Wednesday, April 02, 2008

 

Hiram Caton defends his attack on Derek Freeman

Prof. Caton is referring to this. Despite his disclaimer, his amateur psychiatric speculations have been used to discredit Freeman and I think it is disingenuous to think that he intended anything other than that

You comment on my evidence that Derek Freeman suffered the Narcissistic Personality Disorder seems to be based on an article by Peter Monaghan that appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education in January 2006. It doesn't seem to be informed by a reading of the article (The Exalted Self: Derek Freeman's Quest for the Perfect Identity). I'm prompted to say this because you allege that I attempt to discredit his scholarship by discrediting the man whereas I explicitly distance my descriptions from any relevance to assessing the validity of his scholarly claims about Margaret Mead's Samoan ethnography ('Nothing said here is intended as argumentation in the on-going contestations implicated in the nature-nurture dispute or the Samoa dispute'.)

You and the anthropologists whom Monaghan quotes also ignore David Williamson's play about Derek, Heretic (1996), to which I give detailed attention. Why? Because of its subtle portrayal of Derek's personality, which Williamson based on detailed interviews with Derek and his wife Monica. Heretic is a graphic and often brutal depiction of Derek's personality, yet Derek was delighted by it.

Thus, when Monaghan quotes Michael Young as stating that 'I sense an almost scary determination to lay the man bare', he ignores Williamson's play, which attempts exactly that. The quotation of Peter Hempenstall that my analysis is 'too extreme and unconvincing' is no more the attitude of one unacquainted with clinical evidence. If he were serious (and as Derek's biographer he SHOULD be serious) he would write a critique of my analysis. Then there is the amazing quotation of Don Tuzin that my study 'must be added to the long list of works that approach Derek Freeman ad hominem — this one with a vengeance — and prefer to dwell on his style and personality instead of the quality of his arguments.'

When I queried Don about this statement, he said that he thought my analysis of Derek's personality was 'brilliant'. If Monaghan accurately reported Tuzin, he's on both sides of the street. I also circulated a draft of the article to David Williamson, who strongly commended it. The same is true of George A. Appell, a former Freeman student and co-editor of the Freeman Festschrift. Six psychiatrists to whom I sent a draft for comment were also positive. One of them, who is familiar with the Samoa controversy, expressed his satisfaction that someone had finally made a disciplined study of a theme otherwise treated as gossip.

Finally, John, your association of my essay with Leftist attempts to discredit his evidence is … well, let’s leave at saying contrary, drastically contrary, to my numerous publications on Derek, Margaret, and Samoa.

Update:

Hiram Caton replied to my leading comments above as follows:

You're out of your league.

Think about it: my peer reviewed article was featured in the Chronicle of Higher Education, in a TWO PAGE spread in The Australian Higher Education, the Canberra Times, Historians in the News, etc. If you think my detailed analysis ('speculations' is a blogism) is deficient, by all means write a criticism. Doubt that you will because, among other things, you'd need to read the hundreds of pages of ANU archives that are critical to my evaluation. You would also need to immerse in the clinical psychology of personality disorders, which isn't your kind of thing. Have you even read the DSM-IV? Yes or No?

My suspicion that Derek was burdened by the NPD hardened when I read his 1991 public lecture, Paradigms in Collision (have you heard of it?). It magnifies his established contrast between himself, as advocate of interactionist anthropology/social science, and Mead as advocate of the culture only point of view. Magnifies: his challenge now becomes the TURNING POINT of post-Boas intellectual history!! Derek is the turning point: hello pathology! The next thing was Williamson's play and Derek's enthrallled reaction: he couldn't get enough of it despite its devastating exhibition of his vanity. The next item was Frank Heimans' Australian Oral History interview just six months before his passing. His repeated expressions about his exalted self don't leave much room for doubt about the pathology. But, I needed data, and the Archive provided that, as you can see if you read my article, Conversion in Sarawak. Did you know that Derek said, in 1961, that 'either I am mad or Tom [Harrisson] is'? That he was seen by FOUR shrinks in March-April 1961? That his stability was a matter of official concern by senior university officers during that time? That he underwent a self-initiated psycho-analytic analysis in 1963?

You say: 'I think it is disingenuous to think that he intended anything other than that [discrediting Freeman]. Congrats, mate, for knowing my intentions better than I do! But, should it occur to you actually to THINK about what you're saying, have a look at my website on the Samoa caper to see whether Margaret comes away spotless (//4hiram.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/margaret-mead-and-samoa).

I replied to that from my viewpoint as an academic psychologist:

Psychologists require scores on standardized tests before they make clinical judgments. To most psychologists, ALL psychiatry is speculation. DSM4 is a psychiatry manual that deserves no respect. Look how they suddenly went into reverse over homosexuality, for instance. It is at best a Bible of intellectual fashion.

I think however that you have probably established that Freeman was egotistical -- but so are lots of people, most of the political Left for a start and much of academe.

posted by JR 10:11 PM

Sunday, August 05, 2007

 

The Legal Project to Defend Robert Spencer from CAIR

News from the Legal Project, Middle East Forum. Press release of August 2, 2007

PHILADELPHIA - The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum announces its support of Robert Spencer and the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the latest victims of what appears to be a targeted intimidation and defamation campaign by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) designed to silence critics of its organization.

Spencer, a well-respected author and the director of www.jihadwatch.org, spoke today for YAF on "The Truth about CAIR" on the campus of George Washington University. As a consequence of this invitation, YAF's president Ron Robinson received a threatening and possibly defamatory letter written by CAIR's acting attorney, Joseph E. Sandler, of the law firm Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C.

Sandler's letter (available in pdf format here) accuses Mr. Spencer, without offering any factual support, of being a "well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims," with "a history of false and defamatory statements." Sandler goes on to "demand that YAF cancel the subject session or else take steps to ensure that false and defamatory statements are not disseminated," and states an intention to pursue a "legal remedy" against YAF, should CAIR deem statements made by Spencer at the session "false and defamatory."

CAIR's letter appears to be aimed at maliciously harming Spencer's reputation, interfering in his lawful employment, and aimed to discourage both Spencer and YAF from exercising their fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. Furthermore, the letter wrongfully implies that YAF has an independent duty to censor Spencer, and that it may be subject to suit for allowing Spencer to speak on private property. It is our opinion that CAIR's pre-emptive accusations are without merit, without any legal basis, and that CAIR has yet to prove any of its statements as true.

Therefore, the Legal Project hereby gives CAIR and its attorneys notice that it, too, will pursue "every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false or defamatory statements that are made" or have been made by CAIR and its attorneys against Spencer. We advise CAIR's staff to govern themselves accordingly.

The Legal Project, established by the Middle East Forum in June 2007, is dedicated to safeguarding the democratic liberties afforded by the Constitution to U.S. citizens, namely the rights to free speech and free assembly. The Legal Project protects researchers and analysts working on the topics of terrorism, terrorist funding, Islam, and Islamism against those who seek to silence them through intimidation, defamation, and predatory lawsuits.

Immediate release

For more information: John Matthies, (215) 546-5406, ext. 16, or Matthies@MEForum.org

Source.

posted by JR 5:45 PM

Friday, July 06, 2007

 

"Out Of the Silence" – Book review

A science fiction novel by Erle Cox

Review by "Ken"

Unusually for science fiction, this novel can be reviewed as much for its literary qualities as for its social and political commentary. The first few chapters are reminiscent of Neville Shute’s ‘A Far Country’ and the reader is quickly absorbed in the characters’ prosaic lifestyle and urbane relationships. The writing style is crisp and compelling, drawing the reader into the friendships that motivate the township.

