Sunday, October 22, 2006

Peak oil theory and the ethanol alternative to gasoline



By John Ray

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.

There is an article here 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.

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

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. .

Some background

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

More on the Brazilian experience

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 Wikipedia -- 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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Part of the bagasse is currently burned at the mill to provide heat for distillation and electricity to run the machinery. This allows ethanol plants to be energy self-sufficient and even sell surplus electricity 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).

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.)

Bagasse burning is environmentally friendly 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.

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.

Ethanol-fuelled small planes for farm use have been developed by giant Embraer and by a small Brazilian firm (Aero~lcool), and are currently undergoing certification.

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.

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).

The improvement in air quality 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.


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)


FINIS

Saturday, October 07, 2006

HOW IMPORTANT IS CULTURE?



By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 book in defence of conservatism. 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.

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.

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 here and two articles touching on the central importance of genetics here and here. 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.

But some environmental factors DO matter. Culture is not all there is among environmental factors

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. Dick McDonald is in his 70s and is as lively as a cricket.

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:

"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."


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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.


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.

All recent studies (See also here and here 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.

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 apartheid. 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 here.

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.

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-apartheid 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.

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 Kristof but he is right about Africa and religion:

"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."


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.

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.

---------

Reference: (with 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.
Abstract: 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.



FINIS

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

RACISM: WHY I STEER A MIDDLE WAY


By John Ray (Written September 2006)

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!

So I want to set out here exactly how I see racial matters and why:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, as a group, 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.

I must emphasize here, however, that I am clearly speaking about groups and do NOT assume that what is true of the group is true of all individuals in that group. 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.

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.

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.

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.

My personal background

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"Racist" as a term of abuse

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.

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"?

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.

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.). So you can talk about races after all -- just as long as you don't CALL them races.

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.

Multiculturalism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The moral case against racism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 my main blog is of African ancestry -- Thomas Sowell. As I have set out at length elsewhere, 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.

East Asians:

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:

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

And with such experiences of these gentle, hard-working, family-oriented and utterly civilized people of Asia, how can I not respect them?



Some Addenda



THE PERILS (AND OCCASIONAL REWARDS) OF OBJECTIVITY

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.

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 my big article on Nazism, 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.

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.

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 here and here.

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 here 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 an article that has attracted a lot of justified criticism, 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 Mein Kampf 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.

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 St. Louis, 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.



REPUBLICANS ARE RACISTS! -- BUT

There is a 2006 "Republicans are racists" screech here. 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 many academic publications 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.

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 fall apart when closely examined.

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.

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.

So my final conclusion is that attitudes surveys are unreliable sources of information. I rely on behaviour. And when history's most infamous racist said this,

"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 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.

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 fanatical Leftists to be "prejudiced". How awful! I say more about such studies here.

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.

Leftist psychologists are very keen to point the finger at possible instances of "motivated social cognition" ("bias" to you and me) so Michelle Malkin's 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 Rosenthal effect. But of course who needs such precautions when you know the answer before you start?



BLACK AGGRESSION

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 it happens in the USA. 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.

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".

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. Lynn, 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. In a slightly earlier work, Lynn interprets psychopathy as being itself the manifestation of two more basic traits. To quote Itzkoff's summary of Lynn:

"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."

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.

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.

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. Glasgow is an enormously violent place 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 the results of the survey 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.

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.

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.




RACIST BABIES

I was not initially going to comment on this article (summarizing research by David J. Kelly reported in Developmental Science and Yair Bar-Haim reported in Psychological Science ) 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.

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.

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 (apartheid) government of the 20th century! As any conservative will tell you, nothing about human society is simple. And it is certainly hard to predict.

For a more systematic account of what goes on in racial generalizations, see here and here

References:
Hamill, R., Wilson, T.D. & Nisbett, R.E. (1980) Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from a-typical cases. J. Personality & Social Psychology 39, 578-589.
Read, S.J. (1983) Once is enough: Causal reasoning from a single instance. J. Personality & Social Psychology 45, 323-334.




AN ABORIGINAL SUNDAY

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 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".

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, in my retirement, 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.


SOME WORD FUN

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: Reich and Volk. I discuss the meaning of Volk here. 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:

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 "Volkseigene Betrieb", which translates as "The People's own Enterprise" (though that translation could be argued about too). So if Communist East Germany put the word "Volk" 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.

And as for "Reich": For starters, the East German State Railway was known as the "Reichsbahn".


FINIS

Friday, September 01, 2006

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!

CURRICULUM VITAE -- John J. Ray


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [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 here, here and here -- there was in fact no real party that one could join, just people of similar mind who knew one-another]. 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.

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 Chapter 2 in The Psychology of Conservatism 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.

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 Conservatism as heresy (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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 enjoy teaching, I enjoy research and I enjoy writing.

