsen, Goethe, Schiller, Strindberg, Turgenev, Chekhov, Tolstoy, St. Augustine etc. I even seem to remember reading a bit of St Thomas Aquinas and I certainly acquired a smattering of Biblical Greek and Hebrew. I also read many other things -- such as Peale's "The power of positive thinking", Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people", Packard's "The status seekers" and Galbraith's "The affluent society".
<br><br>
So I had a rather busy little mind for a small-town teenager. From my point of view reading was about all there was to do in Cairns. So I was a good customer of the local bookshop and the local School of Arts library. I also patronized a secondhand book exchange -- where I got my copy of the Platonic dialogues (Crito, Phaedo, Symposium etc.).
<br><br>
I have always been aware of being different but at that stage I did not realize how very different I really was. I would not be surprised if I was the ONLY small-town teenager in the whole country who had read almost the entire Greek canon of his own volition at that time. And I did it with an educational background of Intermediate High School only and no-one to guide or encourage me in it!
<br><br>
<A name=1128></A>FOOD: Basically, I grew up on British food -- the dreaded "meat and 3 vegetables" The British call it "plain food" and plain it certainly is. Tasteless would be another word. To the British, main-course cooking simply means to heat things up. Boil up some vegetables and fry up some meat and that is supposed to be a cooked meal. For flavouring you put salt in with the vegetables and onions in with the steak. I lived on that most nights for 16 years until I left home -- though my mother did usually make quite a good dish of spaghetti once a week and we did have the odd roast. The whole point of eating your meal was to get to the desserts at the end. British deserts are brilliant. No other culture has such a variety of such good desserts, to my knowledge. When compared to trifle, rhubarb and tapioca, lemon-meringue pie, flummery, plum pudding, apple pie etc., I find that profiteroles, gulab jamuns and the rest pale into insignificance. British dessert cooking is as brilliant as British main-course cooking is moronic.
<br><br>
Growing up in the tropics had some gastronomic advantages. Pawpaws fresh off the tree (practically every house had pawpaw and banana trees) are light years away from the poor things that are picked green and freighted to non-tropical areas. There should be no bitterness at all in a good pawpaw. And Granadillas (Passiflora quadrangularis) are probably the best dessert fruit there is but they seem to be totally untransportable and are known only in the Innisfail/Babinda area. Granadilla and ice-cream is as good a dessert as there is. We also had guava trees growing wild all over the place at Innisfail but the fruit was said to be generally infested with worms so only the bolder kids ate guavas. I ate them a few times. They have a very delicate flavour and are popular as a source of fruit-juice in South Africa, Singapore and Fiji. That must be the Indian influence, I guess. As kids, our main use for guavas was to make shanghais out of the branches of the tree. The branches had a lot of forks that made ideal shanghais (a shanghai is a sort of rubber-powered catapult). There were also mango trees everywhere and kids would often climb them and eat the fruit while they were up there. I ate so many mangoes fresh off the tree like that as a kid that I never bother much with mangoes now -- delicious though they are. I simply had my fill of them as a kid. Ditto for coconuts. I ate quite a lot of fresh coconut as a kid too. There were always coconut trees at the beach and you mostly didn't even have to knock coconuts off the tree. They would just fall off. And a coconut is not damaged by falling, of course. (The beach I mostly have in mind from childhood is still my ideal beach -- Etty Bay outside Innisfail. The tropical rainforest grows right down to the sand there).
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/beach.jpg">
<br><br>
<A name=1129></A> GARDENING: When I was about 14 my father bought a house at 308 Mulgrave Rd in what is now called Westcourt, Cairns. It was there, I think, that I had my first and only experience of gardening. I had -- no doubt in conjunction with my parents -- a garden bed with carrots and cabbages in it. Lettuces too, I think. The carrots turned out very stunted but the cabbages were OK. Very leafy! And Mum had Rosella bushes (for jam-making). My father had a long-bean vine which produced for most of the year for several years.
<br><br>
<A name=1729></A> IN THE NEWS: It was while I was living at Mulgrave Rd that I got my first mention (as an "unknown boy"!) in the media. I quote what appeared in the <i>Cairns Post</i> when I was aged 15:
<br><br>
<blockquote> GAS MAIN STRUCK BY BULLDOZER
<br><br> ---------<br><br>
Boy's Remedial Action Praised
<br><br> ---------<br><br>
A small area in Lyons street, affecting only four houses, was without gas for almost two hours yesterday evening when a bulldozer crossing a gully tore a length of three-inch low pressure main off at a socket.
<br><br>
The Gas Co. manager (Mr. D. de Jarlais) last night commended the action of an unknown boy of about 12 years. The boy stuffed some rag into the end of the pipe, saving the wastage of a lot of gas and reducing the risk in case of a match being thrown nearby.
<br><br>
Mr. de Jarlais said: "The boy showed good judgment and sound common sense by his action. Only a small amount of gas was lost."
<br><br>
The bulldozer struck the pipe about 4.30 p.m. and it took workmen until almost 6.30 p.m. to get the main reconnected.</blockquote>
<br><br>
The first time my name appeared in print was the year after. The following appeared in the <i>Cairns Post</i>:
<br><br>
<blockquote> GERMAN VERSE SPEAKING COMPETITION
<br><br>
A verse speaking competition in German, which will be conducted for the first time outside a university centre, will be held on Tuesday evening at the C.W.A. hall. The competition is open to secondary school students , and about 24 children have entered the three sections, sub-Junior, Junior and Open (for competitors over 16 years).
<br><br>
Some of the students have reached a very high standard and John Ray, a Junior student at the High School, has translated a deeply complicated and very lengthy poem in blank verse from German into English.
<br><br>
The judges will be Messrs. Faldt, Goebels and Gutfrucht, and the winners will be presented with books about Germany or German people.</blockquote>
<br><br>
For the record, the poem mentioned was "Prometheus" by Goethe and I got second prize in the competition. I was beaten by a female student who had been "elocuted" -- Jocelyn Andrews was her name if I remember rightly.
<br><br>
<A name=1130></A>FAMILY: Because they are much younger than I am, I remember the childhoods of my siblings Christopher and Roxanne quite well. My most amusing memory of Roxanne is of her at about age 3 waving her little arm at our father and telling him off over something. He of course was just listening and smiling at her. I also remember that if she was ever going anywhere and my father was in the way he would always step aside for her. He just doted on her of course. Another memory along similar lines is of my mother trying to get the 3 or 4 year old Roxanne to do various things -- to which Roxanne would reply loudly: "but I don't wanna". That generally seemed to be taken as a fairly decisive objection.
<br><br>
Just for fun, here are the heights of three family members:
<br><br>
John 5'10"<br>
Christopher 5'8"<br>
Roxanne 5'4"
<br><br>
Roxanne was always the good-looking one in our family and her three delightful daughters certainly carry that on. Below is a picture of Roxanne as a little girl:
<br><br>
<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1248/947791357_88c3d4ee46.jpg?v=0">
<br><br>
<A name=1131></A>BRISBANE: In my late teens I moved from Cairns to Brisbane to further my education. Not long after I arrived I joined a nearby Presbyterian church. I usually went to the evening service as there was a good supper in the Church Hall afterwards. I got on quite well with old Percy Pearson, the minister. I was the only one there who knew anything about theology -- which he appreciated. He often seemed to preach his sermons directly to me as I was probably the only one in his congregation who understood much of what he was going on about. He did once say to me: "I wonder where you get your knowledge".
<br><br>
I did become a communicant member of the Ann St. church so when Percy Pearson died, I attended a congregational meeting called to discuss finding his successor. Very Presbyterian! I remember someone asking, "Have enquiries been made in Scotland?" and hearing the reply, "Yes, Mr Ralph is over there looking into it now." Mr Ralph was one of the senior elders (Presbyters) of the church -- the Clerk of Session, if I remember rightly. It did show that the Scottish connection was still strong among Australian Presbyterians at that time (in the 1960s). See also <a href="kiltman.html">here</a>
<br><br>
<A name=1132></A>WORKING IN BRISBANE: My first job in Brisbane was as a clerk at Abraham's bag factory at Rocklea. I bought an old Army B.S.A. 500cc motorbike (for ten pounds) to get to and from work. I loved that bike: Manual advance/retard and all. It was a couple of months before I discovered that it had a fourth gear. Brisbane had trams on its roads in those days and tram tracks are very dangerous to bikes. I once slipped on them and came off the bike in the middle of Ipswich Rd. I was lucky not to be run over. I eventually wrote the bike off in another accident in which I broke my leg. Where I came from that was almost a rite of passage for young men. I went back to my parents' home in Cairns while I recuperated.
<br><br>
I stayed at the bag factory for only a few months. I then went to work for Harry Beanham (usually resident in Sydney but he visited his interstate shops occasionally) at Gearco in Brisbane city. The job was to run a business selling second hand factory machinery and some new machinery: Mostly to do with lathes and other machine tools. I found it interesting and became something of an expert on diehead chasers -- if anybody knows what they are. Harry was in partnership with another man (Bob Naesmith) selling new and secondhand photographic gear. I ran my side of the shop and the other side of the shop was run by George Smith the photographer.
<br><br>
<A name=1133></A>CULTURE VULTURE: It was while I was working at Gearco that I met Alex Barnes (now deceased). I was about 19 and he was in his 30s so he did seem very "old" to me at the time but we got on well nonetheless. Alex was interested in photography and originally came in to buy photographic supplies and talk to George Smith. He and George were in some sort of photographic club together.
<br><br>
<img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xh7YottBEVI/XiBF1F7lnII/AAAAAAAADB0/Rs7fpWKw6F0--AB-bz2qicx40ltHMTlmACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/alec.png"><br>
Alec with his trusty Leica in 1969
<br><br>
One place where I saw Alex out of working hours was on Sunday afternoons at Centennial Place -- where I went to heckle the soapbox orators and he went to get candid photographs. On various other weekend afternoons I would also drive out to his place in my little blue VW sedan and we would listen to old records together and drink coffee. Alex invited me to call on him after I expressed an appreciation of Caruso. Alex had a collection of old Caruso 78s (78 r.p.m. records). So we would spend very enjoyable afternoons together listening to old records and chatting. Some years later he ended up marrying Joyce, a very attractive ex-girlfriend of mine.
<br><br>
Quite early on in Brisbane I got involved with a group of would-be poets who rather plagiaristically called themselves PEN (Poets Essayists and Novelists) after the New York original. Most were just out of High School and we used to meet outside the Brisbane GPO on a Sunday afternoon at 3-weekly intervals. From the GPO we would go to some home or meeting room and read out our recent productions to one-another. I remember we used to club together to buy a flagon (a glass bottle containing about a gallon) of "natural champagne" (cheap still white dry wine) to lubricate the proceedings. We "published" a magazine called "Aleph" to record our works. A dozen or more would attend and I became something of a leading light in the club. I don't think any of us were up to much as poets but it was fun.
<br><br>
Here is one of the sonnets I wrote at the time. As you will see from the rhyming scheme, it was mainly a bit of fun:
<br><br>
<A name=1134></A>DEFIANCE
<br><br>
Fine was the knight of old with fatal mace. <br>
That fighting breed has left a lasting trace<br>
On our ancient, ever nascent British race<br>
Expressed in business, battle or the chase. <br>
When pressed we know we'll always set the pace, <br>
Be commerce, fighting or any endeavour the race. <br>
Our heritage we never could debase<br>
By any act that e'er could bring disgrace<br>
So let us present crises far outface<br>
Try not our steps long past now to retrace<br>
With glories past, "Alertness now" replace. <br>
For a fighting future minds and hearts strong brace<br>
That we may turn to all a happy face<br>
Successful still and pressing on apace. <br>
<br><br>
<A name=1135></A>MATRICULATING: I had left High School after year 10 in Cairns and gone to work for a couple of years -- as was normal in Cairns at that time. So one of the first things I did when I arrived In Brisbane was to set about getting my Senior Certificate so I could matriculate. Being both impatient and confident, I wanted to do my Senior (Year 12) in one year instead of the usual three it takes an evening student. I found all sorts of official barriers to this so concluded that I would have to teach myself. This seemed easy enough except for the sciences. I solved the science problem when I found that I could study Botany at the George St. technical college in a one-year course. English, German and Ancient History I studied by buying the syllabus and just learning what it said you had to learn. Half way through the year I decided that I should really have five Senior subjects rather than the minimum four so I decided that I would like to study Italian too, even though I had not done it for Junior. So as far as Italian is concerned, therefore, I did four years work in four months. Italian, is, however, the easiest language for an English-speaker to learn and I did do Junior Latin. I think I still have a copy of my Italian textbook called "Sotto un cielo azurro" (meaning: "Under a blue sky". It sounds so much nicer in Italian).
<br><br>
At any event my heavy study program for Senior was the sort of challenge I enjoyed. I had virtually every spare hour of every day and night allocated to some form of study -- though I did not plan so tightly that I could not miss the occasional evening of study if I wanted to. I think that it was one of the few occasions when my potentially formidable energies were really used. I actually enjoyed fitting so much in and even had time for a social life.
<br><br>
I passed in all subjects and matriculated. I even got two "A"s (in English and German) and two "B"s (in Ancient History and Italian). The only subject I got a "C" in was the one I did not teach myself. A pity in a way: I liked Botany and had rather wanted to become a botanist. Details of my university studies are given <A href="intbio3.html#1138 ">below</a>.
<br><br>
<A name=1136></A>LANGUAGES: I find that I can read scientific text in most European languages well enough to get by even if I have never studied the language concerned. Most scientific vocabulary is lifted from English and for the rest a knowledge of Latin/Italian and German suggests the meanings of most words. Languages that use alphabets other than the Latin one are a bit of a problem, however. At one stage I knew all of the Greek, Cyrillic and Hebrew alphabets but by my 50s I had forgotten most of that -- though I still knew enough to look up Greek words in a Greek lexicon. Latin, Cyrillic and Greek are quite closely related alphabets so are not hard to learn. I studied a bit of Biblical Greek and Hebrew in my religious teens. I just taught myself. I also at a later date spent a bit of time teaching myself Russian but never got very far. Russian is as difficult as Italian is easy. So much grammar!
<br><br>
I seem to remember that someone of political ill-will towards me once questioned fact that my two matriculation languages were Italian and German rather than the more usual (at that time) French. They said that I was attracted to the languages of Fascism. That does rather overlook the fact that I am a great devotee of classical music and that the same two languages are also the great languages of music. Tempi notations are to this day mostly given in Italian. In fact there is a third language that is important to music if you like early music as I do and that is Latin. Even German composers (such as Bach) sometimes used Latin texts -- particularly for sacred works. And I get by in Latin too! I have a certificate showing I passed Junior Latin.