Mr Cox paints a character-rich idyll of a small country town in Northern Victoria. The central character introduces us to an erudite, privileged bush community, centred around an exclusive tennis club whose restricted membership includes the local professionals and businessmen. The locals carry on the traditions of a colonial outpost with the same moral and social imperatives and semi-elitist prejudices. The repartee between the town’s elite is teasing, witty and friendly, leaving the reader in no doubt that these countrymen are well-versed in the arts and sciences. Literary references are scattered liberally and unselfconsciously throughout the dialogue.

When the central character encounters an alien structure while digging a dam, the reason for his erudition gradually becomes clear.

Just as we are becoming familiar with the characters and the slowly unfolding story we reach chapter twenty where the first sense of disquiet makes us squirm uncomfortably.

Because of our empathy with the central characters we find our loyalties divided and our sensibilities seriously compromised.

The intentions of a newly awakened stranger are subtly revealed in a way that carries us with them until we find ourselves falling into the trap of condoning the ideas of eugenics.

It is only then that we begin to realise that the central character is not the hero of the piece but merely a dupe. The secondary character takes the reins and, so good is the writing that the reader finds it difficult to switch allegiance.

This original and unexpected literary technique is carried off with consummate skill and is very disturbing to experience.

The resolution of the dilemma is played out for us in a fairly conventional way but leaves us unsure of which side of the eugenics argument the author sits. We get the feeling that the inevitability of the outcome overruled the intent of the text.

Mr. Cox has written an entertaining, thought-provoking work that is worthy of the great science fiction writers in history. He combines the empathy of H.G.Wells with the imagination of Jules Verne while managing to remain indubitably Erle Cox.

My only criticism would be that Mr. Cox’ imagination occasionally wanders unnecessarily too far into fantasy. There were times when I questioned the attributes given to the stranger and felt that they were merely a device to allow the plot to move on more quickly than it would otherwise have been necessary to do. With a little more thought and commitment to a longer novel, I think they could have been avoided altogether to the advantage of the overall work.

It is a pity that this worthy novel is not more widely read in the 21st century; it deserves a place among the classics.



Available on Amazon

posted by JR 8:17 AM

Monday, May 14, 2007

 

Conflict puts Sacramento State University in a sorry state

By Marcos Breton - "Sacramento Bee" Columnist

The walls of a men's room are never good reading, especially when the message is:

"Never hire a beaner to do a white man's job."

Sacramento State President Alexander Gonzalez was the target of this vulgarity, which was discovered in late April scrawled near a Sequoia Hall toilet, and came to light last week in the campus newspaper. Penned with black markers, the sentiment exemplifies the dark side of a caustic climate afflicting Sacramento's public university. How caustic? When a call for comment went out to the chancellor of the California State University system last week, Charles Reed called back in minutes. "That is totally uncalled for on a university campus," he said.

No one is saying there's a link between the racist graffiti smeared in anonymity in a Sac State bathroom and the professors on campus at odds with Gonzalez. Those Gonzalez opponents -- 77 percent of the faculty members who participated in a referendum -- went very public on April 27 with a vote of "no confidence." "It was not about Alexander Gonzalez the man," Juanita Barrena, a professor of biological sciences and campus fixture since 1975, said of the vote. "It's about what's happening inside the university."

Put more bluntly, it's about power. "We're supposed to work under a shared system of governance," Gonzalez said of his relationship with the Faculty Senate. "That is being tested." On the surface, it appears Gonzalez's massive plans to upgrade Sac State's facilities ran afoul with faculty concerns over class size, class availability and rising student fees. But strip this dispute down to its essence -- dissect why faculty members have sharply denounced Gonzalez in campus protests and letters to The Bee -- and you have an even more basic reason for a warring campus. Gonzalez is like an NBA coach whose players want to call the plays, too.

By some accounts, faculty enjoyed such privileges with Gonzalez's predecessor, Donald Gerth. Barrena said the role of past faculty leaders was to "train the president in the whatevers of the university." "When I had opposition to President Gerth, I would go to him first ... I don't have that kind of relationship with (Gonzalez)." That's because the 61-year-old Gonzalez doesn't want to be trained. He assigned his deans and provosts to handle faculty beefs so he could fund-raise. And -- at least off campus -- he's become a respected figure who could land $12 million deals with Pepsi. But on campus? Reviled is not too strong a word.

Sadly, it's all so unnecessary. Even Gonzalez's foes don't doubt his commitment. He admits he's made mistakes and is setting up committees to reach out to faculty. He also held off cutting $1.6 million from the Academic Affairs budget, instead dipping into university reserves. Academic Affairs encompasses the seven academic colleges on campus, the library, continuing education and several other programs. It has a budget of $104 million, the largest on campus by far. So you're telling us that cutting $1.6 million out of a $104 million budget is cause for revolution? That the only way to deal with a president credited with raising the profile of a sleepy university is a vote of no-confidence?

Meantime, the discourse at Sacramento's public university dips into the toilet -- or is scrawled in racist epithets near campus toilets. There is plenty of fault to go around. But if you're going to have a college president, you should let him be one.

Source

posted by JR 9:10 AM

Thursday, March 08, 2007

 

A small protest against the Anti-War Cognitive Elites In Pasadena, California

By Wayne Lusvardi

Pasadena, California is known as a hot bed of anti-war sentiment. Its City Council adopted an anti-war resolution in 2003. When Senator John Kerry was stumping for Democrats before the November 2006 elections he made his infamous anti-war faux paus to a receptive audience at Pasadena City College ("if you don't get an education, you get stuck in Iraq")

Pasadena is also known for the infamous I.R.S. complaint about an anti-war sermon delivered in 2004 prior to national elections by Reverend George Regas at All Saints Episcopal Church

The local Pasadena newspaper, the Pasadena Star News, was the first to break this story which eventually spiraled to national and international attention. What was never disclosed was that the editor of the same newspaper goes to the All Saints church. Moreover, the I.R.S. complaint was filed a year after the infamous anti-war sermon by an anonymous person who for all we know could have been from the church itself. All Saints Church eventually hired a New York law firm to handle its phony legal defense against a simple I.R.S. inquiry letter that involved no administrative law hearing or sanctions or penalties at that time. The church reaped an undisclosed windfall from this fund raising stunt. The anti-war effort received free advertising on a grand scale.

Then again in September 2005 the local newspaper broke a story about a local Pasadena couple, Mary and Patrick Briggs, who sued the City of Pasadena in Federal Court over the City of Pasadena's restrictive sign ordinance which forbade them from displaying a 6-foot long anti-war banner on their home in a residential neighborhood. The sign repeated the anti-war cliche "Bush lied, people died." And again this story became national and international news. Eventually the City of Pasadena revised its sign ordinance to allow large banners with political speech on residential buildings and by paying the Briggs' legal bills subsidized their anti-war speech. And again the local newspaper gave them free advertising which gained national attention.

Then on February 21, 2007 the editor of the Pasadena Star News promoted in his weekly editorial a forum that was being held at Pasadena City College ostensibly on "What Families Need to Know About Military Recruitment." He also ran a large story about this forum in the Sunday edition of the newspaper's weekly magazine (called the "U" Section). The purpose of this forum was to dissuade low income youth from joining the military and supporting the Iraq War. What was never entirely disclosed was that the organizer of this forum was a former newspaper staffer of the Pasadena Star News who was apparently working in consort with its editor (online link no longer posted).

Taking advantage of the City's new relaxed sign ordinance about political speech, the local Throop Memorial Unitarian Church has erected a sign on its downtown property reading "No More Troops," apparently referring to the Iraq War "surge." Now a local gagster has apparently turned the tables on the local newspaper and the anti-war cognitive elites in the City of Pasadena with a small, hardly noticed act. Someone pasted a letter "H" on the sign so that it re-read "No More Throops!" Other than the letter to the editor of the local newspaper below, this small anti-antiwar act received no newspaper photos or national notoriety like the other editorially "staged" anti-war stunts.