Sunday, August 20, 2006



Who am I? (2021 edition)



By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

Quick summary:

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

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


Contacts: Ph 07 33914168; 034154416 or 0448285691
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com; jonjayray@gmail.com
Blogs: dissectleft.blogspot.com or awesternheart.blogspot.com



A brief photographic history



Aged 4 with sister jacqueline

Did that boy go on to have a good life? I think he did.

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


Soapbox orator in 1966. Age 23


A brief clean shaven interlude in 1980 -- with a lovely lady, 2nd wife Joy. I was aged 37


A photo of me in my early 50s


In my late 50s


In 2009 when I was 66



A photo from my 70th birthday. I get spottier as time goes by.



Shortly after I turned 77



Origins

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

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.


My father Frank Ray in retirement

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.

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.



A more detailed self-description:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 below.

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.

MARITAL: I have had two long-term relationships (of 7 and 10 years) which resulted in marriages. The second lady of those is below.


Jenny and I in 1985

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

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!

As well as the two long-term marriages, I had two that lasted only a short while (my first and my fourth).


Marrying Dawn, my first wife

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:




Over 50 years later I am still in contact with her -- by email. She no longer lives in Australia

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.



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.



Some recollections:

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.

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

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 below.

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.

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.

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.



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.



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.

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.

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?).


HMS Hood

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.

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.



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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

Then there was Grade 3. An episode there that lingers is when the teacher read out the "Little boy blue" 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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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".

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.

I was an occasional pesky question-answerer in High school too.

One one occasion we were looking at an excerpt from Joseph Conrad that mentioned the "throbbing" of a ship's engine. 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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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 below under the heading "MATRICULATING".

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".

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.).

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!

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.

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).



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.

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 Cairns Post when I was aged 15:

GAS MAIN STRUCK BY BULLDOZER

---------

Boy's Remedial Action Praised

---------

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.

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.

Mr. de Jarlais said: "The boy showed good judgment and sound common sense by his action. Only a small amount of gas was lost."

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.


The first time my name appeared in print was the year after. The following appeared in the Cairns Post:

GERMAN VERSE SPEAKING COMPETITION

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).

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.

The judges will be Messrs. Faldt, Goebels and Gutfrucht, and the winners will be presented with books about Germany or German people.


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.

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.

Just for fun, here are the heights of three family members:

John 5'10"
Christopher 5'8"
Roxanne 5'4"

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:



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".

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 here

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.

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.

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.


Alec with his trusty Leica in 1969

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.

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.

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:

DEFIANCE

Fine was the knight of old with fatal mace.
That fighting breed has left a lasting trace
On our ancient, ever nascent British race
Expressed in business, battle or the chase.
When pressed we know we'll always set the pace,
Be commerce, fighting or any endeavour the race.
Our heritage we never could debase
By any act that e'er could bring disgrace
So let us present crises far outface
Try not our steps long past now to retrace
With glories past, "Alertness now" replace.
For a fighting future minds and hearts strong brace
That we may turn to all a happy face
Successful still and pressing on apace.


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).

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.

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 below.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 real 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.


Eysenck, now deceased

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 Socialist Hitler?).

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 The Courier Mail 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.

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!



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.

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.

I also gathered information about the local neo-Nazis which I passed on to the police. See here for details about that activity.

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.





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 Chieu Hoi 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!



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.

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.

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 here

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.



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.

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.

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.



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.


Denis

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway, my articles 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.


Chris Tame -- now deceased

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.

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.

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.



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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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".

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".

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


My brother Christopher



Views on assorted topics:

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).

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.


FOOTNOTE:

"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 here. 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



Clickable Index to the above:


Origins

Detailed self-description:

Physical
Attitudes
Interests
History
Education
Work
Marital
Home
Vices

Some recollections:

Earliest times
Early education
Innisfail generally
Early politics
Cairns
Secondary school
Early reading
Food
Gardening
In the news
Family
Brisbane
Working in Brisbane
Culture vulture
Poem
Matriculating
Languages
Customs officer
University student
1967 federal election
In the Army
Police spy
FORTRAN
Sydney 1968
Macquarie university
Baroque Music Club
Mensa
Teaching sociology
Party animal
London
Locked in!
Cats
Eating out
Overseas again
Dogs
Family

Views on assorted topics:

Religious beliefs
Writers
Environmentalism
High culture
Women's Lib
Diet
World history
Politics and social issues
Marxism
Travel

2020 Epilogue



Some personal links:

Some of my geneology

Some chronology

A home page for Anne, a lady in my life

An index to a series of short notes about events and observations in my life from the late 1990s on





Index page for this site


DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:

"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism"
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:


"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Recipes"
"Some memoirs"
"Paralipomena"
To be continued ....
Of Interest
My alternative Wikipedia
Laughing at New Matilda
Dagmar Schellenberger is an operatic genius

Updated as news items come in:

Coral reef compendium.
IQ compendium
Queensland Police -- A barrel with lots of bad apples
Australian Police News


BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED

"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Vodafrauds (vodafone)
Bank of Queensland blues


There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)



Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)



Note: 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:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/