<br><br>
<A name=1137></A>CUSTOMS OFFICER: Considering that I was mainly self-taught, it was not surprising that my marks in the Senior exam were not high enough to earn me a Commonwealth Scholarship so I had to do the first two years of University part-time. I therefore used my Senior pass to get into the 3rd (tenured) division of the Commonwealth Public Service. I became a Customs Clerk. One of my jobs was to send off seized pornography for censorship. I saw so much pornography then that it has never again been of great interest to me. I also worked at the mail exchange searching incoming mail for items of interest to Customs and Excise. I became quite good at detecting prohibited imports and dutiable items.
<br><br>
<A name=1138></A>UNIVERSITY STUDENT: After my first two years at University part-time, my marks were good enough to get me a Commonwealth scholarship. That meant I could go to University full-time from the beginning of 1966. Curiously, the one subject that I did badly in during those first two years was English I --generally my best subject. A breakdown of the marks is informative, however. I actually got the highest mark awarded that year for the poetry paper but bombed in the drama paper -- 38% or some-such. I should by rights have failed but they could not bring themselves to fail their best poetry student. I had at that time never seen a live play so maybe that had a bit to do with my poor showing in drama. I still suspect idiosyncratic marking, however.
<br><br>
I could easily have made a career as an academic in English as English has always been my best subject but I just could not see the point of studying something that should essentially be a recreation. Literature is written to entertain. If it does not do that it is a failure. So if you have to study it to get its message, you are not treating as it was meant to be treated and are in any case studying something that is irrelevant by its own standards. It is true that literature may sometimes embody useful philosophical insights but that is essentially incidental and also rare. Anyway, I put my money where my mouth was and specialized instead in a topic I took at the time to be more practically useful -- psychology.
<br><br>
When I became a full-timer I began to do a bit in student politics. It was the Vietnam era when most students were shit-scared of being conscripted. So everybody was very Leftist. When conscription stopped so did most student activism. I however could never be dishonest enough to be Leftist (Many years later Mikhail Gorbachev showed that the old Soviet system literally floated on a sea of lies) so became virtually the only student to support the conservative cause in public debates. This put a bit of a dent in my social life. I had no real friends in psychology as psychologists are pretty uniformly Leftist but I did have friends among the Engineers (students in the Faculty of Engineering -- traditionally Rightist. They deal with <i>real</i> things). I must have been the only psychology student who did. Surprisingly enough, even at that time there were some of the far-Right on campus. I joined with some of them to help found the Australia-Rhodesia Society. That was great fun. It really caused the Left to show themselves for what they are. Provoking pomposity from Leftists is of course the favourite game of the extreme Right. On this occasion the Left tried to stack and disrupt our inaugural meeting and also managed to get us banned from using any further university facilities (rooms etc). And they claim to believe in free speech! They don't. I know. "By their fruits shall ye know them". Anyway we had our fun with them. We knew them for what they were. Stalin's remark that there was complete freedom of speech in Russia for anyone who agreed with him just about sums up what all Leftists aspire to. The "Australia-Rhodesia Society" was of course never meant seriously. It was just a bait that the Leftists swallowed hook, line and sinker. It is rather frightening how easily Stalinism emerges. The fascism of student "anti-Fascists" has to be seen to be believed. Hans Eysenck could have told you that -- also from experience of having his public lectures disrupted and being personally attacked.
<br><br>
<img height=500 width=600 src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111966/original/image-20160218-1276-18bggwh.jpg"><br>
Eysenck, now deceased
<br><br>
The "Leftists" could as well be Hitler's brownshirts. The behaviour is the same. It all convinces me that Leftism is for many, if not most, the cloak needed by people who want to push others around. Their real program is violent and forcible exercise of power. Their "good intentions" or "championing the underdog" rationale is simply flim-flam -- the most successful way of justifying such a violent program (or of getting people to accept it). If the good intentions were real they would not be such liars or so vicious (remember Pol Pot, Stalin, or the <i>Socialist</i> Hitler?).
<br><br>
<A name=1139></A>THE 1967 FEDERAL ELECTION: In the 1967 Federal election campaign (mainly fought on the issue of Australia's involvement in Vietnam) I, as a member of the Young Liberals (The Liberals are Australia's major conservative party), was invited to be in the audience for the launch of the Liberal campaign in Queensland. This was a speech by Prime Minister Harold Holt. The Leftists forged passes and infiltrated it, however. They made such a din that poor old Harold was just about inaudible. They virtually broke up the meeting. No respect for freedom of speech there! Lance W. and I saw this and organized with a few others to give the Left a bit of their own back. About a week later the Labor Party had its Queensland launch in the old Roma St Trades Hall. We attended. As soon as Labor leader Arthur Calwell had been introduced and got up to speak there was rapturous applause. Arthur let the applause die down and opened his mouth to speak. At that point I stood up and in my best soapbox voice shouted out: "All at sea with the A.L.P.!" (A slogan invented by my fellow-demonstrator Lance W. to complement "All the way with L.B.J.". Lyndon Baines Johnson was President of The United States at the time.) I also held up a poster to similar effect. You should have seen the response at this "disrespect". Half the people in the hall got up to look at who the scoundrel was. Our posters were ripped from us but the Police Special Branch had been forewarned and formed a protective circle around us. One of the police (Bob W.) said to the Leftists, quite rightly, "You did the same to Harold Holt last week". Anyway we kept up sporadic shouts. When we did, members of the audience would stand up, shake fists at us and return the abuse with a vengeance. Out of their anger and hostility they broke up their own meeting much more effectively than we could ever have done alone. The headline in <i>The Courier Mail</i> next day was "Calwell has noisy meeting". Brisbane was the only capital city where he got that reception. We were menaced by elements of the crowd as we were leaving the Trades Hall after the meeting and the Special Branch escorted us over the road to the old Roma St Police station. A crowd waited outside for us to come out again so they could get us. Real thugs! Anyway there was a little-known back entrance to the cop-shop through which we escaped in due course. Those were certainly interesting times for me. I felt that what I was doing was making a difference. Anyway, Harold Holt had a landslide win in that election. I think the Australian people did not much like what they saw of Leftist mobs either.
<br><br>
<A name=1140></A>THE ARMY: Another thing I did when I became a full-time student was to join the Army Reserves (the C.M.F.). I joined the Psychology Corps. Since the head of the Psychology Dept. (Prof. McElwain) was a Colonel in it, this was probably the one good political move I ever made. I actually did it for the experience, however. I was above conscription age so also had no need to do it to get out of conscription. In my honours year every male student but one was in the Psychology Corps. The exception was a Methodist minister (Henry Law) who obviously had other duties on Sunday. I greatly enjoyed my time in 21 Psychology Unit -- particularly the one camp I went to (at Tin Can Bay). It was like being paid to go on a camping holiday. I learnt a fair few things in the Army too. I reached the rank of Sergeant but I am sure Rod Hardaker (my former Sergeant Major) will tell you that in military skills I must have been just about the most inefficient Sergeant in the Australian Army at that time. That clumsiness again. Rod is the only ex-Army mate I have kept in touch with to some degree. As a unit in a professional corps, 21 Psych was however very much unlike an infantry unit. Both the O.C. and the Sergeant Major were keen on Palestrina, for instance, so my devotion to Bach was completely understood!
<br><br>
<img src="http://johnjayray.com/batldres.jpg">
<br><br>
<A name=1141></A>POLICE SPY: Although I was identifiably to the Right at University, I actually got on fairly well at the personal level with many of the leading Left activists. I think it was because I was always fairly good-humoured in argument and because I was interested in the same issues that they were -- even if we came to different conclusions on them. I was accepted so well that I was even allowed to attend most of their private meetings. The Police Special Branch found out about that and asked me to report to them what went on. This I willingly did on a regular basis. I was pleased to do whatever I could to scupper the young Stalinists (not that they called themselves that. They called themselves Students for Democratic Action). The Police Special Branch at that time were all D.L.P. men (Catholic anti-Communists). The only exception was a Liberal -- Don Lane, later a minister in the very conservative Bjelke-Petersen government who was unlucky enough to be one of the few to be prosecuted for cheating on his expense account. As far as I know everybody in Australia who has one exploits his expense account. I suppose Don overdid it a bit.
<br><br>
As part of getting to know the extreme Left quite well, I also used to attend meetings in Brisbane of the Australia-Soviet friendship society. I was rather fascinated by their wharfie-style of voting. When a resolution was proposed they would not say, "All in favour raise their right hand". No way. It was, "Any objections?" All very much in character. Stalin would have approved.
<br><br>
I also gathered information about the local neo-Nazis which I passed on to the police. See <a href="mehler.html">here</a> for details about that activity.
<br><br>
<A name=1142></A>FORTRAN: During vacation time after my third year at the University of Queensland I took a four-day course (mornings only) in the computer language FORTRAN. It was taught to us by a young Finnish woman called Gail Sonkkila. At that time SILLIAC (only the third computer ever built -- depending to some extent on how you define "computer") was still running at the University of Sydney. That was the only course I ever did in any computer language.
<br><br>
Below is a picture released by the Univerity of Qld. in 2012 which depicts what I believe to be the computer I used there -- a GE 225. And if I mistake not that is also Gail Sonnkila in the photo.
<br><br>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/zTEQOZF.jpg">
<br><br>
I did become very proficient in using FORTRAN to write my own survey and data analysis programs. In those days virtually the only software you got with any computer was a FORTRAN compiler. Any programs you wanted you had to write yourself. My B.A. thesis contains a listing of my first program (to do partial correlations). FORTRAN has been much expanded since then but I have kept up with a lot of the new features. I was still using FORTRAN to produce some of my own software many years later.
<br><br>
Why is FORTRAN always named in all-capitals? Because, like MS-DOS, it is case-insensitive. Any letters you type while using it are automatically transformed into all-capitals. So in FORTRAN itself you can only refer to it as FORTRAN, not Fortran. I suppose that it is really just an instance of the native-speaker rule (i.e. the rule that the correct way to pronounce a placename or family name is the way the people who live in the place or bear the name pronounce it) to spell FORTRAN the way FORTRAN would have to refer to itself.
<br><br>
<A name=1143></A>SYDNEY, 1968: Anyway I got my honours degree from the University of Qld. in the minimum time of 4 years even though the first 2 of those 4 years were part-time.
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/ba.jpg">
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/pavlov.jpg">
<br><br>
Immediately thereafter (November 1967) I moved to Sydney for a change of scene. My first job there was actually full-time duties with the regular Army Psychology corps in the Sydney recruiting office (technically C.M.F. full-time duties)! I just went in soon after my arrival and found they had a lot of work so offered my services. They were very glad to grab a qualified extra hand. I think it was while I was working there that a vacancy in the <i>Chieu Hoi</i> program came to my notice -- a "psychological warfare" operation in Vietnam. I of course volunteered for it but someone better qualified than I got the slot. After about a month, however, I got a job as a graduate clerk in the N.S.W. Dept. of Technical Education so I took my discharge from the Army at that point. I would have stayed on in the CMF (Reserves) but the local Sydney unit (12 Psych) was up to establishment. I suppose it is slightly ironical that I could have worked as long as I liked in the regular army but could not get a slot in the militia!
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/certdis1.jpg">
<br><br>
The graduate clerk job was work that made no use of my degree at all and was a bit of a farce generally. It was no different to what I had been doing as a junior clerk in the Qld. Dept. of Public Works years before -- filing and the like. Typical government waste of resources. Anyway the pay was good ($60 per week!) and that suited me for a time.
<br><br>
As soon as I arrived in Sydney I went along to the University of Sydney and was told that part-time students needed to take 2 or preferably 3 years to do a Masters Degree. That suited me not at all so, even though I in fact had a full-time job, I enrolled as a day student and did the M.A. in the bare minimum of one year. I just took time off my work in the Dept. of Technical Education to attend whatever lectures I had to. There weren't many lectures and tutorials and the Public Service encouraged time off for education anyway. "Further study" was greatly facilitated as a matter of general policy. I actually got the highest marks awarded in the M.A. exams but the Psychology Department would not give me the degree with first-class honours because (I imagine) they suspected I was really part-time and didn't want to look fools. So the cowards sent me a special letter saying that I only got second class honours but would probably have done better had I taken the "normal" two years. I still have the letter somewhere.
<br><br>
My supervisor for my M.A. dissertation was an American -- Alan Bordow -- who was totally useless. I have an idea he felt out of his depth with me. I am a bit vague now on the coursework part of the degree but I remember three seminars -- one with David Ivison (of "Sydney Push" fame) on clinical psychology, one with John Berry and Dicky Thompson on social psychology and one with John Maze on philosophical psychology. There was also a lecture course on "general psychology" which was mainly taught by Bill O'Neil and John Maze if I remember rightly. It was really a course on philosophical psychology and I was rather surprised at the numbers attending: 30 - 40 students. The most distinguished academic I encountered at the University of Sydney was probably John Berry -- a very Leftist Canadian: very smart, very sure of himself but with a typically Leftist unconcern about the facts. See <a href="berry.html">here</a>
<br><br>
While I was doing the M.A. I also enrolled at the University of N.S.W. as an evening student and studied economics. Economics was a major intellectual discovery for me and Economics I was probably the most valuable course I ever did (in my opinion). I did a bit of accounting too just to find out what it was like but didn't persevere with it. So that was a busy year for me: A full-time job plus a complete higher degree plus a new undergraduate subject. I enjoyed meeting the demands that placed on me. For once I had to use my time fairly efficiently. I was living with a busty redhead for part of that time too.
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/ma.jpg">
<br><br>
<A name=1144></A>MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY: After I did my M.A. I went to the School of Behavioural Sciences at Macquarie University to do my Ph.D. I supported myself initially by part-time tutoring in Social Psychology at Macquarie and later by teaching (part-time) Higher School Certificate Economics at a local Catholic secondary school (Cerdon College at Merrylands). Australia was so short of teachers in those "baby boom" years that my one year of Economics at the University of N.S.W. counted as sufficient qualification for teaching the subject at High School level. All my students eventually did well in their H.S.C. examinations (one came 4th in the State!) so the idea wasn't as silly as it might at first seem.