Mark Helprin once wrote that "Marxists are people whose insides are torn up day after day because they want to rule the world and no one will publish their letter to the editor." I might add, except if they are the editor. For the first counter anti-war letter see below:

Letter to Pasadena Star News - March 7, 2007

Adding extra letter

As a former Pasadenan, I was in town last week for a doctor's visit and happened to be driving by the Throop Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church on Del Mar and Los Robles avenues.

The church has erected an anti-war sign on the corner which reads: "No More Troops!" - promoting opposition to the Iraq War "surge." In a play on words, someone had added a letter "H" on the sign so that it sarcastically read: "No More Throops!"

I'm sure I was not the only person who witnessed this, as that is a very busy intersection especially around 5p.m. I checked and saw nothing about this in the online newspaper.

I must have been, as the Roman historian Tacitus once wrote, "an eye-witness to what never happened." I guess only anti-war signs, not anti-antiwar signs, are newsworthy in Pasadena.

Sean Christopher
La Quinta

posted by JR 4:46 PM

Saturday, February 24, 2007

 

How many dimensions of personality?

- The 'Big 5', the 'Gigantic 3' or the 'Comprehensive 6'?



By: CHRISTOPHER R. BRAND.
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh,
7, George Square,
Edinburgh EH8 9JZ.



From: Psychologica Belgica 4, 4, 257-275 (1994)

Abstract

Eighteen criticisms of the 'Five Factor Model' of personality (FFM) are indicated : there is too much variation for comfort in the number and the nature of the personality dimensions that are currently recognized by researchers, whether in 'lexical' studies or in questionnaire data. It is suggested that there are actually six main dimensions of normally-distributed human psychological difference; and that each of the six psychometric dimensions is connected with a particular underlying difference in both ability and emotion. A comprehensive scheme representing major dimensions of personality, ability and emotion is outlined. However, psychometric fusion sometimes occurs within two pairs of the Comprehensive 6 dimensions - when testing methods are less sensitive or when testees are of lower sophistication or general intelligence (g); such lack of differentiation results in only four or five dimensions being seen. Additionally, three of the six dimensions (extraversion, neuroticism and conscientiousness) are particularly easily found in conventional questionnaire studies. These three resemble the three most familiar personality concepts of Freud (id, ~ego, superego) and Eysenck (Extraversion, Neuroticism, ~Psychoticism); anyhow, a 'Freudian' combination of short yet reliable ipsative versions of them yields correlations with sexual permissiveness and militarism/punitiveness. Like g itself, other dimensions of personality crystallize into differences in attainment and into attitudes regarding sex and aggression.

Keywords: personality; intelligence; differentiation; moods; id; ego; superego.
(in French): personnalité; intelligence; différentiation; humeurs; ça; moi; surmoi.


Introduction

The past ten years have seen a 'converging consensus' among empirically oriented personality theorists. The 'Five Factor Model' (FFM) proposes five main constituent dimensions of personality: Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C), Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A) and Neuroticism (N). These 'Big 5' ('OCEAN') factors are said to be the important, observable, uncorrelated ways in which people differ from each other in personality. The dimensions appear in ratings and questionnaires in several European languages. They have considerable statistical power - typically yielding a multiple correlation of around .60 with any sizeable factor from a traditional multi-scale test (McCrae et al., 1993; McCrae and Costa 1994). They are relatively 'real' - emerging rather more clearly when raters know ratees better (Wiggins and Pincus, 1992; Borkenau and Liebler, 1993). And something is known of their origins: twin studies have shown long-term causal influences on most of them from additive genetic factors, from genetic epistasis and from within-family environmental influences (see Brand, 1989). (Deary and Matthews (1993) and Goldberg (1993) provide helpful reviews of the FFM.)

The FFM has been a welcome arrival in differential psychology. It seems to provide a long-sought compromise in the titanic struggles of the great psychometrician-psychologists, R.B.Cattell, H.J.Eysenck and the late J.P.Guilford. It certainly provides a firm-looking reply to behaviourists, 'situationists', 'holists' and 'constructivists' who have doubted the importance of biologically based personality differences; and it has given rise to a new internationalism of theorizing, research and conferencing. However, the present paper points out eighteen weaknesses of the FFM and suggests an improvement. Four broad psychological dimensions of ability and emotion are suggested to provide the minimum number of dimensions recovered in adequate researches; but six independent dimensions should be expected in reasonably sophisticated testing of intelligent testees; and just three of these dimensions appear especially readily in questionnaires and resemble the three key personality concepts deployed in the writings of both Freud and Eysenck.


Eighteen problems for the Five-Factor Model (FFM)

1. In a matter as weighty as that of what are the major human personality variations, advocates of the FFM change their views with startling speed. McCrae and Costa (1983) offered "strong evidence for the validity of the proposed three-dimensional domain model of personality" (involving N, E, and O) and went on to publish a test of their own 'Big 3' dimensions. Yet soon afterwards McCrae and Costa (1987) announced the "validation of the five-factor model". Today, McCrae (1994) allows that six factors can easily be found - "the Big 5 plus general intelligence". Both of two 'integrative' studies are now said by McCrae to "support Brand's view (1984, 1995) that intelligence is an independent sixth factor". [By contrast, it took Freud twenty years to complement eros with thanatos; and it took Eysenck twenty years to add Psychoticism to his two dimensions of normal personality, Neuroticism and Extraversion. More rapid 'breakthroughs' suggest not only open-mindedness but a possible lack of depth, breadth and resilience in the personality theory or 'model' in question.]

2. Why had the previous forty years' work of differential and social psychologists failed to yield the correct number of dimensions? - Just what had Cattell (e.g. 1973), Eysenck (e.g. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985), Guilford (e.g. Guilford, Zimmerman and Guilford, 1976) and C.E.Osgood (1962; Goldberg, 1993) done wrong? [The question 'How many main dimensions are there?' has, after all, been central to differential psychology at least since the paths of Eysenck and Cattell diverged sharply around 1960.]

3. Most FFM studies examine differences occurring amongst relatively intelligent, young, healthy, law-abiding, higher-educated subjects. These testees are clearly chosen to suit the convenience of investigators as much as to examine the realities of human individual differences. [The virtual exclusion of the unskilled, the unemployed and the long-term low-waged is specially strange.]

4. Likewise, 'lexical' and 'taxonomic' studies (of how raters think adjectives in their own language overlap in meaning) usually involve university-educated, socio-culturally unrepresentative raters.

5. Beyond excluding very rare descriptors, lexical studies pay little heed to the frequency with which adjectives are actually used by modern native speakers, or to the objectivity with which adjectives can be applied to the same target by different raters. Such studies are thus not directly concerned with the person-describing schemes that are actually in regular use in the cultures from which raters are drawn.

6. Lexical studies usually omit adjectives on which ratees produce little variance. Adjectives related to intelligence are especially likely to be jettisoned because of: (i) the limited range of many of the 'targets' (often acquaintances of the raters); (ii) the day-to-day unfamiliarity of many university students with people who differ much from themselves in intelligence; and (iii) the unwillingness of many social science students to 'label' almost anyone at all as 'dense', 'dim', 'dull', 'simple', 'slow' or 'ignorant'. The major Dutch taxonomic programme for personality traits expressly omitted altogether "stable traits of capacity, ability, intelligence or skill" (Brokken, 1978; De Raad, Hendriks and Hofstee, 1992; McCrae, 1994). By contrast, when ability traits are included, a general Intellectance dimension subsumes variance from terms like 'creative' and 'imaginative' (Angleitner and Ostendorf, 1989; McCrae, 1994).

7. Perhaps because of the last four problems, general intelligence (g) has often had only a walk-on part - within the FFM's O dimension. (O has often seemed to involved Intellectance (as well as Extraversion and youthful 'anti-rule heterodoxy') (Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993); and it correlates at about .35 with g even in samples having restricted g range (Brand, 1994).) 8. The FFM is a static, non-dynamic model of personality. As presented, it seems to have little to do with the major human motivational systems that surely centre on sex (or procreation), aggression (or competition) and curiosity (or creativity); it does not concern itself with how such drives are expressed (or repressed); and it has no theory of the structure of the mind. (See Magnusson and Törestad, 1993; McAdams, 1992; Ozer and Reise, 1994; Pervin, 1994.) [Even Eysenck - no advocate of psychoanalysis - has talked of sex and aggression as basic to attitudinal differences (Eysenck, 1954) and of his Psychoticism as a 'superego' factor (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976).]

9. The FFM does not connect its dimensions systematically even to any static underlying dimensions of emotions, sentiments, skills or abilities. There is systematic evasion of psychology here. [Notably, the FFM's A dimension envisages a bald opposition between love and hate, or between co-operation and competition. Many social and psychological theorists have rejected such simple dichotomy (see Brand, 1994,1995): for example, just as Freud added thanatos to eros in his theorizing, so Adler (moving in the opposite direction) had to add altruistic, affectionate 'social interest' to the force of antagonistic, competitive 'personal interest' with which his break from Freud had begun.]

10. Agreement on five as the correct number of dimensions (whether 'perceived' or 'real') is far from complete (Brand, 1984; Pervin, 1994). Twenty large, modern programmes of work report more than five independent factors - most commonly six . (See e.g. Linveh & Linveh, 1989; Brand & Egan, 1989; Shmelyov & Pokhilko, 1993; Deary & Matthews, 1993; Brand, Egan & Deary, 1993; Matthews & Oddy, 1993). [Deary (1995) further claims that the same six-factor structure is even found in the first-ever correlation matrix of reliable personality assessments - collected under Spearman's supervision in London (Webb, 1915).] On the other hand, numerous investigators have favoured recognizing just three or four super-factors. These are usually N, E, g and some version of C (e.g. 'anality', 'obsessionality', superego, 'solidity' or (social) conservatism vs impulsion and alienation) - e.g. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Kline, 1992; Bjorgvinsson & Thompson, 1994.

11. There are sometimes correlations as high as .40 amongst the scales of McCrae and Costa's NEO-PI and amongst other supposed indicators of the Big 5 (Caprara et al, 1993); and the 'facets' (i.e. oblique sub-factors) of the Big 5 sometimes have their highest loadings on unexpected dimensions (Church and Burke, 1994).

12. There is no precise agreement among researchers on when to halt factor extraction. The most reasonable modern procedures seem to yield six or more dimensions (Matthews and Oddy, 1993). Yet five factors are sometimes extracted by researchers even when six seem clearly indicated (e.g. by Zuckerman et al., 1993).

13. Despite investigators' optimistic naming of their factors, the factors called O, C, etc. (let alone other unnamed 'representatives of the Big 5') differ substantially in nature from one study to another (e.g. Hofstee, De Raad and Goldberg, 1992; Stumpf, 1993); and O can disappear altogether (e.g. fusing with Intellectance (Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993)) or correlate with any evaluatively positive traits, especially Agreeableness (Borkenau and Liebler, 1993).

14. Some psychometric batteries involve substantially more reliable variance than can be accounted for by OCEAN variables alone (e.g. Goh and Leong, 1993; Waller, 1995).

15. The temporal stability of OCEAN-type differences is only around .50 over a ten-year period (Whitborne, Zuschlag, Elliot and Waterman,1992) even though much longer (and thus more short-term-reliable) measures have been used than formerly in personality research.

16. The FFM takes no account of the fluctuating nature of personality 'superfactors'. For many years, Eysenck maintained that 'sociability' and 'impulsivity' correlated at >.40 and were both facets of a broad dimension of Extraversion on which criminals would have high scores; yet today it is generally agreed that E and C (vs impulsion) are independent factors. Likewise the rather broad and evaluatively loaded FFM A factor may split (with help from the non-g variance that is found on O, if g is removed as a separate factor) into two separate factors of dependence (vs will) and tender-mindedness (affection) vs realism. (This phenomenon was first observed in Cattell's tests by Royce and Powell (1983).) Such systematic changeability of superfactors and conflict of evidence requires theoretical integration, not neglect.

17. Though Eysenck's personological stance centres on his 'Gigantic 3', he has also classically recognised at least three or four more largely independent dimensions: g, social conservatism vs liberalism, tough-mindedness vs idealism, and 'Lie'/Conventionality. So the 'Big 5' do not embrace Eysenck's opus, let alone Cattell's.

18. Authors' theoretical approaches can be erratic and hard to understand. On finding that O correlated with IQ, McCrae and Costa (1987) at first maintained the unitariness of O and the adequacy of the FFM. Today, McCrae and Costa (see Deary & Matthews, 1993) claim to recover their O even when IQ is partialled out, but it is far from clear that this is possible in studies of the unselected, normal population (Brand, 1995). McCrae and Costa are only just beginning to acknowledge (McCrae, 1995) that, by implication, they must work with an explicit six-factor personology. They have yet to see much of what their factors look like when marker variables are regularly included in their studies to ensure that the g is adequately retrieved from correlation matrices. Reliable dimensional 'personality' differences are hard to identify in infants and young children, and personality is commonly said to be 'destroyed' when intelligence declines in Alzheimer's disease; yet the many of the latest generation of psychometrician-pyschologists have been trying to insulate their concepts (and the field of personality as a whole) from the central reality of the human condition - general intelligence (g).


Resolving the main problem: a theory.

There are probably important interaction effects between the major psychometric dimensions of general intelligence (g) and neuroticism (n). Neuroticism normally has a slight negative correlation with many forms of achievement (Francis, 1993); but higher levels of n often seem to yield higher artistic achievement in high-g people (Prentky, 1980). Again, Lienert (see Eysenck, 1994) has found that g itself can be markedly stronger (more unitary as a factor, accounting for more variance) among higher-n people. (This may occur because more specific abilities are just too unreliable to yield specific, non-g factors in more emotional, more variable, higher-n people.) Key psychometric correlations themselves thus differ across different ranges of g and n. Examination of such 'zonal' effects (McKenzie and Tindell, 1993) is probably the next big, general task of psychometric psychology.

Differences in g ranges may likewise help explain current variations in estimates of personality dimensions and structure. At around IQ 75, people differ from each other psychologically in rather few ways that are of socio-economic consequence: they show basic temperamental differences, but such variations will probably be of less practical importance to them than is their low level of g that they share. By contrast, at around IQ 125, some people are highly creative, hard-working and highly rewarded, while others are in prison, die early from drugs or AIDS, spend many hours daily watching TV, or give themselves to unremunerative charitable work. More independent dimensions of variation in ability and knowledge can sometimes be found in testees having higher g levels (Detterman and Daniel, 1989; Deary, Gibson, Egan, Brand and Kellaghan, 1996); and wider variance on personality tests has sometimes been observed in personality amongst higher-g people (Brand, Egan and Deary, 1993). Although no factor other than g makes a reliable appearance in factor analyses of ability data in the normal population (Brand, 1993), at higher g levels people specialize more obviously in some particular stratagems, skills and knowledge systems as opposed to others.

In the modern history of psychology, there are two psychometric ability contrasts that have notoriously proved to be more 'visible' at higher-g levels. These are (1) field-independence vs field dependence (Flexer & Roberge, 1983) and (2) creativity (vs clerical ability) (Hargreaves & Bolton, 1972). However, g-related differentiation probably occurs also for (3) short-term memory vs long-term memory (Miller and Vernon, 1983) and for (4) verbal vs performance / spatio-mechanical abilities (Detterman and Daniel, 1989). [Right- vs left-handedness is another psychometric dimension that is more clearly defined outwith low-g ranges - for the very young and the mentally handicapped show relatively mixed and unreliable hand preferences (Soper & Satz, 1987).]