<br><br>
I started at Macquarie in early 1969. My M.A. had not been formally awarded at the time so I could not use it as a basis to apply for a Commonwealth Postgraduate award. That came in 1970. I moved from University to University for each degree as a way of broadening the influences I was exposed to. Almost immediately after I got to Macquarie, I started writing articles for the academic journals. Two actually appeared in 1970 so had to have been written in 1969, the first year of my Ph.D. studies. That is the well-known "publication lag" for you.
<br><br>
While I was at the University of Sydney I started on a research program that simply continued when I got to Macquarie and I very soon accumulated a lot of survey research data. After about a year therefore I had plenty of data on which to base my Ph.D. dissertation so I sat down and wrote the dissertation over a period of only six weeks. Under university rules, however, it could not be submitted until I had been in the Ph.D. programme for two years. When I did submit it at the end of 1970, however, the university took over 3 years to get it marked! So the degree was not awarded until 1974. The reason for the slow marking was a combination of bureaucratic inertia with two pretty unethical markers. One of the markers -- a Fred Emery from the Australian National University in Canberra -- rejected the thesis on the ground that it used parametric statistics. Since most psychologists do use parametric statistics, this was rightly seen as eccentric and a replacement marker had to be found. The other recalcitrant was Seymour Martin Lipset -- a fairly prominent Amnerican social scientist. He agreed to mark my dissertation but when he received it failed to do so and ignored all follow-up correspondence completely. He even failed to return his copy of the dissertation when asked to. I guess the fact that its conclusions were not totally supportive of his own findings miffed him.
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/phd.jpg">
<br><br>
<A name=1145></A>THE BAROQUE MUSIC CLUB: I founded the Baroque Music club shortly after I moved to Sydney. It was a very informal thing that consisted of Sunday afternoon meetings at somebody's place where we would drink cheap flagon wine and listen to recorded Baroque (pre 1750) music. Denis Ryan was our most frequent host and his wife, Fay, used to put on a whopper afternoon tea to aid the deliberations. It was a good way to make congenial social contacts.
<br><br>
<img src="http://jonjayray.com/denis.jpg"><br>
Denis
<br><br> All that aside, however, my chief memories of the Baroque Music Club still are musical. I still feel the lonely eminence of Bach, the circular-saw-like power of the Vivaldi oboe and bassoon concerti and the elegance of Albinoni, Pescetti and Gabrielli. I also now like the music of Phillip Glass and consider it a great privilege to have heard him conduct his own music live. The composer who has the greatest effect on me, however, has to be Bach. The only way I can describe it is to say that his music "transforms" me. He somehow seems to take me into a different and better world. He is a religious composer and I was once religious so maybe that has something to do with it.
<br><br>
My first wife, Dawn, and I met at a Baroque Music Club meeting. Around the time we married, we bought together and subsequently lived in a small home unit (condo) at Bondi. We had a tabby cat there called "Purrfur". I remember Dawn once asking me why it was that children always smile at me. "Do they?", was my response. I was unaware of it. I eventually figured out why, however. It was because I was smiling at them! I have always liked children.
<br><br>
Dawn also pointed out to me something else I did not know about myself -- that I changed my accent and way of speaking according to whom I am talking to. Among my University friends, I speak in an Educated Australian way but when talking to more working-class people such as petrol pump attendants I speak in a more Broad Australian way. My tendencies of that kind are probably even more extensive than Dawn noted. In 1977 when I was living in England, the English were always saying to me what a "soft" accent I had. I spoke so much like them that they could hardly tell that I was an Australian, in other words.
<br><br>
<A name=1146></A>MENSA: Another great recreational interest at that time was Mensa -- an international social club requiring an IQ in the top 2% for admittance. I had joined Mensa not long before I left Brisbane so started going to their meetings as soon as I arrived in Sydney also. Mensa formed an important part of my social life during my entire sojourn in Sydney. As well as being highly intelligent, Mensans tend to be eccentric. This suited me as such people are more interesting and they certainly don't threaten me in any way. Social skills, however, tended to be in short supply so I ended up running Sydney Mensa for quite a few years. Organizing meetings seemed to be beyond most of them. My third wife Jenny went to a Mensa barbecue with me in Sydney once and was much amused by one of the members (old Ted H.) turning up fully equipped but having forgotten to bring any meat! My favourite meetings were the dinner meetings. These I organized at local restaurants (usually cheap ethnics) and on one occasion had over 40 people attend. 20 was however more typical. One of the stalwarts of the dinner meetings was a tall and very good looking Dutchman called John G.. Unfortunately for the women he was a homosexual (though not obviously "camp"). Despite that he and I got on well and co-operated on many things. At dinner meetings, however, I would often make bigoted remarks about "poofters". He knew however that I love to tease so wisely didn't rise to the bait and just accepted it as normal banter. The other Mensans didn't know what to make of it often, I suspect. It livened things up anyway. His boyfriend used to take my antics in particularly good part. John was always a bit doubtful about me at heart, I suspect, but Terry (his mate) was so secure in what he was that he seemed to find it all just as amusing as I did. We always seemed to have first-class rapport anyway. I suspect he liked me needling John as John was a fairly dominant character in a typically Dutch sort of way.
<br><br>
<A name=1147></A>TEACHING SOCIOLOGY: After I finished my Doctoral thesis at Macquarie University I got a job teaching Sociology at the University of N.S.W. That was in early 1971. The reasons why I got the job were threefold: 1). Already having publications so early in my career was no doubt impressive; 2). They wanted someone to teach the Sociology of Religion and I had done a paper on that subject the year before; 3). Nobody told them I was of the political Right. There just was no concern with ideology at Macquarie so it never arose. I was however appointed with tenure so they could not get rid of me until I was ready.
<br><br>
I did research projects at a great rate while I was at Uni NSW. I did up to half a dozen surveys in a year and got a lot of articles out of each survey. The record speaks for itself. I had over 20 articles published in some years compared to the single one that most psychology and sociology academics battle to get out. I doubt that I am all that much smarter than my fellow academics. It is just that I see things in ways rather different from others (often because I am not a Leftist) and this makes me full of ideas to test. Being very efficient and energetic as well I get to test a lot of those ideas. So it is creativity and hard work that gives me the big edge. On the other hand, the unusually high speed at which I can learn things is diagnostic of high intelligence so maybe I just got it all at birth. Doing an M.A. (honours) in a third of the normal time and then topping the year should mean something -- particularly with a course in Economics and a full-time job to fill in my spare time during that same year. I have always attributed my learning ability to my good memory, however.
<br><br>
Anyway, <a href="allrefs.html">my articles</a> are there to be read by anyone that wants to so they are the final testament to what I was thinking and doing more or less month by month at that time. Though it should also be said that what I got published was very much limited to what the academic culture of the time allowed. I would have spoken much more boldly on some things if I could have got it published.
<br><br>
Sociology at the University of New South Wales at that time was heavily Marxist and counter-cultural so I didn't like it one bit. The compliment was returned. The Sociology staff were always personally pleasant to me and even invited me to many of their parties but we just did not see eye to eye. To them I was a "Fascist". To me they were Stalinists, bludgers, hypocrites and frauds. There were of course some exceptions who were not so Leftist and I did spend a bit of time with them but mostly I just did my teaching and research with only a very rare foray into the coffee room. Sociology did improve a bit over the years but not much. I did really rather hate it there.
<br><br>
I did of course have no prospect of any sort of academic career once the ideological gap between myself and the rest of the School of Sociology became known. Even getting the normally fairly automatic advancement was a battle when it came up. It took three applications for me to get the promotion even though my academic record was an exceedingly distinguished one by conventional standards. I of course realized the problem very early on -- which was why I set out to establish an alternative future for myself by way of Real Estate investments. As a born academic I would have preferred to spend all my time in academic pursuits but I saw that I could not really do that if I wanted a life in which I had some options.
<br><br>
In my early years at Uni. N.S.W. I got permission to do outside work part-time and was thus able to return to Secondary School teaching (I again taught Higher School Certificate Economics -- this time at a now defunct "progressive" school at Birchgrove called "Chiron College") and do some taxi-driving. The extra money from such jobs helped me to get started in buying Real Estate.
<br><br>
<A name=1148></A>PARTY ANIMAL: In my first year teaching at the Uni. N.S.W. I rented a small house which I shared with two male friends of around my own age. We had quite a few parties there. And if ever we got sick of our guests, we would put on Janacek's Sinfonietta. We all liked classical music but not very many other people do and Janacek is a bit much for even some classical music lovers. The Sinfonietta would clear the house within minutes. They would even leave their beer behind! It didn't work for our friend Denis R. however. I think he introduced us to Janacek in the first place. He would say "This is good" and settle in. Not that we minded. Denis was always good fun. He had that Irish roguishness and was a great raconteur. He had been a shearer for most of his life and later moved to Sydney to manufacture shearer's clothing. For quite a while he used to drop in at our place after work for a few beers with us: The real Australian male thing (except for the classical music in the background). We enjoyed it greatly. He liked Resch's D.A. but we drank Flag Ale. We used to buy D.A. especially for him. We called it Denis's Ale, though D.A. really means Dinner Ale. All four of us were quite Right-wing. Denis had been a Communist in his youth (not uncommon among shearers, I believe) and knew an awful lot about politics. He had not had much education but was quite intellectual and cultured for all that. Apparently you do sometimes find that among shearers, according to Denis. He was in his late 30's at the time.
<br><br>
The fact that I did a bit of part-time taxi-driving (cab-driving) in my early teaching career was useful in more ways than one. If I went to a party around that time, I always found the standard party question ("What do you do for a living") to be a bit of a peril. If I answered frankly and said, "I am a University Lecturer" (What Americans call a "Professor" is mostly called a "Lecturer" in Australia and Britain), that would really clear the space around me. No-one would want to talk to me. My occupation seemed to overawe people. If however I instead said (also with some truth), "I am a taxi-driver", I would be an immediate hit. Everyone would want to talk to me. I immediately became a familiar and friendly figure. Strange! Being in a high-status occupation is far from being an unalloyed good. Generally speaking, being a university lecturer may be even more socially disastrous than being a policeman!
<br><br>
Another party event I remember from that time was meeting a young woman at a party who seemed a little foreign. I asked her where she was from and she said: "Mauritius". I replied, "Ah, Mauritius. Isn't Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam Prime Minister over there?". "You've heard of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam!", she said. Since most people look blank at the very name of Mauritius, to find someone who actually knew something about it was very pleasing to her. So my general knowledge can in fact be very useful socially. It almost (but not quite) won me a heart on that occasion.
<br><br>
<A name=1149></A>LONDON: In 1977 I had a Sabbatical year in London. I carried out a doorknock survey there doing all my own doorknocking. I was given an office at the Institute of Psychiatry by Hans Eysenck but I did not see a great deal of him. He was a very quiet sort of a person. Not what one expects of the (then) world's most quoted living psychologist.
<br><br>
Another thing I did in London was to look up the local libertarians. Chris Tame at the alternative bookshop was the one I saw most of but I also saw a bit of Arthur Seldon at The Institute of Economic Affairs.
<br><br>
<img src="https://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/CRT2s.jpg"><br>Chris Tame -- now deceased
<br><br>
There were very few libertarians in Britain at that time but they had enormous influence for rationality. I became a libertarian the first time I ever heard such ideas. A lot of the ideas are just economic rationality, anyway. Much of the rest is an extension of the traditionally high value that conservatives put on individual freedom. I first heard the ideas on the Domain in Sydney from a soapbox orator. It was just after I had done Economics I so I was well prepared for such thinking. In fact, many of the leading libertarians (e.g. Milton Freedman, Hayek, Von Mises) are or were economists. I had myself been a soapbox orator in the Conservative cause both in Brisbane and Sydney. The fact that I have a loud voice if I want to did help with that. I suppose the fact that I am a strong supporter of the Monarchy is a bit at variance with being a Libertarian. It depends how far you go. Extreme Anarcho-Capitalists want no State at all whereas Minimal Statists acknowledge the need for a State in just a few areas -- e.g. defence. Being the ardent Victorian that I am, I suppose what I want is a very minimal State led by a constitutional Monarch and defended by citizen-soldiers. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime but it is pretty much how England once was.
<br><br>
<A name=1150></A>LOCKED IN! While I was a lecturer in Sociology at the University of N.S.W. I always used to carry my toolbox in my car -- mainly because I often had to do small repair jobs at my various rental properties that I owned. This was in Sydney around 1980. At that time I often used to go in to the University of NSW out of normal working hours to do my writing for the academic journals. This required various permissions and I was often a bit hassled by university security men checking up on whether I was entitled to be there or not (I always was and felt that they should know it without needing to ask me so I was often a bit curt in responding to their enquiries. I was there to concentrate on my work and didn't need any interruptions). Late one Sunday afternoon my car was the only one left in the carpark and the security men obviously thought they would show me a thing or two by locking the gates to the carpark. So when I came to go home I was locked in. I therefore got out my junior hacksaw from my toolbox and sawed the padlock off the gate and obtained my exit that way. The padlock was a good one that a hacksaw just bounced off but the gate itself was only of common mild steel so I simply sawed off that part of the gate to which the padlock was attached! It only took a few minutes. What a dilemma it must have been for the security men! They knew I did it but they couldn't say as much because then they would have had to explain why they locked me in without first warning me! So I never heard a word about the matter. I won that one, I think. From that time on, however, I always made a point of carrying a hacksaw in my car. The big chain they used to put around the gates thereafter always amused me though.
<br><br>
<A name=1151></A>CATS: At one stage around that same time, we had a bit of trouble with cats yowling at night and keeping us awake. I therefore bought a Daisy air-rifle of the sort that were in my childhood often given to children as toys.
<br><br>
<img src="https://media.takealot.com/covers_tsins/55017873/55017873-pdpxl.jpg">
<br><br>
I practiced shooting from the hip with it and became quite accurate after only about half an hour of trying. I then started to use it to ping any suspicious-looking cats I saw around the place. It did not injure them but stung them enough to cause them to decamp with great alacrity. The pellets for an air-rifle are however stored loose in a compartment around the barrel and you have to lift the barrel up vertically to load them. So air-rifles rattle the minute you touch them. And the cats soon developed good conditioned reflexes in that connection. As soon as they heard a rattle they knew that a sting was coming so decamped immediately without me needing to fire a shot! So soon if I heard cats yowling I did not even have to get out of bed. I just rattled the air-rifle to win immediate silence. Great stuff, that conditioning.
<br><br>
<A name=1152></A>EATING OUT: During my first two marriages we used to eat out a great deal. Neither lady was keen on cooking. My many years of dining out did mean that I got to try a much wider range of food than would normally be the case. I was never much impressed by "French and International" food. I preferred "ethnic" food -- i.e. food with real tradition behind it. "French and International" is generally a warning that you will get small servings of overpriced, lukewarm and generally tasteless food served after a long wait by pretentious, tired and inflexible waiters. If it is also said to be "innovative" food, it just means that they give you jam or some such with your main course and are really full of themselves for being so "clever": Tedious in the extreme!
<br><br>
So I soon learned to avoid such restaurants and go to the many small "ethnic" restaurants that offered real value. I thus became something of a connoisseur of "ethnic" food. Such restaurants generally serve dishes that have been in the culture concerned for hundreds of years and such dishes can hence be truly said to have survived the test of time. It is a real warranty that you will get something pretty acceptable.
<br><br>
Dishes I have discovered that I particularly like include Larb Moo (Thai), Egg-rolled pork (Korean), Bul Gogi (Korean), Cevapcici (Yugoslav), Kassler Rippenspeeren (German), Dhansak (Parsee), Roghan Josh (N.Indian), Cha Gio (Vietnamese), Ton Katsu (Japanese), Moussaka (Greek), Saltimbocca (Italian), Paella (Spanish) and Chicken Kiev (Russian/French) but what is good depends very much on the restaurant concerned. I always found that you could at the most expect any given restaurant to do only one dish really well and the key is to find that one dish. In traditional Australian (British) food the best to me is Roast Pork with crackling. In a restaurant staffed by Australians, it will take you a long time to get a menu, longer to get your order taken and longest of all (at least an hour) to get your food. In almost any Chinese restaurant, by contrast, you get a menu within one minute of sitting down, get a waiter at your table to take your order as soon as you have finished looking at the menu and seldom have to wait more than 15 minutes for your food. I never could figure out why others cannot be like the Chinese. They do show what can be done by staff who are interested in their job.
<br><br>
You might be forgiven for thinking that if you pay more for your dinner you will get better food and better service. The truth is very much the reverse. The service in particular is often atrocious in more expensive restaurants. You can never "catch the waiter's eye" and the idiot waiters may even be patronising to you if there is something about you that they do not like. Being no conformist, I give all such moron acts short shrift. If I am not getting reasonable attention I generally put out my arm to physically stop a passing waiter or I get up and walk out into the kitchen and ask if anybody is serving. The latter in particular usually stirs things up! Going to an expensive restaurants is a sort of masochism. You pay to be served strange food after a long wait by airhead waiters who are full of themselves and treat you with contempt. I suppose they think that if you are silly enough to dine there you need to be treated like a moron. There may sometimes be something in that
<br><br>
<A name=1153></A>OVERSEAS AGAIN: By 1983 I had made enough money out of Real estate to retire so did so. I moved from Sydney back to Brisbane in my home State of Queensland. Shortly after that, however, I went overseas again.
<br><br>
In 1984 I was away for five months -- partly spent in New York and partly spent in London. I remember the whole trip cost me $14,000: Rather too much in retrospect. I first spent the first month living in an old hotel just off Broadway on the upper West side of New York city. Boy, it was really summer there at the time! The hotel had no air-conditioning so I bought a small electric fan to help out.
<br><br>
After about a month I flew up to the Political Psychology conference in Toronto. It was intellectually a very incestuous affair with pervasive Leftist and psychoanalytic assumptions. No wonder it was the last one I attended!
<br><br>
After that I flew to London and spent some more months there. I again saw a lot of people such as the local Mensans and Libertarians so I had a good time and went to a lot of parties. <br><br>
While I was at parties in London I would sometimes get a jocular comment about Australia's very male "mateship" culture to the effect that Australians must all be latent homosexuals. I always encouraged any allusion in that direction as I had a very good reply to it (borrowed from Barry Humphries). I would say, "No, that is just a rumour put around by Australia House to encourage all the English immigrants".
<br><br>
I also had a couple of little sayings I had made up myself that generally seemed well received. The first I used if there were any disparaging remarks about Australian wine. I would say: "Australians are much like the French; Both produce lots of wine and most of it is rough; And the stuff that is too rough even for them to drink they sell to the English". And if national characteristics in general were under discussion I would say: "The characteristic Australian emotion is apathy; The characteristic American emotion is greed; And the characteristic English emotion is embarrassment".
<br><br>
That these "jokes" were always well received is another instance of something often remarked: That the English are good at laughing at themselves. It is a great national virtue. Both jokes have a considerable element of truth, of course -- as jokes often do.
<br><br>
I am pretty sure that it was in 1984 that I went to two conferences organized by various Libertarian groups. One was just outside London where I gave a rather controversial talk based on sociobiology and the other was at Cambridge where I took part in a (semi-jocular) debate on whether the United Kingdom is truly united. Being in Cambridge was fascinating. It really is a beautiful mediaeval town. I would have loved my son to go to University there. It seems a great place for student fun. In the event, he went to ANU, which is also pretty good.
<br><br>
When I think of it, all my male friends in England are not really English. Chris Tame (now deceased) is the most English but he doesn't look very English. Adrian F. has a most fruity upper class English accent and the tall elegance to go with it but he is in fact from Natal (the most English part of South Africa). Glenn Wilson is a Kiwi and Hans Eysenck was a German. But we all are Anglophiles. We admire the English for their restraint and decency but the English who are still left in England are too grey (in all ways) for us actually to see ourselves as being one of them. So one might say that London Anglophiles actually prefer one-another's company to the company of the English themselves!
<br><br>
I returned from England to Australia via New York so that I could make a side-trip up to the conference on authoritarianism arranged by Dave Hanson at Potsdam in upstate New York (i.e. in Northern New York State -- about 8 hours drive from New York city). I there was able to put faces to many of the authors I had been citing in my publications over the years. They were generally a disappointing lot. They probably felt the same about me. It was Fall (Autumn, October) at the time and the drive with Ray Krukowski through the forests of Upstate New York was itself enough to make the trip worthwhile. It really was breathtakingly beautiful. I drove up with Ray K. in his car.
<br><br>
After the conference I flew straight back to Australia but I did stop over for a day or two in Hawaii and bought two things: Sees Candy and a "Reagan for President" badge. I wore the badge until I got back to Australia so in a very minor way I did help campaign for Ronald Reagan! I loved him as President so I am pretty pleased about that.
<br><br>
<A name=1154></A>DOGS: When I was a boy living in Innisfail, I had a cattle-dog cross called "Bluey" (Funnily enough! Queensland Cattle-dogs are just about the only blue-coated dogs there are). I liked the way he would look at you out of the side of his eyes as a warning if you were irritating him. If you disregarded the warning he would snap at you. He got hit by a car and killed and I remember being upset at losing him.
<br><br>
The next dog I got was when my third wife Jenny and I were living at Queen Bess St and decided we needed a watchdog to deter prowlers. We were given a Rottweiler cross that I named "Canis" (which is both the Latin word and the generic name for a dog. Only an academic would have a dog called "Canis"). He was only about six weeks old at the time and had been on puppy food until we got him. We found it difficult to get him to eat anything at all but eventually found things he liked. We had him vaccinated against canine parvo-virus but it seemed we were too late. He sickened and died after a few weeks. I was deeply upset when he died. He was a lovable little pup with some cheeky and intelligent ways and I felt I had failed him in allowing him to die. In his last hours he looked at me so reproachfully.
<br><br>
After that Jenny and I decided that a Bull-Terrier would be best for our purposes because of their rather fearsome looks. We bought a rather insane pure-bred bitch called "Pepper" for $300. She had a coat that was mostly black but suffered from sun exposure on the white parts of her muzzle. I therefore became a registered Bull-Terrier breeder (kennel-name "Canis Niger" -- meaning "black dog" in Latin) with the aim of breeding heavily coloured Bull-Terriers that would not suffer from the sun so much. We mated her with a brindle sire and had two litters of very pretty pups with all sorts of attractive coats.
<br><br>
Dogs rather tie you down when you want to travel so we eventually sold Pepper when we moved next. We sold her to a bikie who wanted her to sleep with him in his bed every night so she went to Bull-Terrier heaven. Bullies like to be VERY close to their families and we wouldn't even let her in the house so I am sure she was glad to have her new owner. She rode off in his "shaggin' wagon" (he didn't have his bike with him that day) without a backward glance at Jenny and me.
<br><br>
<A name=1155></A>FAMILY: An interesting thing is that many of my relatives are quite Right-wing -- The late Keith Smith being something of an extreme example. Keith was not blood kin -- He married my cousin, Shirley. Keith was a great bloke. He spoke the broadest Australian you have ever heard: Both in accent and in vocabulary. He would describe something easy as "a piece of piss", for instance. People enjoyed listening to him because of the colourfulness of his delivery, though I doubt that he realized it. He was, however, a very kind and unpretentious person and suited Shirley well. She is so nice she is almost a saint. She would do anything for you. Keith was also quite smart. He fixed up radios and T.V.s and at one time had a business renting them out.
<br><br>
Anyway Keith was so far Right he was almost out of sight (as they used to say of Syngman Rhee. Who was Syngman Rhee?). I understood what he was going on about and supported some things that he said so I was pretty popular with him. He was also unashamed to voice his conclusions about Aborigines (Australian native blacks). At family gatherings (mostly held at his place) he loudly referred to them as "scum". I could see that this pained some of the more proper women present on one occasion so I had to bail him out by saying "But you are talking from experience, Keith, aren't you? You have had them as customers." He agreed and went on to relate how they had tried to steal his T.V.s that he rented out etc. That set things straight. There seems to be a strange myth about that all racial dislikes are prejudice. I simply showed that sometimes it is postjudice too: In other words the fruits of experience rather than of preconception.
<br><br>
Whether Shirley is Rightist in opinions one would never know but I imagine that by being married to Keith she would have to be. Her son Jeff is certainly Right-leaning too. I get on well with Jeff. Another relative who I never really thought to be Right-wing is Alan M. He is the son of Maude, my mother's younger sister. Alan is a businessman so I suppose I should not have been surprised but he is so unassuming at family gatherings that nothing had ever come out. I had him and Suzy (his late wife) over to dinner at one time, however, and with a bit of drink in him it all came out. He is in fact nearly as extreme as Keith. His brother Don has always been towards the Right too. Most of my relatives are not very political however, like the great majority of Australians. At least I know of no Leftists among them.
<br><br>
Even my brother has turned out quite Right-wing, in fact. He really gets into a lot of the League of Rights stuff and is often the spokesman on TV etc for Brisbane gun-owners. I have to hose him down a bit at times to try to inject a more moderate note.
<br><br>
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FxANiZTp5MI/X6_GgiFBslI/AAAAAAAAAXs/X0TnKvzGkwwsMsn9ZCEW0g7NG_f6KZuUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s0/chris.jpg"><br>
My brother Christopher
<br><br><br><br>
<b>Views on assorted topics</b>:
<br><br>
<A name=1157></A>Religious beliefs: I myself no longer believe in anything metaphysical but I am happy for people to believe in anything they like -- Christianity, Buddhism or nothing at all. I may not have mentioned that I sent my son to a Catholic school for his first four years of schooling. Although I am personally an atheist, I liked the school because it was small and should thus give Joey more personal attention. And the religion that they are taught these days adds up to little more than Bible stories and such stories are a basic part of our culture in my view. So I think it shows that I have no religious prejudices anyway. I have in fact often found that I get on well with Catholic Priests -- probably because they are generally pretty intelligent (though I can think of exceptions to that too).
<br><br>
<A name=1158></A>Writers: Some philosophical writers whom I find helpful (though they can be hard to follow) are Wittgenstein, Popper, Russell, Ayer, and their ilk. They are probably the wisest philosophical writers available today but you usually have to do a course in philosophy at University in order to understand them. Among the more popular writers the main one I like is Dale Carnegie. I think his book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is one of the wisest book ever written. I also like the writings of Desmond Morris -- such as "The Naked Ape" and "The Human Zoo". Among the writers on psychology, I probably like the writings of H.J. Eysenck best. He writes very scientifically.
<br><br>
<A name=1159></A>Environmentalism: I am not a Greenie. I note such a lot of chronic dishonesty among Greenies that I am very wary of anything they say. They mostly seem to be into self-promotion, as far as I can see. I am however a greenie in the sense that most intelligent farmers are greenies --i.e. I am concerned about soil degradation, erosion etc. Environmentalism even strikes me as often having the character of a religion and religious I am not. I question things too much and too many environmental claims seem to me to be either quite dishonest or at the least badly misinformed. The Zero Population Growth advocates, for instance, overlook the fact that the population growth rate is in fact already NEGATIVE in most rich countries (even in Italy) so there is no global population problem at all. There is however a problem of poverty (with population growth as a side-effect) in non-industrial countries. If you were facing a future without the old age pension, you would probably want to have lots of kids too! But how many ZPG devotees are advocating the old age pension as the most effective contraceptive there is? Even Italians --for all their tradition of valuing the family above all --are actually quite good at controlling their fertility if the right incentives are there (particularly horrible capitalistic incentives like money). So to advocate biologically sensible policies that impinge on human beings you also need a fair grasp of that most complex of subjects --economics! Life can get tedious for sincere reformers can't it? To be sure that the difference you make is a good one, however, you do need to take an awful lot into account.
<br><br>
Anyway, all such problems are surely best discussed in the light of the evidence and evidence is all I personally care about in the matter. I will go wherever the evidence takes me. I do however always (and no doubt boringly) insist on taking account of ALL the available evidence. For instance, the apparent geological fact that we are at the moment living at the very end of an interglacial (warm) period within an Ice Age does tend to put a new perspective on the present controversies about global warming!
<br><br>
I still spend quite a bit of every day reading about developments in knowledge and what is happening in the world. I have plenty of time for that, of course, as I do not have to go to work. One thing I can assure everybody though is that I do NOT have all the answers. The more you get to know the more you realize there is still to be known.
<br><br>
<A name=1160></A>High culture: I am unfortunately pretty blind when it comes to the visual arts (painting, sculpture, ballet etc) but I get a lot out of music and literature. My favourite composer is Bach and my favourite poet is Chaucer. Chaucer is a bit inaccessible these days as he wrote in Middle English -- which is very hard to understand today. And poetry generally cannot really be translated, of course. I like Chaucer because he is so cynical and so timeless. He sounds as if he were a man of modern times despite the fact that he lived 600 years ago. Socrates and King Solomon are like that too. Solomon is my favourite Biblical writer --particularly the book of Ecclesiastes. I don't spend a lot of time on my cultural interests but they are something that I enjoy nonetheless. I occasionally go to classical concerts and I go to ballet and opera if I like the composer of the music.