The above four bipolar mental ability contrasts can all be argued to be related to familiar personality distinctions. (1) Witkin and Cattell held the analytic, logical perceptuo-cognitive style of field-independence to be related to specificity of response, lateralization of function and independence-of-mind as opposed to agreeableness (Witkin, Goodenough and Oltman, 1979); and the competitive, relatively interpersonally insensitive, field-independent personality presents a low-n version of the core of 'Type A' personality (Yarnold, Bryant and Litsas, 1989). (2) Abilities for close, vigilant attention and clerical work (as vs peripheral processing, imagery and creative abilities) correlate with obsessionality, judgement (vs perception), social conservatism, non-Psychoticism and age (Claridge, 1981; Katz and Pestell, 1989). (3) Relatively good integrative attention and short-term memory, but poorer long-term memory, seem to be broadly characteristic of extraverts (possibly related to cholinergic function) (Matthews, 1993; Logue and Byth, 1993). (4) Verbal (vs performance) shift is more common in non-psychopaths, in females, in more socially adjusted and responsible children and in arts-oriented adults (Smith, 1964; Flor-Henry, 1974).

Thus there is reason to expect that the non-g personality differences which can be observed and measured will themselves vary with g-level; and that the number of retrieved factorial dimensions in ratings and questionnaires will vary too. At lower g-levels, rather broad and general factors like Osgood's ACTIVITY (or Liveliness vs Inhibition) and POTENCY (or Forcefulness vs Agreeableness) could be expected. By contrast, at higher-g levels such global distinctions should differentiate: ACTIVITY into extraversion (e) vs introversion and, almost independently, into impulsivity vs conscientiousness (c) / inhibition; and POTENCY into will (w) / assertiveness vs deference and, independently, into hostility vs receptiveness / affection (a). Which of these dimensions are seen will also depend somewhat on the complexity and subtlety of the information available to the psychological researcher (Borkenau and Liebler, 1993; De Raad and Hofstee, 1993).

Such differentiation of personological phenomena at higher levels of intelligence and information-processing may also be hypothesized in the realm of emotional experience. Just like personality items, estimates of emotion quite often exhibit a crude, two-dimensional circumplex (Conte and Plutchik, 1981). This circumplex contrasts ACTIVE, action-ready states of Joy and Anticipation with those of Sadness and Surprise; and POTENT, antagonistic sates of Anger and Disgust with those of Acceptance and Fear. However, this two-dimensional model is itself a simplification of four independent dimensions of contrast in mood and emotion. The four basic emotional contrasts that are commonly recognised today are: (1) Anger vs Fear; (2) Surprise / attentiveness / alertness vs Anticipation / boredom; (3) Joy vs Sadness; and (4) Disgust / hostility / rejection vs Acceptance (Oatley & Jenkins,1992). Modern 'cognitive' theorists commonly hold that these mood variations differentiate further into the social emotions of guilt, shame, jealousy, love, contempt, etc., in so far as they are experienced as responses to particular, specifiable events in appropriate cognitive contexts (involving reasoned expectations). These four basic dimensions of emotion look likely candidates for having connections, respectively, with the personality dimensions of w, c, e and a. For example, self-rated attentiveness can be found correlated at .80 with conscientiousness, joviality at .84 with extraversion, and hostility at -.63 with Agreeableness (Watson and Clark, 1992).

In addition to the four dimensions of emotion that differentiate from the two-dimensional mood 'circumplex', empirical work usually allows identification of two further factors of mood. One is a dimension of Intensity vs Composure (Howarth, 1980; Daly, Lancee and Polivy, 1993). This looks intrinsic to n: for high-n is notoriously related to intense and more rapidly changing experience of many different moods (Williams, 1993). The other is a Clear-headedness vs Confusion factor (Howarth, 1980): this looks promising as a way of recognizing such (slight) temporal variability as is found in fluid g (gf) (Rauscher, Shaw and Ky, 1993).

Changes along these six dimensions of mood may yield cognitive shifts and temporarily changed approaches to problem-solving. Longer-term personality differences will presumably arise from underlying tendencies to differ from others, on average, in such affecto-cognitive states. A unifying structural scheme (see Table 1) would link six personality dimensions (g, n, e, c, w, and a) to the six dimensions of ability and mood indicated above, while noting at the same time the broader dimensions into which some of these six dimensions may collapse - yielding only four dimensions when less specific information is available.



Table 1: Variants of the 'Comprehensive 6' dimensions of personality.
6 6 6
Ability Personality Mood
dimensions dimensions dimensions
Global Global Contrasts Contrasts
* *
_________________________________________

g(fluid) g Clear-
(crystallized) headedness
Intellectance
Culture
+ |Reason*
EVALUATION (classical) *
- |Passion*
Responsiveness n Uncertainty,
to reinforcement; Degree of emotional event memory. variability. NEGATIVE
Intensity of mood
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short-term memory e Joy
(vs Long-term memory) (vs Sadness)
+ |Liveliness * POSITIVE
ACTIVITY * * Activity
- |Inhibition *
Clerical c Alertness ATTENTIVE
(vs Creative) (vs Impulsion due to
low cerebral, 'upper' arousal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Field-independence w Anger
(vs Field-dependence) (vs Fear)
+ |Forcefulness *
POTENCY *
- |Agreeableness * *Pleasantness
Symbolic abilities, intuition a Acceptance
(versus spatio-mechanical) (vs Disgust)

_______________________ ___________________________
*CAPITALS = Osgood's terms. CAPITALS = Watson & Clark's* Italics = terms suggested in text (1992) terms
* for broad g vs n, e vs c and w vs a. Italics = Daly et al.'s (1983) terms*


g = general intelligence; n = neuroticism/emotionality; e = extraversion/energy;
c = conscientiousness; w = will/independence; a =affection/tendermindedness.





Such a structured scheme acknowledges that the number of visible personality dimensions will vary - depending on the intelligence of testees and on the sophistication of the approach adopted by testers. In contrast, the 'Big 5' personality dimensions provide an estimate of central tendency for what is actually a bimodal distribution of theoretical possibilities. The Comprehensive 6 can support a linkage of personality dimensions to all the main, empirically distinct, psychological dimensions of contrast for both moods and abilities. It handles many of the anomalies of the 'Big 5' - notably that the classic programmes of work with population samples by Eysenck, Cattell and Osgood never homed in on them. It spells out the 'inextricable intertwining' of affect and cognition, and the 'implacable logic' of the emotions that are such popular but minimally articulated ideas in cognitive psychology today (e.g. Oatley and Jenkins, 1992; Lazarus, 1993). And the relations between the six dimensions as g differentiates into four dimensions (e, c, w and a) on which n creates short-term variability can be conveniently illustrated as a 'double cone' (Brand, Egan and Deary, 1993).


Resolving a minor problem: a short measure of the readily measurable.

If there are truly six main super-factors of psychological variation, within and between people, which of these are the more important and readily measurable? In accounting for people's real-life, socio-economic outcomes, intelligence is undoubtedly the most important dimension (see Brand, 1987, 1993; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994); and it is readily and reliably measurable in thirty minutes of group-testing. However, people are often unaware of the population range of intelligence levels, and are therefore poor at rating their own. Moreover, because there is rather little daily variation in gf, people do not look to g to explain much of their own behaviour and experience. Finally, occupational selection by g means that, within many job contexts, the important personal differences between people will consist in factors other than g.