<br><br>
I think that the only great misfortune I have had in my life is that I have never been able to stand crude music. I don't put on music a lot at home but I cannot abide to listen to anything that is not "classical". It is either classical music or silence for me. It's just a sensitivity I have.
<br><br>
<A name=1161></A>Women's Lib: Sociologists are generally very pro-feminist but I find a lot of women's liberation talk to be nonsense -- though I do of course agree with equal pay for equal work. I think that men and women can treat one-another as equals without men and women being the same. It seems to me that men and women will always be different and "Vive la difference". I don't want women to be like men. I like them to be feminine. And the idea that men should be more like women I find equally silly. In my experience, women like a man to be a man.
<br><br>
<A name=1162></A>Diet: I myself am a normal human omnivore and know of no solid evidence that anything else would be beneficial to me. The epidemiological studies seem to suggest that the only dietary restriction that is generally beneficial is to restrict one's intake of animal fats. I do however tend to eat anything that is put in front of me (as long as it is tasty).
<br><br>
I am not an "alternative" type of person. I am a mainstream scientist. Scientists are concerned about what the evidence shows and alternative people are concerned about what feels good to them. The path scientists take is much harder and more demanding but we generally feel that the effort is well worthwhile.
<br><br>
<A name=1163></A>World history: I have a great interest in both ancient and modern history. I think that you have to know history if you want to understand the modern world. My last big lot of reading in history was about Byzantium. It was a Greek empire that lasted over a thousand years and was even Christian but somehow seems to be little known to most people. I also have an interest in a rather esoteric topic in modern history: Prince Otto von Bismarck's Germany. Bismarck united Germany and gave it thereafter an amazing 40 years of peace and it was only some years after his death that the Kaiser initiated the great folly World War I in which so many Australians (and others) died..
<br><br>
<A name=1164></A>Politics and social issues: I have been a member of both the Queensland National Party and the British Conservative party. And I have never voted for any Leftist party. And I LOVED Ronald Reagan when he was President of the USA. I even voted for John Howard (A notable former Australian conservative Prime Minister) and think the controversial Pauline Hanson's idea of abolishing the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (i.e. affirmative action) is long overdue. And despite his undoubted crude style, I think Donald Trump did a lot of good for America. Under him 95% of American blacks had jobs. Hearing all that is probably enough for do-gooders to want to go out and chuck.
<br><br>
But anybody who has lived outside the capital cities of the Australian States will have found that views like mine are common there. I grew up in Far North Queensland and my views would generally be applauded there. Perhaps I am just too much of a typical North Queenslander, despite all my world travel and social psychological research background. I have probably had more papers on race relations published in the learned journals than anyone else but I still think that race differences are real and important and that all men are unequal (despite what is says in the American Declaration of Independence). I much prefer Torres Strait Islander people to Aborigines, for instance, though both are equally black.
<br><br>
<A name=1165></A>Marxism: My Doctorate (Ph.D.) is in psychology. I taught sociology for many years at Uni. NSW but I suppose I am more a social psychologist than a sociologist. In Australia and Britain (but not the USA) you seem to need to be a Marxist of some sort to be a sociologist. To me Marxism has always been the hallmark of the intellectually second-rate. Fancy thinking that governments are good at doing things! It is what intellectuals used to turn to when they wanted to seem original but in fact had nothing original to say at all. One reason why Marxism has had some popularity is its environmental determinism. It gives people the feeling that they can change most things, if not everything. If you look at the scientific evidence, however -- particularly the most recent evidence --an awful lot about human beings is genetically determined and hence relatively fixed and unchangeable. This gives people a feeling of impotence that they hate. Hence the popularity of nostrums which give them the illusion of control.
<br><br>
<A name=1166></A>Travel: I travelled so much in my earlier years (3 times to India, 3 times to the UK, 3 times to the USA etc.) that I now no longer have travel ambitions. I think that travel can easily be a vain attempt to run away from oneself and from the real world. People and places are much the same wherever you go in my experience. I was born and bred in Far North Queensland, which is scenically very beautiful so I suppose I am a bit blase about scenery. I grew up amid great scenery so now do not need to seek it out. Of all the places I have been, in fact, the most scenic to me would have to be the Cairns to Port Douglas road. So why go overseas? To get diarrhoea in Asia? Been there, done that. To try the foods of different lands? You can do that very well right here in Brisbane with all our ethnic restaurants. I have had Indian food in Sydney, Indian food in London and Indian food in India and I can assure you that there are restaurants here in Brisbane that give you Indian food that is as good as Indian food anywhere. (You might gather that I like Indian food). I have, however, been to Fiji and South Africa in recent years so I am not a total write-off in the travel department.
<br><br><br>
<A name=1170></A><b>FOOTNOTE:</b>
<br><br>
"Vanity of vanities. All is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). In my well-spent youth, I was on one occasion interviewed by a women's magazine about my lifestyle. Although I find it a bit embarrassing now, I have decided to put the interview on the net. See <a href="pol.html">here</a>. Note that the report is not totally accurate. I was NOT, for instance, divorced at the time. It is broadly representative of my thoughts then, however, so I am putting it on the net for the record's sake
<br><br><br><br>
Clickable Index to the above:
<br><br>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1111">Origins</A><br><br>
<b>Detailed self-description:</b><br>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1112 ">Physical </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1113 ">Attitudes </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1114 ">Interests </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1115 ">History </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1116 ">Education </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1117 ">Work </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1118 ">Marital </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1119 "> Home </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1120 ">Vices </A><br><br>
<b>Some recollections:</b><br>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1121 ">Earliest times </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1122 ">Early education </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1123 ">Innisfail generally </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1124 ">Early politics </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1125 ">Cairns </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1126 ">Secondary school </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1127 ">Early reading </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1128 ">Food </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1129 ">Gardening </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1729 ">In the news</A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1130 ">Family </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1131 ">Brisbane </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1132 ">Working in Brisbane </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1133 ">Culture vulture </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1134 ">Poem </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1135 ">Matriculating </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1136 ">Languages </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1137 ">Customs officer </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1138 ">University student </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1139 ">1967 federal election </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1140 ">In the Army </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1141 ">Police spy </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1142 ">FORTRAN </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1143 "> Sydney 1968 </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1144 ">Macquarie university </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1145 ">Baroque Music Club </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1146 "> Mensa </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1147 "> Teaching sociology </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1148 ">Party animal </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1149 ">London </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1150 ">Locked in! </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1151 ">Cats </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1152 ">Eating out </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1153 ">Overseas again </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1154 ">Dogs </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1155 ">Family </A><br><br>
<b>Views on assorted topics:</b><br>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1157 ">Religious beliefs </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1158 ">Writers </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1159 "> Environmentalism </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1160 ">High culture </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1161 ">Women's Lib </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1162 "> Diet </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1163 ">World history </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1164 "> Politics and social issues </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1165 "> Marxism </A>
<br> <A href="intbio3.html#1166 "> Travel </A><br>
<br> <A href="https://memoirsjr.blogspot.com/2020/08/my-year-so-far.html">2020 Epilogue </A>
<br><br> <br><br>
<b>Some personal links:</b>
<br><br>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/geneol.html">Some of my geneology</a>
<br><br>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/finale.html">Some chronology</a>
<br><br>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/anndex.html">A home page for Anne, a lady in my life</a>
<br><br>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/mymenu.html">An index to a series of short notes about events and observations in my life from the late 1990s on </a>
<br><br> <br><br>
<br>
<br> <a href="index.html">Index page for this site</a> <br><br> <br>
<b>DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:</b>
<br>
<br> <a href="http://snorphty.blogspot.com/"> "Tongue Tied" </a>
<br> <a href="http://dissectleft.blogspot.com"> "Dissecting Leftism" </a>
<br> <a href="http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/"> "Australian Politics" </a>
<br> <a href="http://edwatch.blogspot.com"> "Education Watch International" </a>
<br> <a href="http://pcwatch.blogspot.com"> "Political Correctness Watch" </a>
<br> <a href="http://antigreen.blogspot.com"> "Greenie Watch" </a>
<br> <a href="http://awesternheart.blogspot.com">Western Heart</a>
<br> <br><br>
<b>BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:</b>
<br>
<br>
<br> <a href="http://marxwords.blogspot.com"> "Marx & Engels in their own words" </a>
<br> <a href="http://ntwords.blogspot.com"> "A scripture blog"</a>
<br> <a href="http://recipoz.blogspot.com">"Recipes"</a>
<br> <a href="http://memoirsjr.blogspot.com"> "Some memoirs"</a>
<br> <a href="http://xtractsof.blogspot.com.au/"> "Paralipomena"</a>
<br> <a href="http://jonjayray1.blogspot.com.au">To be continued .... </a>
<br> <a href="http://foxhunt.blogspot.com">Of Interest</a>
<br> <a href="http://jrwik.blogspot.com.au/">My alternative Wikipedia</a>
<br> <a href="http://matlaugh.blogspot.com.au/">Laughing at New Matilda</a>
<br> <a href="http://dagdres.blogspot.com.au/">Dagmar Schellenberger is an operatic genius</a>
<br>
<br>
<i>Updated as news items come in:</i>
<br>
<br> <a href="http://stgeorgeoz.blogspot.com.au/">Coral reef compendium</a>.
<br> <a href="http://vodafrauds.blogspot.com.au/">IQ compendium</a>
<br> <a href="http://qldcops.blogspot.com">Queensland Police -- A barrel with lots of bad apples</a>
<br> <a href="http://jrtestemp.blogspot.com.">Australian Police News</a>
<br><br><br>
<b>BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED</b>
<br>
<br> <a href="http://john-ray.blogspot.com"> "Food & Health Skeptic" </a>
<br> <a href="http://eyeuk.wordpress.com"> "Eye on Britain" </a>
<br> <a href="http://immigwatch.blogspot.com/"> "Immigration Watch International"</a>.
<br> <a href="http://heghinian.blogspot.com"> "Leftists as Elitists" </a>
<br> <a href="http://socglory.blogspot.com.au/">Socialized Medicine</a>
<br> <a href="http://ofint2.blogspot.com">OF INTEREST (2)</a>
<br> <a href="http://qantoct.blogspot.com">QANTAS -- A dying octopus</a>
<br> <a href="http://brianleiter.blogspot.com">BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)</a>
<br> <a href="http://obamology.blogspot.com">Obama Watch</a>
<br> <a href="http://dumbama.blogspot.com">Obama Watch (2)</a>
<br> <a href="http://jonjayray.blogspot.com">Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site</a>
<br> <a href="http://mdarby.blogspot.com">Michael Darby</a>
<br> <a href="http://agl-oz.blogspot.com.au">AGL -- A bumbling monster</a>
<br> <a href="http://telstra-bigpond.blogspot.com">Telstra/Bigpond follies</a>
<br> <a href="http://optus-australia.blogspot.com">Optus bungling</a>
<br> <a href="http://vodafrauds.blogspot.com">Vodafrauds (vodafone)</a>
<br> <a href="http://hickbank.blogspot.com.">Bank of Queensland blues</a>
<br><br><br>
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles <a href="http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/">here</a> and <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/">here</a>. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles <a href="http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html">here</a> or <a href="http://johnjayray.com/short/short.html">here</a> (I rarely write long articles these days)
<br><br><br>
<br> <a href="http://jonjayray.com/main.html"> Main academic menu</a>
<br> <a href="http://jonjayray.com/menu.html">Menu of recent writings</a>
<br> <a href="http://jonjayray.com/homepage.html"> basic home page</a>
<br> <a href="http://jonjayray.com/">Pictorial Home Page</a>
<br> <a href="http://jonjayray.tripod.com/angloed.html">Selected pictures from blogs</a> (Backup <a href="http://johnjayray.com/angloed.html">here</a>)
<br> <a href="http://jonjayray.googlepages.com/home">Another picture page</a> (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)
<br><br> <br><br>
<b>Note:</b> If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: <br>
<font color="#ff0000"> http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/ </font>
<br><br>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-1156948475197404062006-08-19T02:03:00.000+11:302007-04-12T12:22:07.001+11:30<font size="+1"> <br /><b><br />ALL PUBLISHED PAPERS BY J.J. RAY IN NORMAL REFERENCE ORDER: <br />(All articles can be viewed online here by clicking on the article name)</b><br /> </font><br /><br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/collapse.html">Balakrishnan, R. & Ray, J.J. (1983) A failure of the catchphrase achievement motivation scale in South India. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 120, 279-280. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/sexfos.html">Davis, M., Ray, J.J. & Burt, J.S. (1987) Sex roles and fear of success: A general population study. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>, 8 (3), 431-432. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/gul.html">Gul, F.A. & Ray, J.J. (1989) Pitfalls in using the F scale to measure authoritarianism in accounting research. <i>Behavioral Research in<br /> Accounting</i> 1, 182-192. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/disutil.html">Heaven, P.C.L., Rajab, D. & Ray, J.J. (1985) Patriotism, racism and the disutility of the ethnocentrism concept. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 125, 181-185. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nonauaf.html">Heaven, P.C.L. & Ray, J.J. (1980) Non-authoritarian Afrikaners. In: P.C.L. Heaven (Ed.) <i>Authoritarianism: South African studies</i> Bloemfontein: De Villiers.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/valsch.html">Jones, J.M. & Ray, J.J. (1984) Validating the schoolchildren's attitude to authority and authoritarianism scales. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 141-142. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/vinod.html">Kool, V.K. & Ray, J.J. (1983) <i>Authoritarianism across cultures</i> Bombay, India: Himalaya. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ocedaohk.html">Leung, M., Ray, J.J. & Low, W.J.F. (1983) The comparative measurement of motivation towards educational and occupational achievement -- among Hong Kong Chinese. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 293-294. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/rudin.html">Martin, J. & Ray, J.J. (1972) Anti-authoritarianism: An indicator of pathology. "<i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 24, 13-18.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/medstud.html">Najman, J.M., Davis, M. & Ray, J.J. (1986) Personal qualities of students selected for entry to medical school. <i>Australian J. Social Issues</i> 21, 228-232. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/xism.html">Ray, J.J. (1970) Christianism.... The Protestant ethic among unbelievers. <i>J. Christian Education</i>, 13, 169-176. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/baldog1.html"> Ray, J.J. (1970) The development and validation of a balanced Dogmatism scale. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i>, 22, 253-260. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/qclass.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) The questionnaire measurement of social class. <i>Australian & New Zealand J. Sociology</i> 7(April), 58-64.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ethatt.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) Ethnocentrism: Attitudes and behaviour. <i>Australian Quarterly</i>, 43, 89-97. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/lynnlet.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) Correspondence: Regarding the Lynn n-Ach test. <i>Bulletin British Psychological Society</i>, 24, 352. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/newmeas.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) "A new measure of conservatism" -- Its limitations. <i>British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology</i>, 10, 79-80. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/aa.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) An "Attitude to Authority" scale. <i>Australian Psychologist</i>, 6, 31-50. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/berry.html">Ray, J.J. (1971) Australians authoritarian? A critique of J.W. Berry. <i>Politics</i> 6, 92. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/jonesrep.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Subjective class -- A reply to Jones. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 8(Feb.), 18. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/cogsimp.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Is antisemitism a cognitive simplification? Some observations on Australian Neo-Nazis. <i>Jewish J. Sociology</i> <br /> 15, 207-213. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/knowledg.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Are all races equally intelligent? Or: When is knowledge knowledge? <i>J. Human Relations</i> 20, 71-75. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/immig.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) In defence of Australia's policy towards non-white immigration. In F.S. Stevens (Ed.) <i>Racism, the Australian <br /> experience</i> vol. 3. Sydney: ANZ Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/bridge.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) What are Australian Nazis really like? <i>The Bridge</i> 7(2), 15-21. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ascale.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Non-ethnocentric authoritarianism. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 8(June), 96-102.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/consirr.html"> Ray, J.J. (1972) Are conservatism scales irreversible? <i>British J. Social & Clinical Psychology</i> 11, 346-352. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/cause.html"> Ray, J.J. (1972) A psycholinguistic account of causality. <i>Bulletin of the British Psychological Society</i>, 25, 15-18.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/polidef.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) The measurement of political deference: Some Australian data. <i>British Journal of Political Science</i> 2, 244-251.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/acag.html">Ray, J.J.(1972) Acceptance of aggression and Australian voting preference. <i>Australian Quarterly </I> 44, 64-70. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/newrel.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) A new reliability maximization procedure for Likert scales. <i>Australian Psychologist</i> 7, 40-46. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nscale.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) NSCALE -- A program to analyse and score a scale battery. <i>Behavioral Science</i> 17, 490-491. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/milit.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Militarism, authoritarianism, neuroticism and anti-social behavior. <i>Journal of Conflict Resolution</i> 16, 319-340. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/newbf.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) A new balanced F scale -- And its relation to social class. <i>Australian Psychologist</i> 7, 155-166. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/militrej.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Militarism and psychopathology: A reply to Eckhardt & Newcombe <i>J. Conflict Resolution</i>, 16, 357-362. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/mental.html">Ray, J.J. (1972) Do mental events exist? Physiological adumbrations. <i>British J. Psychiatry</i> 120, 129-132. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/antisem.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) Antisemitic types in Australia. <i>Patterns of Prejudice</i> 7(1), 6-16. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/task.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) Task orientation and interaction orientation scales. <i>Personnel Psychology</i> 26, 61-73. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ma.html"> Ray, J.J. (1973) Conservatism, authoritarianism and related variables: A review and an empirical study. Ch. 2 in: G.D. Wilson (Ed.) <i>The psychology of conservatism</i> London: Academic Press. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/dogcon.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) Dogmatism in relation to sub-types of conservatism: Some Australian data. <i>European J. Social Psychology</i> 3, 221-232. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/factora.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) Factor analysis and attitude scales. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 9(3), 11-13. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/doctors.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) The folly of nationalizing Australian doctors <i>Nation Review</i> Vol. 3, No. 31, May 18-24, p. 946. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/bhp.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) Justice for BHP. <i>Nation Review</i> vol. 3 No. 32, May 25-31, p. 978. <br /></a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/insur.html">Ray, J.J. (1973) The dead truth about life insurance <i>Nation Review</i> vol. 3 no. 30 of May 11-17 </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/baldog2.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Balanced Dogmatism scales. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 26, 9-14. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ausenv.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Environmentalism as a trait. <i>The Planner</i> 14, 52-62. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/projrel.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Projective tests <i>can</i> be made reliable: The measurement of achievement motivation. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 38, 303-307. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/trait.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Are trait self-ratings as valid as multi-item scales? A study of achievement motivation. <i>Australian Psychologist</i><br /> 9, 44-49. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/howgood.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) How good is the Wilson & Patterson Conservatism scale? <i>New Zealand Psychologist</i> 3, 21-26. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/berg.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Book review of <i>Education and jobs: The great training robbery</i> by Ivar Berg. <i>Feedback</i>, 14, 7.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/socistat.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Should sociology require statistics? <i>Pacific Sociological Review</i> 17, 370-376. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/chapters.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><blockquote><b>Note:</b><br /><br />The above book contains 55 chapters, some of which are substantial articles in their own right. A SAMPLING of them is given below:<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/intro.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) What is Conservatism? A Personal Preface. Introduction in J.J. Ray (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as Heresy</i>. Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co., 1974</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/zpg.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Are people pollution? Ch. 1 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/minerals.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Is there a minerals and energy crisis? Ch. 3 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/decent.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Decentralization: Or the myth that it is good to get people to settle where they don't want to. Ch. 6 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/rhod.html"> Ray, J.J. (1974) Rhodesia: In defence of Mr. Smith. Ch. 10 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/racaust.html"> Ray, J.J. (1974) Racism in Australia?. Ch. 12 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/strikers.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) How to control union power. Ch. 17 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ecnat.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Economic nationalism and foreign investment. Ch. 19 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/protind.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Protecting Australian industry. Ch 21 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/health.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) The National Health and the case for prepaid medical care. Ch. 24 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> <br /> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/freesp.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Free speech versus Leftist censorship. Ch. 29 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/overed.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Are we over-educated? Ch. 31 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/thearts.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Subsidies to "The Arts" Ch. 33 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/elites.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) The "Power Elite" Ch. 34 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/mental.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Do mental events exist or is man just a protein machine? Ch. 39 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> <br /> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/self.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Is self-theory the hypostatization of a syncategorematic word? Ch. 40 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/hr.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Authoritarian humanism. Ch. 42 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/wocla1.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Are the workers authoritarian, conservative or both? Ch. 43 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/racethno.html"> Ray, J.J. (1974) Are racists ethnocentric? Ch. 46 in Ray, J.J. <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/whoali.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Who are the alienated? Ch. 52 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/moralism.html">Ray, J.J. (1974) Moralism and politics. Ch 53 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) <i>Conservatism as heresy</i> Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co. </a><br /><br /></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/envisca.html">Ray, J.J. (1975) Measuring environmentalist attitudes. <i>Australian & New Zealand J. Sociology</i> 11(2), 70-71. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nachinv.html">Ray, J.J. (1975) A behavior inventory to measure achievement motivation. <i>J. Social Psychology</i> 95, 135-136.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/polls.html">Ray, J.J. (1975) Public opinion polls and attitude measurement. <i>Current Affairs Bulletin</i> 52, 24-30. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/factora.html">Ray, J.J. (1975) Some dimensions of factor analysis that are not worth finding out: A reply to Gow. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 11(1), 29. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nachinv.html">Ray, J.J. (1975) A behavior inventory to measure achievement motivation. <i>J. Social Psychology</i> 95, 135-136.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/thomas.html"> Ray, J.J. (1976) Authoritarianism and racial prejudice in Australia: A reply to Thomas. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 99, 163-166. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/tyranny.html">Ray, J.J. (1976) Authoritarianism Left and Right -- The assault on Freedom. Paper delivered to a "Principles of Freedom" seminar sponsored by the Centre for Independent Studies at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia on Friday, 8th October, 1976. </a><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/dir.html">Ray, J.J. (1976) Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes? <i>Human Relations</i>, 29, 307-325. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/scotauth.html">Ray, J.J. (1978) Are Scottish nationalists authoritarian and conservative? <i>European J. Political Research</i> 6, 411-418. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/detraci.html">Ray, J.J. (1978) Determinants of racial attitudes. <i>Patterns of Prejudice</i> 12(5), 27-32. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/diffscot.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) How different are the Scots and English? <i>Contemporary Review </I> 234, 158-159. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authcons.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Does authoritarianism of personality go with conservatism? <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 31, 9-14.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authscot.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Authoritarianism in Australia, England and Scotland. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 108, 271-272. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/solidcit.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) The authoritarian as measured by a personality scale: Solid citizen or misfit? <i>J. Clinical Psychology</i> 35, 744-746. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/shortbf.html"> Ray, J.J. (1979) A short balanced F scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 109, 309-310.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/notmyth.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Is the acquiescent response style not so mythical after all? Some results from a successful balanced F scale.<br /> <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 43, 638-643. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/eec.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Opposition to the Common Market in England and Scotland. <i>British J. Sociology</i> 30, 218-221. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/pricecon.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Price control and history. <i>Quadrant</i> 23 (7), 44, 69.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/dogirr.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Is the Dogmatism scale irreversible? <i>South African Journal of Psychology</i> 9, 104-107. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/whiteatt.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) White South Africans' views of blacks. <i>Patterns of Prejudice</i> 13(6), 15-17. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/paradox.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) The Scottish paradox. <i>Quadrant</i> 23(10), 27-29. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/quickao.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) A quick measure of achievement motivation -- validated in Australia and reliable in Britain and South Africa. <i>Australian Psychologist</i> 14, 337-344. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/josumpt.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) Is equality morally obnoxious? <i>Quadrant</i> 23(11), 68-69. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/pugh.html">Ray, J.J. (1979) BOOK REVIEW of <i>The Biological Origins of Human Values</i> by George Edgin Pugh. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i>, 31 (3), 234-235. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authext.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) Are authoritarians extroverted? <i>British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology</i> 19, 147-148. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/whitesa.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Racism and authoritarianism among white South Africans. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 110, 29-37. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authcal.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarianism in California 30 years later -- with some cross-cultural comparisons. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 111, 9-17. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authtol.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarian tolerance. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 111, 303-304. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authost.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarianism and hostility. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 112, 307-308. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/libertar.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) Libertarians and the authoritarian personality. <I> J. Libertarian Studies</I> 4, 39-43. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nachauth.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) Achievement motivation as an explanation of authoritarian behaviour: Data from Australia, South Africa California, England and Scotland. Chapter in: P.C.L. Heaven (Ed.) <I> Authoritarianism: South African studies</I> Bloemfontein: De Villiers. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/luck.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Belief in luck and locus of control. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 111, 299-300. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/enviraus.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) The psychology of environmental concern: Some Australian data. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 1,161-163.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/compnach.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) The comparative validity of Likert, projective and forced-choice indices of achievement motivation. <i>J. Social Psychology</i>, 111, 63-72. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/orthlib.html"> Ray, J.J. (1980) Orthogonality between liberalism and conservatism. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 112, 215-218. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/howmany.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) How many answer categories should attitude and personality scales use? <i>South African Journal of Psychology</i> 10, 53-54. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/coal.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) Does living near a coal mine change your attitude to the environment: A case study of the Hunter valley. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 16(3), 110-111. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/acqwil.html">Ray, J.J. (1980) Acquiescence and the Wilson Conservatism scale. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>, 1, 303-305. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/porritt.html">Ray,J.J. (1980) Acquiescence and coefficient Alpha: A reply to Porritt. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 32, 144-150. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nachcat.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Measuring achievement motivation by immediate emotional reactions. <i>J. Social Psychology</i>, 113, 85-93. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/newnat.html"> Ray, J.J. (1981) The new Australian nationalism. <i>Quadrant</i>, 25(1-2), 60-62. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/attabo.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Explaining Australian attitudes towards Aborigines <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 4, 348-352. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/polnach.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) The politics of achievement motivation. <i>J. Social Psychology</i>, 115, 137-138. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/engscot.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) English attitudes to Scottish nationalism. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 115, 141-142. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/manila.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Achievement motivation and authoritarianism in Manila and some Anglo-Saxon cities. <i>J. Social Psychology</i> 115, 3-8.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/feather.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Sample homogeneity, response skewness and acquiescence: A reply to Feather. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 33, 41-46. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nonsamp.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Is the ideal sample a non-sample? <I> Bulletin of the British Psychological Society</I> 34, 128-129. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nedkelly.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Is the Ned Kelly syndrome dead? Some Australian data on attitudes to shoplifting. <I> Australian & New Zealand J. Criminology</I> 14, 249-252. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/audomass.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Authoritarianism, dominance and assertiveness. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 45, 390-397. <br /> </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/bagverma.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Book Review of C. Bagley G.K. Verma, "Racial prejudice: The individual and society" <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 4, 368-369. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/conmisan.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Conservatism and misanthropy. <i>Political Psychology</i> 3(1/2), 158-172. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authill.html">Ray, J.J. (1981) Do authoritarian attitudes or authoritarian personality reflect mental illness? <I> S. African J. Psychology</I><br /> 11, 153-157. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/morals.html"> Ray, J.J. (1981) The morals of attitudes. <I> J. Social Psychology</I> , 115, 227-235. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authindi.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Authoritarianism and achievement motivation in India. <I> J. Social Psychology</I> 117, 171-182.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/deathsa.html"> Ray, J.J. (1982) Attitude to the death penalty in South Africa -- with some international comparisons. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 116, 287-288.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/attanim.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Love of animals and love of people.<i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 116, 299-300. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/proteth.html"> Ray, J.J. (1982) The Protestant ethic in Australia. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 116, 127-138. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nachprob.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Achievement motivation and preferred probability of success. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 116, 255-261.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/climate.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Climate and conservatism in Australia. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 117, 297-298. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/cluspop.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) A cluster analytic exploration of what underlies popular social science constructs. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 116, 263-267.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authlib2.html"> Ray, J.J. (1982) Authoritarianism/libertarianism as the second dimension of social attitudes. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 117, 33-44. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/bloom.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Machiavellianism, forced-choice scales and the validity of the F scale: A rejoinder to Bloom. <I> J. Clinical Psychology</I> 38, 779-782. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/consval.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) The construct validity of balanced Likert scales. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 118, 141-142. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/prisent.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Prison sentences and public opinion. <i>Australian Quarterly </I> 54, 435-443. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/defali.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Towards a definitive alienation scale. <i>J. Psychology</i>, 112, 67-70. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/tableaus.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Australia's Deep North and America's Deep South: Effects of climate on conservatism, authoritarianism and attitude to love. <I> Tableaus</I> 169, 4-7. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/stats.html">Ray, J.J. (1982) Survey research and attitude measurement. <i>The University of New South Wales, Continuing Education</i></a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/lipset.