In research with students, adult volunteers and job candidates in Edinburgh and Birmingham, equal numbers of adjectives for each of the above 'Comprehensive 6' dimensions were used to form a 144-adjective ipsative test. A first factor of affection/neuroticism (strongly loaded by 'loving', 'tender-hearted', 'compassionate' and 'passionate' vs 'thick-skinned', 'composed', 'level-headed' and 'unsentimental') provided quite the largest component of self-ratings (both before and after scree-tested reduction and Varimax rotation of factors) (Brand & Egan, 1989). This factor seemed interpretable as one of emotionality / neuroticism / sensibility vs sluggishness / ego strength / sense - though it captured rather more of the positive and affectionate aspects of emotionality than is usual for neuroticism factors. The next two Varimax factors seemed to reflect surgency / extraversion / id strength vs stoicism / introversion; and scrupulosity / conscientiousness / superego strength vs spontaneity / impulsiveness. Recently, in 54 Edinburgh adults, Vincent Egan and I have observed that even mere eight-item packages assessing these three dimensions (using contrasted adjectives - see Brand and Egan, 1989, Table 2) have split-half reliabilities of around .70, and strong correlations with Eysenck's E (id, ~superego) and ~N (ego). These findings exemplify three now well recognised phenomena: (i) the general tendency for the three Big 5 dimensions of N, E and C to emerge especially clearly (as do the three corresponding mood dimensions of 'Negative', 'Positive' and 'Attentive / Constrained') (Tellegen, 1992; Watson and Clark, 1992; Wiggins and Pincus, 1993); (ii) for broad E dimensions of the original Eysenckian type to break up into independent components of e and c (as in Table 1); and (iii) for emotionality / neuroticism to be higher in women especially when the highest loading items for n are used (Francis, 1993).

The above three ego vs n, id / e and superego / c factors were combined to yield a crude operationalization of expressed eros (cf. Freud) as
[ id² - ( ego x superego)] (after eliminating zeros by adding 1 to all three scores). Analysis of data from twenty-four 2-adjective items given to 66 London University psychology students shows eros (or, more prosaically, spiritedness) to correlate significantly (p<.001, 2-tailed) with approval (in a very brief survey) of abortion, polygamy, pornography and prostitution. Similar operationalization of expressed thanatos (or strong-mindedness) as [ id x ego x superego] also showed a significant correlation (p<.01, 2-tailed) with a package of more 'aggressive' attitudes involving approval of hanging and Thatcherism and opposition to agnosticism and pacifism; and, in 69 Scottish adults, thanatos was related (p<.02) to favouring Nationalism as opposed to holding no party-political views. These explorations thus suggest ways of beginning to link dimensions of modern differential psychology at once to some of the basic and original concepts of Freudian theory and to the major attitudinal variables of permissiveness / hedonism and militarism / punitiveness.


Conclusion

It seems reasonable to say that the three most recognizable dimensions of personality in self-report data are presently e, n and c. These three dimensions are similar to Eysenck's 'Gigantic 3'; they have strong relations to general dimensions of mood and emotion as is increasingly demanded in post-cognitive psychology (Sutherland, 1994); and they could apparently bear some psychoanalytic interpretations. However, as the new surge of empirical work on personality has shown in the past decade, it is as well to acknowledge three additional dimensions. Two of these - the POTENCY dimensions of w and a - are less reliably retrieved, perhaps because they reflect rather deep aspects of personality (e.g. connected with motivations for - rather than restraints on - aggression and sex); and many of today's psychometrician-psychologists would shudder at the political incorrectness of admitting the intellectual dimension of g as fully part of personality variation. Yet psychologists need not be surprised that six dimensions are needed to describe personality even half-adequately: for European languages remind us that we can each be said to possess, to varying degrees and with varying qualifications, six key folk-psychological components of personhood - a mind (cf. g), a heart (n), a soul (a), a spirit (e), a will (w) and a conscience (c). After a century of psychology that has been largely dominated by empiricist and idealist opponents of realism (see Brand, Egan and Deary, 1994), it is perhaps time to admit something like the Comprehensive 6 as the state of the art for differential psychology, psychoanalysis, folk psychology and their many hoped-for interfaces in applied psychology - for all that the Freudian / Eysenckian 3 will long remain the best known and most widely used in settings where g variance is negligible.

Acknowledgments

My thanks to Greg Baird, Claude Charpentier, Vincent Egan and Adrian Furnham.