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) The workers are not authoritarian: Attitude and personality data from six countries. <i>Sociology & Social Research</i>, 67 (2), 166-189. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/contact.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Racial attitudes and the contact hypothesis. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 3-10. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/parsindi.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Ambition and dominance among the Parsees of India. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 173-179.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/amercons.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) A scale to measure conservatism of American public opinion. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 293-294. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/machval.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Defective validity of the Machiavellianism scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 291-292. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan007.pdf">Ray, J.J. (1983) Towards a more pragmatic penal system. <I> Australian & New Zealand J. Criminology</I> 16, 224-230. </a> (Online in PDF format) <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/altconau.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Some alternative conceptions of authoritarianism: with applications in Australia, England, Scotland and South Africa In: V.K. Kool J.J. Ray (Eds.) <I> Authoritarianism across cultures</I><br /> Bombay, India: Himalaya Publishing. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/britauth.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Is Britain an authoritarian society? In: V.K. Kool J.J. Ray (eds.) <I> Authoritarianism across cultures</I> Bombay, India:<br /> Himalaya Publishing. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/reviving.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 121, 81-96. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/halfauth.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Half of all authoritarians are Left-wing: A reply to Eysenck and Stone. <i>Political Psychology</i>, 4, 139-144. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/clus.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) A comparison between cluster and "random" sampling. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 121, 155-156.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/psypat.html"> Ray, J.J. (1983) Psychopathy, anxiety and malingering. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>, 4, 351-353. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/raceanx.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Race and climate as influences on anxiety. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>, 4, 699-701. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/devimedi.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Perceived deviance, personality and media exposure in Sydney. <I> Media Information Australia</I> 30, 69-70. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/protcomm.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Protecting the community first: A rejoinder. <I> Australian and New Zealand J. Criminology</I> 16, 242-243. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/alt1.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Book review of "Right-wing authoritarianism" by R.A. Altemeyer "<i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 35, 267-268.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/hanf.html">Ray, J.J. (1983) Book review of "South Africa: The prospects for peaceful change" By Hanf, Weiland Vierdag <I> Ethnic & Racial Studies</I> 6, 363-364. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/dematt.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Combining demographic and attitude variables to predict vote. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 145-146. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/catalog.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) Alternatives to the F scale in the measurement of authoritarianism: A catalog. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 105-119.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/senseek.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Political radicals as sensation seekers. <I> J. Social Psychology</I> 122, 293-294. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/rump.html">Ray, J.J. (1984). Cognitive styles and authoritarianism: A comment on Rigby & Rump. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 283-284. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/shortsd.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) The reliability of short social desirability scales. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 123, 133-134. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/crims.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarian attitudes and authoritarian personality among recidivist prisoners. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 5, 265-272. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/alidog.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Alienation, dogmatism and acquiescence. <I> J. Clinical Psychology</I> 40, 1007-1008.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/audom.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarian dominance, self-esteem and manifest anxiety. <i>South African Journal of Psychology</i> 14, 144-146. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/callan.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Attitudes towards immigrants in Australia: A comment on Callan. <I> International Migration Review</I> 18, 373-374. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/aborlife.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Attitude to abortion, attitude to life and conservatism in Australia. <i>Sociology & Social Research</i> 68, 236-246. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/halfraci.html">Ray, J.J. (1984). Half of all racists are Left-wing. <i>Political Psychology</i>, 5, 227-236. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nachrace.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Achievement motivation as a source of racism, conservatism and authoritarianism. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 123, 21-28</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/wheel1.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Reinventing the wheel: Winkler, Kanouse Ware on acquiescent response set. <I> J. Applied Psychology</I> 69, 353-355. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/wheel2.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) A further comment on the Winkler, Kanouse & Ware method of controlling for acquiescent response bias.<br /> <I> J. Applied Psychology</I> 69, 359. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/meure.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Prison sentences and public opinion revisited. <i>Australian Quarterly </I> 56(2), 192-194. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/shost1.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) A caution against use of the Shostrom Personal Orientation inventory. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 5, 755. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/traitanx.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Measuring trait anxiety in general population samples. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 123, 189-193. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/collbf.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) The effect of collapsing response categories on the balanced F scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 123, 279-280. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/spacing.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarianism and interpersonal spacing behavior. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 5, 601-602. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/duck.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) Directiveness and authoritarianism: A rejoinder to Duckitt. <i>South African Journal of Psychology</i> 14, 64.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/socitend.html"> Ray, J.J. (1984) Socialist tendencies among conservatives in Australia. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 123, 195-198. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/moderato.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Locus of control as a moderator of the relationship between level of aspiration and achievement motivation. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 124, 131-133. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/confus.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Confusions in defining A-B personality type: A rejoinder to Jenkins & Zyzanski. <i>British Journal of Medical Psychology</i> 57, 385 </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/correct.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarianism, A-B personality and coronary heart disease: A correction. <i>British Journal of Medical Psychology</i> 57, 386.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ecaff.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Governments <I> do</I> compete for citizens -- in Australia. <I> Economic Affairs</I> 5(1), 60. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/buchele.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Some pitfalls in measuring perceived locus of control as an economic variable: A comment on Buchele. <I> J. Human Resources</I> 19, 580 - 581. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/caste.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) The effect of caste and education on achievement motivation and authoritarianism. <I> Personality Study & Group Behaviour</I> 4(1), 8-12. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/catnach.html">Ray, J.J. (1984) Self-report measures of achievement motivation: A catalog. Document ED 237 523, ERIC Clearinghouse on tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/leftpath.html">Ray, J.J. (1985). The psychopathology of the political Left. <I> High School Journal</I>, 68, 415-423. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/smokiq.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Smoking and intelligence in Australia. <I> Social Science & Medicine</I> 20, 1279-1280.</a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/attlove.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Conservatives, permissives and love. <i>Quadrant</i> 29(1 2), 39-40. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authlef2.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Authoritarianism of the Left revisited. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 6, 271-272. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/vale.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Present and future changes in South Africa: A comment on Vale. <i>Contemporary Review </I> 247(1435), 82-85. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/curbing.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Curbing union militancy in Australia. <i>Contemporary Review </I> 247(1436), 143-144. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ransamp.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Random sampling might not be impossible after all. <i>Political Psychology</i> 6, 141-146. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/wocl2.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Using multiple class indicators to examine working class ideology. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I> 6, 557-562. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/altdef.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Defective validity in the Altemeyer authoritarianism scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology </I> 125, 271-272. <br /> </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/skewness.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Acquiescence and response skewness in scale construction: A paradox. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 6, 655-656. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/blacrime.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Blacks and the crime rate: Some observations from Australia.<i>Sociology & Social Research</i> 69, 590-591. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/fos.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Fear of success and level of aspiration. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 125, 395-396. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/billig.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Racism and rationality: A reply to Billig. <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 8, 441-443. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/beitrag.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) Acquiescent response bias as a recurrent psychometric disease: Conservatism in Japan, the U.S.A. and New Zealand.<br /><I> Psychologische Beitraege</I> 27, 113-119. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/oldies.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) What old people believe: Age, sex and conservatism. <i>Political Psychology</i> 6, 525-528. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/punit.html">Ray, J.J. (1985) The punitive personality. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 125, 329-334. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/sydparsi.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) The traits of immigrants: A case study of the Sydney Parsees. <I> J. Comparative Family Studies</I> 17, 127-130. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/selfnach.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Measuring achievement motivation by self-reports.<I> Psychological Reports</I> 58, 525-526. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/defamed.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Letter to the editor regarding Carlson's review of <i>"Authoritarianism across cultures"</i>. <I> Political Psychology</I>, 7, 395-396. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/psychabs.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) The inadequacy of "Psychological Abstracts" <I> Bulletin of the British Psychological Society</I> 39, 184-185. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/eysatt.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Eysenck on social attitudes: An historical critique. pp. 155-173 in: S. Modgil & C.M. Modgil (Eds.) <I> Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy</I> Lewes, E. Sussex, U.K.: Falmer. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/brandray.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Ray replies to Brand. pp 176-178 in: S. Modgil & C.M. Modgil (Eds.) <I> Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy</I> Lewes, E. Sussex, U.K.: Falmer. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/assaudom.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Assertiveness as authoritarianism and dominance. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 126, 809-810. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/altab.html">Ray, J.J. (1986) Alternatives to the A-B personality concept in predicting coronary heart disease. <I> Personality Study & Group Behaviour</I> 6(2), 1-8. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/shost2.html"> Ray, J.J. (1986) Perils in clinical use of the Shostrom POI: A reply to Hattie. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 7, 591. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/eisler.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Conservatism and attitude to love: An empirical rebuttal of Eisler & Loye. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 8, 731-732. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/alt87.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Special review of "Right-wing authoritarianism" by R.A. Altemeyer. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 8, 771-772. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/clasenvi.html"> Ray, J.J. (1987) A participant observation study of social class among environmentalists. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 127, 99-100. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/alirad.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Radicalism and alienation. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 127, 219-220. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/slom.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Complex jobs and complex mental processes: A comment on Miller, Slomczynski Kohn. <I> American J. Sociology</I> 93, 441-442. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/themes.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Sources and themes of papers in "The Australian Journal of Psychology": 1970-1985. <i>Australian Psychologist</i> 22, 393-395. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/maier.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) Intolerance of ambiguity among psychologists: A comment on Maier & Lavrakas. <I> Sex Roles</I> 16, 559-562. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/valiself.html">Ray, J.J. (1987) The validity of self-reports. <I> Personality Study & Group Behaviour</I> 7(1), 68-70. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/elderly.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Lie scales and the elderly. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 9, 417-418. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/kelley.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Sexual liberation, old-fashioned outlook, and authoritarianism: A comment on Kelley. <I> J. Sex Research</I> 24, 385-387. </a><br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/yarn.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) A-B personality type and dominance: A comment on Yarnold & Grimm. <I> J. Research in Personality</I> 22, 252-253. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/fantasy.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Cognitive style as a predictor of authoritarianism, conservatism and racism: A fantasy in many movements. <i>Political Psychology</i> 9, 303-308. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/bagley.html"> Ray, J.J. (1988) Racism and personal adjustment: Testing the Bagley hypothesis in Germany and South Africa. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 9, 685-686. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/whyf.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Why the F scale predicts racism: A critical review. <i>Political Psychology</i> 9(4), 671-679. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/anarch.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Authoritarianism, racism and anarchocapitalism: A rejoinder to Eckhardt. <i>Political Psychology</i> 9(4), 693-699. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/smeds.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) Semantic overlap between scale items may be a good thing: Reply to Smedslund. <I> Scandinavian J. Psychology</I> <br /> 29, 145-147. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/iqgain.html">Ray, J.J. (1988) IQ gain as an outcome of improved obstetric practice. <i>The Psychologist</i> 1, 498. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/scistud.html"> Ray, J.J. (1989) The scientific study of ideology is too often more ideological than scientific. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 10, 331-336. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/anxafrik.html">Ray, J.J. (1989) Anxiety and racism among urban Afrikaners. <i>Journal of Social Psychology </I> 129, 135-136. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/kirkc.html">Ray, J.J. (1989) Hypertension and personality: A comment on Thomas & Kirkcaldy. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 10, 1101. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/homebirt.html">Ray, J.J. (1989) Homebirth and IQ. <i>The Psychologist</i>, 2, 443. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/oz3auth.html"> Ray, J.J. (1989) Authoritarianism research is alive and well -- In Australia: A review. <I> Psychological Record</I>, 39, 555-561. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/yarnold.html"> Ray, J.J. (1989) A-B may not predict heart disease but many other scales do. Is it time to abandon A-B? <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> ? (UQ collection defective) </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/alt.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Book Review: <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i>, 42, 87-111. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authrig.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarian behavior and political orientation: A comment on Rigby. <i>Journal of Personality Assessment</i> 54, 419-422. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/achanx.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) Some cross-cultural explorations of the relationship between achievement motivation and anxiety. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>, 11, 91-93. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/raccls.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) Racism, conservatism and social class in Australia: With German, Californian and South African comparisons. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 11, 187-189. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/gross.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) Racist extremism and normal prejudice: A comment on Grossarth-Maticek, Eysenck & Vetter. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 11, 647-648. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/byrne.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarianism as a cause of heart disease: Reply to Byrne, Reinhart & Heaven. <I> British J. Medical Psychology</I>, 63, 287-288. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/sidrej.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Politics and cognitive style: A rejoinder to Sidanius and Ward. <i>Political Psychology</i> 11, 441-444. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/altenemy.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Letter to the editor about Altemeyer's <i>Enemies of Freedom</i>. In: <i>Canadian Psychology</i>, 31, 392-393. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/altem.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Book Review: <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 11, 763-764. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/oldfas.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) The old-fashioned personality. <I> Human Relations</I>, 43, 997-1015. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/duckitt.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct: Comment. <i>Political Psychology</i>, 11, 629-632. <br /> </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/meloen.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Authoritarianism and political racism: A comment on Meloen, Hagendoorn, Raaijmakers and Visser. <i>Political Psychology</i> 11, 815-817. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/rump2.html">Ray, J.J. (1990) Intolerance of ambiguity and authoritarianism: A comment on Rump. <I> Psychology</I>, 27 (4), 71-72. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/witt.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) AIDS, authoritarianism and scientific ignorance -- A comment on Witt. <I> J. Applied Social Psychology</I>, 20, 1453-1455.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/forcho.html"> Ray, J.J. (1990) Acquiescence and problems with forced-choice scales. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 130(3), 397-399.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/howitt.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) "Racism in a British journal" <i>The Psychologist</i>, 4(1), 18-19 </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/middend.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) The workers are not authoritarian: Rejoinder to Middendorp & Meloen. <I> European J. Political Research</I>, 20, 209-212. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/peterson.html">Ray, J.J. (1991) Book review of: <i>Political Behavior: Patterns in everyday life</i> by S.A. Peterson. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 12(1), 99. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/petwilko.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) Are conservatives despairing? Rejoinder to Petersen & Wilkinson. <I> Personality & Individual Differences</I>, 12(5), 501.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/scheep.html"> Ray, J.J. (1991) Authoritarianism is a dodo: Comment on Scheepers, Felling & Peters. <I> European Sociological Review</I>, 7, 73-75. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ivancev.html">Ray, J.J. (1991) If 'A-B' does not predict heart disease, why bother with it? A comment on Ivancevich & Matteson. <I> British J. Medical Psychology</I>, 64, 85-90. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/safjp.html">Ray, J.J.(1992) Defining authoritarianism: A comment on Duckitt & Foster, Altemeyer & Kamenshikov and Meloen. <I> South African J. Psychology</I>, 22, 178-179. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/pestell.html"> Ray, J.J. (1992) Authoritarianism among medical students: Comment on Pestell. <I> Australian & New Zealand J. Psychiatry</I>, 26, 132. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/eckhardt.html">Ray, J.J. (1993) Do authoritarian and conservative attitudes have personality and behavioral implications? Comment on Eckhardt. <I> Political Psychology</I>, ? (UQ collection defective) </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/sracism.html"> Ray, J.J. (1994) Are subtle racists authoritarian? Comment on Duckitt. <I> South African J. Psychology</I>, 24(4), 231-232.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/lipson.html">Ray, J.J. (1996) Review of <i>"The ethical crises of civilization"</i> by Leslie Lipson. <I> Political Psychology</I>, 17(3), 587-589. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/meloen97.html"> Ray, J.J. (1998) On not seeing what you do not want to see: Meloen, Van Der Linden & De Witte on authoritarianism. <I> Political Psychology</I>, Vol. 19, Issue 4, 659-661. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/nscale2.html">Ray, J.J. & Bozek, R.S. (1979) NSCALE II: A program to analyse and score a multi-scale survey or a test battery. <I> Behavioral Research Methods & Instrumentation</I> 11, 402. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/abozek.html">Ray, J.J. & Bozek, R.S. (1980) Dissecting the A-B personality type. <i>British Journal of Medical Psychology</i> 53, 181-186. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authp.html"> Ray, J.J. & Bozek, R.S. (1981) Authoritarianism and Eysenck's 'P' scale. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 113, 231-234. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/doratis.html">Ray, J.J. & Doratis, D. (1972) Religiocentrism and ethnocentrism: Catholic and Protestant in Australian schools. <I> Sociological Analysis</I> 32, 170-179. </a> <br /> <br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/auconrac.html">Ray, J.J. & Furnham, A. (1984) Authoritarianism, conservatism and racism. <i>Ethnic & Racial Studies</i> 7, 406-412. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/envicons.html"> Ray, J.J. & Hall, G.P. (1995) Are environmentalists radical or conservative? Some Australian data. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 135(2), 225-228.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/naffiden.html">Ray, J.J. & Hall, G.P. (1995) Need for affiliation and group identification. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 135(4), 519-521. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/bloem.html">Ray, J.J. & Heaven, P.C. L. (1984) Conservatism and authoritarianism among urban Afrikaners. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 163-170. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/authkid1.html">Ray, J.J. & Jones, J.M. (1983) Attitude to authority and authoritarianism among schoolchildren. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 119, 199-203. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ocedach.html">Ray, J.J. & Jones, J.M. (1983) Occupational and educational achievement motivation in Australian and Hong Kong schoolchildren. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 120, 281-282. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/germauth.html"> Ray, J.J. & Kiefl, W. (1984) Authoritarianism and achievement motivation in contemporary West Germany. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 122, 3-19. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/bioabort.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1982) Conservatism, attitude to abortion and Maccoby's biophilia. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 118, 143-144. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/behvalau.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1983) The behavioral validity of some recent measures of authoritarianism. <i> Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 120, 91-99. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/living.html"> Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1984) Attitude to the environment as a special case of attitude towards all living things. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 123, 285-286.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/androg.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1984) The great androgyny myth: Sex roles and mental health in the community at large. <I>J. Social Psychology</i> 124, 237-246. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/compdir.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1986) A comparison of three scales of directiveness. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 126, 249-250. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/genrace.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1986) The generality of racial prejudice. <i> Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 126, 563-564. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/mk6dir.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1988) An improved Directiveness scale. <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 40, 299-302. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/autgen.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1990) Does attitude to authority exist? <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>, 11, 765-769. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/socdes.html">Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (2003) "Age-related social desirability responding among Australian women". <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 143 (5), 669-671. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/dogdes.html">Ray, J.J. & Martin, J. (1974) How desirable is dogmatism? <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 10(2), 143-145. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/death1.html">Ray, J.J. & Najman, J.M. (1975) Death anxiety and death acceptance: A preliminary approach. <i>Omega </I> 5, 311-315. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/delagrat.html">Ray, J.J. & Najman, J.M. (1986) The generalizability of deferment of gratification. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 126, 117-118. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/neocons.html">Ray, J.J. & Najman, J.M. (1987) Neoconservatism, mental health and attitude to death. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i>, 8, 277-279. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/milbrath.html">Ray, J.J. & Najman, J.M. (1988) Capitalism and compassion: A test of Milbrath's environmental theory. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 9, 431-433. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/intp.html">Ray, J.J. & Pedersen, R. (1986) Internal inconsistency in the Eysenck Psychoticism scale. <i>Journal of Psychology</i>, 120, 635-636. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/amauth.html"> Ray, J.J. & Pedersen, R. (1990) Authoritarianism in middle America. <I> Psychology</I>, 27, 43-46. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/raypratt.html">Ray, J.J. & Pratt, G.J. (1979) Is the influence of acquiescence on "catchphrase" type attitude scale items not so mythical after all? <i>Australian Journal of Psychology</i> 31, 73-78. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/subclin.html"> Ray, J.J. & Ray, J.A.B. (1982) Some apparent advantages of sub-clinical psychopathy. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 117, 135-142. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/raysimon.html">Ray, J.J. & Simons, L. (1982) Is authoritarianism the main element of the coronary-prone personality? <i>British J. Medical Psychology</i><br /> 55, 215-218. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/punjab.html">Ray, J.J. & Singh, Satvir (1980) Effects of individual differences on productivity among farmers in India. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 112, 11-17. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/cattell.html">Ray, J.J. & Singh, Satvir (1984) The Cattellian method of predicting child personality. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 123,3-8. <br /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/still.html">Ray, J.J. & Still, L.V. (1987) Maximizing the response rate in surveys may be a mistake. <i>Personality & Individual Differences</i> 8, 571-573. </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/aliuni.html"> Ray, J.J. & Sutton, A.J. (1972) Alienation in an Australian University. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i>, 86, 319-320.</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/soconau.html">Ray, J.J. & Wilson, R.S. (1976) Social conservatism in Australia. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology </I> 12(3), 255-257. </a> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/woclarig.html">Rigby, K., Metzer, J.C. & Ray, J.J. (1986) Working class authoritarianism in England and Australia. <i>Journal of Social Psychology</i> 126, 261-262 </a><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/modind.html">Singh, Satvir & Ray, J.J. (1980) Modernization and development among Indian farmers: A modern proof of some old theories. <I> Economic Development Cultural Change</I> 28, 509-521. </a> <br /><br /><br /><font size="+3"><b>NOTE:</b></font><br /><br />You can also access John Ray's <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/unpublished.html">Unpublished academic articles</a> and <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/menu.html">articles written for the internet only</a>. There is also a <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/main.html">subject index</a> to the academic articles.<br /><br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33578376.post-1156975155532463862006-08-18T09:28:00.000+11:302007-04-12T12:23:20.168+11:30<b>UNPUBLISHED DISSERTATIONS (not online):</b><br /><br />Ray J. J. (1967) Determinants of interpersonal distance. Unpublished B.A. dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. (later published in a more concise form as a journal article. See <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/spacing.html">here</a>)<br /><br />Ray, J. J. (1968) Authoritarianism and the liberal-conservative dimension. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. (later published in a more concise form as a book chapter. See <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/ma.html">here</a>. The full dissertation is however available <a href="http://opac.library.usyd.edu.au/search/~?searchtype=t&searcharg=Authoritarianism+and+the+liberal-conservative+dimension++&searchscope=4&SORT=A">on microfilm</a>)<br /><br />Ray, J. J. (1972) Authoritarianism and working class ideology. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation submitted in the School of Behavioural Sciences of Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Later published as a series of journal articles in the early 1970s. See <a href="http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/all-published-papers-by-j.html">here</a>. The single article that reported most of the dissertation findings is <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/lipset.html">here</a>.<br /><br /><br /><font size="+1"><b><br />LIST OF UNSUCCESSFUL SUBMISSIONS TO ACADEMIC JOURNALS by J.J. Ray (In alphabetical order and all online. Click the filename to access each article. Note that many of the articles below have near equivalents that WERE published)</b> </font><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/interao.html">interao.html</a>ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION cross-nationally<br /><br /><br /> <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/acq.html"> acq.html </a>ACQUIESCENT RESPONSE TENDENCY: An update and some data on the invalidity of the Dogmatism scale<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/cclash.html">cclash.html</a>ARE MOST THEORIES OF RACISM NOW OUTDATED? <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/intamb.html">intamb.html</a>ARE PSYCHOLOGISTS INTOLERANT OF AMBIGUITY?<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/hightowa.html">hightowa.html</a>ARE RACISTS MALADJUSTED? Comment on Hightower<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/rightcon.html">rightcon.html</a>ARE RIGHTISTS CONSERVATIVE?<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/conrac.html">conrac.html</a>ATTITUDE TO BLACKS AND SUBTYPES OF CONSERVATISM <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/larsen.html">larsen.html</a>ATTITUDES TO SOCIAL AUTHORITIES AND CHILD-REARING: Comment on Shively & Larsen<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/gulreply.html">gulreply.html</a>AUTHORITARIANISM, ACCOUNTING AND THE F SCALE: REPLY<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/autheav.html">autheav.html</a>AUTHORITARIAN HOSTILITY AND RACISM: TESTING HEAVEN'S SCALE<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/leftauth.html">leftauth.html</a>AUTHORITARIANISM IS LEFTIST, not Rightist<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/corpse.html">corpse.html</a>AUTHORITARIANISM: The corpse that will not lie down<br /><br /><br /> <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/altbook.html">altbook.html</a>BOOK REVIEW of <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer<br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/alty.html">alty.html</a>BOOK REVIEW of <i>Enemies of freedom</i> by R. Altemeyer<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/boyle.html">boyle.html</a>CAN THERE BE TOO MUCH INTERNAL CONSISTENCY IN A SCALE? Rejoinder to Boyle<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/mchosk.html">mchosk.html</a>CARING CONSERVATIVES: A COMMENT ON McHOSKEY <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/maticek.html">maticek.html</a>COMMENT on Gallacher's criticism of Eysenck & Grossarth-Maticek<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/witt2.html">witt2.html</a>COMPANIONSHIP IN FOLLY may be a comfort but it is still folly: Reply to Witt<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/eisensir.html">eisendir.html</a>CONSERVATISM AND RACISM: A comment on Eisenman & Sirgo<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/deepnor.html">deepnor.html</a>CONSERVATISM IN THE DEEP NORTH: Trends in Queensland attitudes<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/straub.html">straub.html</a>DOING RESEARCH TO PROVE THE OBVIOUS: Comment on "A-B" and Straub et al.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/scots.html">scots.html</a>DO STEREOTYPES MATTER?<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/stereo.html">stereo.html</a>DO WE STEREOTYPE STEREOTYPING? Stereotyping and racism<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/mercer.html">mercer.html</a>DRUG ABUSE, authoritarianism and the magical power of statistical significance<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/qld.html">qld.html</a>EDUCATION, CONSERVATISM and economic development: Comparing Queensland and New South Wales<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/zuck.html">zuck.html</a>FORCED-CHOICE FALLACIES and an alternative measure of sensation-seeking<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/hitold.html">hitler.html</a>HITLER AND SOCIALISM<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/mogh.html">mogh.html</a>HUMAN RIGHTS, right-wing authoritarianism and conservatism: Comment on Moghaddam & Vuksanovic<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/erotto.html">erotto.html</a>IS EROTOPHOBIA old-fashioned? A comment on Fisher et al.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/riterong.html">riterong.html</a>IS RIGHT ALWAYS WRONG? A note on the Right-Left confusion of modern politics<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/leftism.html">leftism.html</a>LIES AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LEFTIST POLITICS<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/saga.html">saga.html</a>MEASURING THE NON-EXISTENT: The strange saga of ethnocentrism, authoritarianism and rigidity<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/dorn.html">dorn.html</a>MORAL JUDGMENT and authoritarianism: A comment on Van ijzendorn<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html">musso.html</a>MUSSOLINI: MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM (link is to a much updated version of the original article) <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/bias.html">bias.html</a>NON-SCIENTIFIC BIAS IN THE EDITING OF <i>THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY</i> <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/entre.html">entre.html</a>ONE ENTREPRENEUR'S theory of entrepreneurship<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/burt.html">burt.html</a> PERCEPTION IS JUST ANOTHER RESPONSE <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/percep.html">percep.html</a>PERCEPTIONS OF THE AUTHORITARIAN AS ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATED <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/loafing.html">loafing.html</a>PSYCHOLOGISTS DISCOVER CAPITALISM<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/play.html">play.html</a>PSYCHOLOGISTS ONLY PLAY AT SCIENCE<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/germraci.html">germraci.html</a>RACISM: Are Germans different?<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/conf2.html">conf2.html</a>SELF-CONFIDENCE, social desirability and the female mid-life crisis<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/skeptic.html">skeptic.html</a>SELF-DECEPTION AMONG PSYCHOLOGISTS<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/semitism.html">semitism.html</a>SEMITISM AND ANTISEMITISM: Some observations from Australia in support of the Stein/Glock hypothesis (link is to a much updated version of the original article) <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/socdes.html">socdes.html</a>SOCIAL DESIRABILITY responding among older women<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/sdo.html">sdo.html</a>SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION: THEORY OR ARTIFACT? <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/forsgren.html">forsgren.html</a>SOME PERILS OF MAIL SURVEYS: Comment on Forsgren<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/stateloy.html">stateloy.html</a>STATE LOYALTY and ethnocentrism<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/louw.html">louw.html</a>THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY IN SOUTH AFRICA: A comment on Louw-Potgieter<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/death.html">death.html</a>THE DEATH OF AUTHORITARIANISM: Psychological parallels to a political phenomenon<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/racgen.html">racgen.html</a>THE GENERALIZABILITY OF RACIAL ATTITUDES <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/vanhiel.html">vanhiel.html</a>VAN HIEL'S PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSERVATISM<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526/jonjayray.tripod.com/faids.html">faids.html</a>WARINESS OF AIDS VICTIMS: Authoritarian or old-fashioned? A comment on Witt and on Larsen, Elder, Bader & Dougard<br /><br />FINISJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0