References

BJORGVINSSON, T. & THOMPSON, A.P. (1994). 'Psychometric properties of an Icelandic translation of the Basic Personality Inventory: cross-cultural invariance of a three-factor solution.' Personality and Individual Differences 16, 1, 47-56.
BORKENAU, P. & LIEBLER, Annette (1993). 'Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self-ratings, partner ratings and measured intelligence.' Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 65, 3, 546-553.
BRAND, C.R. (1984). 'Personality dimensions: an overview of modern trait psychology.' In J.Nicholson and Halla Beloff (eds.), Psychology Survey 5, 175-209. Leicester, UK : British Psychological Society.
BRAND, C.R. (1989). 'A fitting endeavour'. Nature 341, 7 ix, p.29.
BRAND, C.R. (1993). 'The importance of the g factor.' - A review of J.B.Carroll's Human Cognitive Abilities: a Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Times Higher Educational Supplement, 1094, 22 x, p.22.
BRAND, C.R. (1994). 'Open to Experience - Closed to Intelligence: Why the 'Big Five' are really the 'Comprehensive Six'. European Journal of Personality 8, 299-310.
BRAND, C.R. (1995). 'Egoism and altruism: Alfred Adler's dimensions of personality.' (A review of A. Adler (1928/1992), Understanding Human Nature and A.Adler (1931/1992), What Life Could Mean to You. ) Behaviour Research and Therapy 32, ^^^^^
BRAND, C.R. & EGAN, V. (1989). 'The 'Big Five' dimensions of personality? Evidence from ipsative, adjectival self-attributions.' Personality and Individual Differences 10, 1165-1171.
BRAND, C.R., EGAN, V. & DEARY, I.J. (1993). 'Personality and general intelligence.' In G.L.Van Heck, P.Bonaiuto, I.J.Deary & W.Nowack, Personality Psychology in Europe 4. Tilburg University Press.
BRAND, C.R., EGAN, V. & DEARY, I.J. (1994). 'Intelligence, personality and society: 'constructivist' versus 'essentialist possibilities.' In D.K.Detterman (ed.), Current Topics in Human Intelligence 4, pp. 29-42. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.
BROKKEN, F.B. (1978). The Language of Personality. Ph.D. Thesis, Universty of Groningen, The Netherlands.
CAPRARA, G.V., BARBARANELLI, C., BORGOGNI, Laura & PERUGINI, M. (1993). 'The "Big Five Questionnaire": a new questionnaire to assess the five-factor model.' Personality & Individual Differences 15, 3, 281-288.
CATTELL, R.B. (1973). Personality and Mood by Questionnaire. New York : Jossey Bass.
CHURCH, A.T. & BURKE, P.J. (1994). 'Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegen's three- and four-dimensional models.' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, 1, 93-114.
CLARIDGE, G. (1981). 'Psychoticism.' In R.Lynn, Dimensions of Personality. Oxford : Pergamon.
CONTE, H.R. & PLUTCHIK, R. (1981). 'A circumplex model for interpersonal personality traits.' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43, 443-457.
DALY, E.M., LANCEE, W.J. & POLIVY, J. (1983). 'A conical model for the taxonomy of emotional experience.' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, 443-457.
DE RAAD, B., HENDRIKS, A.A.J. and HOFSTEE, W.K.B. (1992). 'Towards a refined structure of personality traits.' European Journal of Personality 6, 301-319.
DE RAAD, B. & HOFSTEE, W.K.B. (1993). 'A circumplex approach to the five factor model: a facet structure of trait adjectives supplemented by trait verbs.' Personality & Individual Differences 15, 5, 493-505.
DEARY, I.J. (1995). 'A (latent) big five personality model in 1915?: a re- analysis of Webb's data.' In submission to Journnal of Personality and Social Psychology.
DEARY, I.J., EGAN, V., GIBSON, G.J., BRAND, C.R. and KELLAGHAN, T. (1996). ‘Intelligence and the differentiation hypothesis.’ In submission to Intelligence.
DEARY, I.J. & MATTHEWS, G. (1993). 'Personality traits are alive and well.' The Psychologist 6, vii, 299-311.
DETTERMAN, D.K. & DANIEL, 1989, 'Correlations of mental tests with each other and with cognitive variables are highest for low-IQ groups.' Intelligence 13,349-359.
EYSENCK, H.J. (1954). The Psychology of Politics. London : Routledge and Kegan Paul.
EYSENCK, H.J. and EYSENCK, S.B.G. (1976). Psychoticism as a Dimension of Personality. London : Hodder & Stoughton.
EYSENCK, H.J. (1994). Special review of J.B.Carroll, Human Cognitive Abilities. Personality and Individual Differences 16,1, 199.
EYSENCK, H.J. & BARRETT, P. (1993). 'The nature of schizotypy.' Psychological Reports 73, 59-63.
EYSENCK, H.J. & EYSENCK, M.W. (1985). Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach. New York : Plenum.
FLEXER, B.K. & ROBERGE, J.J. (1983). 'A longitudinal investigation of field independence - dependence and the development of formal operational thought.' British Journal of Educational Psychology 53, 195-204.
FLOR-HENRY, P. (1974). 'Psychosis, neurosis and epilepsy.' British Journal of Psychiatry 124, 144-150.
FRANCIS, L.J. (1993). 'The dual nature of the Eysenckian neuroticism scales: a question of sex differences?' Personality & Individual Differences 15, 1, 43- 59.
GOH, D.S. & LEONG, F.T.L. (1993). 'The relationship between Holland's theory of vocational interest and Eysenck's model of personality.' Personality and Individual Differences 15, 5, 555-562.
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1993). 'The structure of phenotypic personality traits.' American Psychologist 48, 1, 26-34.
GUILFORD, J.S.,ZIMMERMAN, W.S. & GUILFORD, J.P. (1976). The Guilford- Zimmerman Temperament Survey. San Diego : Edits.
HERRNSTEIN, R.J. & MURRAY, C.M. (1994). The Bell Curve. New York : Free Press.
HOFSTEE, W.K.B., DE RAAD, B. & GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992). 'Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure.' Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 63, 1, 146-163.
JOHNSON, J.A. and OSTENDORF, F. (1993). 'Clarification of the five-factor model with the abridged big five dimensional circumplex.' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 3, 563-576.
HARGREAVES, D.J. & BOLTON, N. (1972). 'Selecting creativity tests for use in research.' British Journal of Psychology 63, 3, 451-462.
HOFSTEE, W.K.B., DE RAAD, B. & GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992). 'Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure.' Journal of Personality & ocial Psychology 63, 1, 146-163.
HOWARTH, E. (1980). Primary Objective Mood State Battery. San Diego : Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
JOHNSON, J.A. & OSTENDORF, F. (1993). 'Clarification of the five-factor model with the abridged big five dimensional circumplex.' Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 65, 3, 563-576.
KATZ, A.N. & PESTELL, Debbie (1989). 'Attentional processes and the finding of remote associates.' Personality & Individual Differences 10, 10, 1017-1025.
KLINE, P. (1992). 'The factor structure in the fields of personality.' In A.Gale & M.W.Eysenck, Handbook of Individual Differences: Biological Perspectives. Chichester : Wiley.
LAZARUS, R.S. (1993). 'From psychological stress to the emotions: a history of changing outlooks.' In L.W.Porter & MR.Rosenzweig, Annual Review of sychology 44, 117-154.
LINVEH, H. & LINVEH, C. (1989). 'The five-factor model of personality: is evidence for its cross-measure validity premature?' Personality & Individual Differences 10, 75-80.
LOGUE, Nicola A. & BYTH, W. (1993). 'Extraversion and the McCullough Effect.' British Journal of Psychology 84, 67-84.
MAGNUSSON, D. and TÖRESTAD, B. (1993). 'A holistic view of personality: a model revisited.' Annual Review of Psychology 44, 427-452.
MATTHEWS, G. & ODDY, K. (1993). 'Recovery of major personality dimensions from trait adjective data.' Personality and Individual Differences 15, 4, 419-431.
MATTHEWS, G. (1993). 'Extraversion, arousal and performance.' In A.P.Smith & D.M.Jones, Factors affecting human performance. London : Academic.
McADAMS, D.P. (1992). 'The five-factor model in personality: a critical appraisal.' Journal of Personality 60, 329-361.
McCRAE, R.R. (1995). 'Openness to experience: expanding the boundaries of Factor V.' European Journal of Personality.
McCRAE, R.R. & COSTA, P.T., Jr. (1983). 'Joint factors in self-reports and ratings: Neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience.' Personality and Individual Differences 4, 245-255.
McCRAE, R.R. & COSTA, P.T., Jr. (1987). 'Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.' Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 52, 81-91.
McCRAE, R.R., COSTA, P.T., Jr. & PIEDMONT, R.L. (1993). 'Folk concepts, natural languages and psychological constructs: the Californian Psychological Inventory and the Five-Factor Model.' Journal of Personality 61, 1, 1-26.
McCRAE, R.R. & COSTA, P.T. (1994). 'Does Lorr's Interpersonal Style Inventory measure the five-factor model? 'Personality & Individual Differences 16, 1,195-197.
McKENZIE, J. & TINDELL, G. (1993). 'Anxiety and achievement: further Furneaux factor findings.' Personality & Individual Differences 15, 609-617.
MILLER, Linda T. & VERNON, P.A. (1992). 'The general factor in short-term memory, intelligence and reaction time.' Intelligence 16, 5-29.
OATLEY, K. & JENKINS, J.M. (1992). 'Human emotions: function and dysfunction.' In M.R.Rosenzweig & L.W.Porter , Annual Review of Psychology 43, 55-85.
OSGOOD, C.E. (1962). 'Studies on the generality of affective meaning systems.' `American Psychologist, 17, 10-28.
OZER, D.J. & REISE, S.P. (1994). 'Personality assessment.' In L.W.Porter and M.R.Rosenzweig, Annual Review of Psychology 45, 357-388.
PERVIN, L.A. (1994). 'A critical analysis of current trait theory.' Psychological Inquiry 5, 2, 103-113.
PRENTKY, R.A. (1980). Creativity and Psychopathology. New York : Praeger.
RAUSCHER, F.H., SHAW, G.L. & KY, K.N. (1993). (Scientific correspondence.) Nature 365, 611.
ROYCE, J.R. & POWELL, S. (1993). A Theory of Personality and Individual Differences: Factors, Systems and Processes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
SHMELYOV, A.G. & POKHILKO, V.I. (1993). 'A taxonomy-oriented study of Russian personality-trait names.' European Journal of Personality 7, 1,1-17.
SMITH, I.M. (1964). Spatial Ability: its Educational and Social Significance. London University Press.
SOPER, H.V. & SATZ, P. (1987). 'Handedness distribution in the residential population with severe or profound mental retardation.' American Journal of Mental Deficiency 92, 94-102.
STOUGH, C., MANGAN, G., BATES, T. & PELLETT, O. (1994). ‘Smoking and Raven IQ.’ Psychopharmacology.
STOUGH, C., MANGAN, G., BATES, T., FRANK, N., KERKIN, B. & PELLETT, O. (1994b). ‘Effects of nicotine on perceptual speed.’ (Department of Psychology; University of Auckland.)
STUMPF, H. (1993). 'The factor structure of the Personality Research Form: a cross-national evaluation.' Journal of Personality 61, 1, 27-48.
SUTHERLAND, N.S. (1994). 'Emotional arguments.' Nature 369, 2 vi, p. 367.
TELLEGEN, A. (1992). The Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Minneapolis : National Computer Service.
THOMSON, C. (1993). 'Stress and homesickness in first-year university students, in association with personality, mood and cognitive variables.' M.A.Honours Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Dundee.
WALLER, N.G. (1995). 'Evaluating the structure of personality.' In R.Cloninger (ed.), Personality and Psychopathology. Washington, DC : American Psychiatric Association Press.
WATSON, D. & CLARK, L.A. (1992). 'On traits and temperament: general and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model.' Journal of Personality 60, 2, 441-476.
WEBB, E. (1915). 'Character and intelligence.' British Journal of Psychology Monographs 1, 3, 1-99.
WHITBORNE, Susan K., ZUSCHLAG, M.K., ELLIOT, Lisa B. & WATERMAN, A.S. (1992). 'Psychosocial development in adulthood: a 22-year sequential study.' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 2, 260-271.
WIGGINS, J.S. and PINCUS, A.L. (1993). 'Personality: structure and assessment.' In M.R.Rosenzweig & L.W.Porter, Annual Review of Psychology 43, 473-504.
WILLIAMS, D.G. (1993). 'Are personality effects upon average mood due to personality effects upon mood variation?' Personality & Individual Differences 14, 1, 199-208.
WITKIN, H.A., GOODENOUGH, D.R. & OLTMAN, P.K. (1979). 'Psychologicaldifferentiation: current status.' Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 37, 7, 1127-1145.
YARNOLD, P.R., BRYANT, F.B. & LITSAS, F. (1989). 'Type A behaviour and psychological androgyny among Greek college students.' European Journal of Personality 3, 249-268.
ZUCKERMAN, M., KUHLMAN, D.M., JOIREMAN, J., TETA, P. & KRAFT, M. (1993). 'A comparison of three structural models for personality: the Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five.' Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 65, 4, 757-768.

posted by JR 6:22 AM

Thursday, December 28, 2006

 

The Voice of the Neuter is Heard Throughout the Land

This article originally appeared in January on American Digest but was offline at the time of writing so I have posted it here

LIKE SOME HAGGARD CRACK WHORE banging on the door of a dealer's den willing to do anything , the hapless Joel ("I despise our troops") Stein has been passed randomly about the blogsphere in the last couple of days. Once a blogpile of such mountainous proportions starts, there's little left to comment on in terms of the content of Stein's small dry excretion after the first five hours. By that time the whole quisling screed has been pretty much picked apart like a biology major dissects an owl's pellet and glues the contents to a board with captions.

Then it is time for the masters of the trade to go to work and perform, live and on the air, "The Final Evisceration." In this case, Hugh Hewitt comes forward with what is perhaps one of the best full flensings of his career. [Pointer and "flensing" courtesy of LILEKS (James) ] If you have ever wanted to hear a classic radio interview cooly calculated to have the interviewee reveal himself in all his naked smallness before a national audience, you owe it to yourself to listen and read the audio and transcript of Hugh Hewitt interviewing Joel Stein. You owe it to yourself to listen to this segment -- and you'll need to listen in order to understand what comes next. You don't have to listen to all of it, although it is hard to turn the ear away. Just listen attentivily to the voice of Stein himself for a minute or so.

Go ahead. I'll wait here.

Back? Good.

What is of interest to me here is not what Stein writes or says. His own words damn him more decisively than a thousand bloggers blathering blithely What interestest me is how he speaks. If you focus on it, you realize that you hear this voice every day if you bounce around a bit in our larger cities buying this or ordering that, and in general running into young people in the "service" sector -- be it coffee shop, video store, department store, boutique, bookstore, or office cube farm. It's a kind of voice that was seldom heard anywhere but now seems to be everywhere. It is the voice of the neuter.

I mean that in the grammatical sense:

"a. Neither masculine nor feminine in gender.
"b. Neither active nor passive; intransitive,"

and in the biological sense:

"a. Biology Having undeveloped or imperfectly developed sexual organs: the neuter caste in social insects.
"b. Botany Having no pistils or stamens; asexual.
"c. Zoology Sexually undeveloped."

You hear this soft, inflected tone everywhere that young people below, roughly, 35 congregate. As flat as the bottles of spring water they carry and affectless as algae, it tends to always trend towards a slight rising question at the end of even simple declarative sentences. It has no timbre to it and no edge of assertion in it.

The voice whisps across your ears as if the speaker is in a state of perpetual uncertainty with every utterance. It is as if, male or female, there is no foundation or soul within the speaker on which the voice can rest and rise. As a result, it has a misty quality to it that denies it any unique character at all. It is the Valley Girl variation of the voices that Prufrock hears:

I know the voices dying with a dying fall
Beneath the music from a farther room.

It's parting wistful wish for you is that you "Have a good one."

Above all, it is a sexless voice. Not, I hasten to add, a "gay" voice. Not that at all. It is neither that gentle nor that musical. Nor is it that old shabby lisping stereotype best consigned to the dustbin of popular culture. No, this is a new old voice of a generation of ostensible men and women who have been educated and acculturated out of, or say rather, to the far side of any gender at all. It is, as I have indicated above, the voice of the neutered. And in this I mean that of the transitive verb: To castrate or spay. The voice and the kids that carry it is the triumphant achievement of our halls of secondary and higher education. These children did not speak this way naturally, they were taught. And like good children seeking only to please their teachers and then their employers, they learned.

This is not to say that the new American Castrati of all genders live sexless lives. On the contrary, if reports are to be credited, they seem to have a good deal of sex, most often without the burden of love or the threat of chlldren, and in this they are condemned to the sex life of children.

No, it is only to say that this new voice that we hear throughout the land from so many of the young betokens a weaker and less certain brand of citizen than we have been used to in our history. Neither male nor female, neither gay nor straight, neither.... well, not anything substantive really. A generation finely tuned to irony and nothingness and tone deaf to duty and soul. If you can write in this tone, and Stein can, you can become a third level columnist for the Los Angeles Times. With a little luck, over time, you might even rise to the level of second string columnist for Vanity Fair. Should the country so lose its mind and elect another Clinton, you could even become a White House speech writer.

For now you can hear the poster child for this sexless cohort in Joel Stein's dulcet voice quavering and halting and rising to a falling lilting question as Hugh Hewitt exposes the nothingness at Stein's core in question after quiet question. When Hewitt is done, you ask yourself what Stein has actually said in answer to Hewitt's questions. What Stein has said is what his whole cohort has said in response to questions of honor, duty, country. It is the standard issue answer and will be their standard issue epitaph:

"Whatever."




Gagdad Bob comments on the above essay:

This divorce and blending of the male and female produces a new kind of child, one that is neither male nor female, adult nor child. A recent case in point was brought to our attention in the pathetic figure of Joel Stein, an L.A. Times columnist who penned a now infamous piece about his moral contempt for our troops fighting in Iraq. As he put it, it is wrong to blame President Bush for their moral turpitude. Rather, "The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying." In his magnanimity, Stein is "not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea."

Vanderleun over at American Digest wrote an outstanding, insightful piece yesterday that absolutely eviscerates the hapless Stein. Entitled The Voice of the Neuter is Heard Throughout the Land, it goes way beyond the vapid and vile (if it's possible to be both) content of Stein's essay in order to describe a much wider and more troubling cultural phenomenon. He refers the reader to a radio interview of Stein conducted by Hugh Hewitt. I actually heard the interview in real time, and Vanderleun is exactly right that Stein's hollow and lilting voice is the voice of the neuter.

Vanderleun describes perfectly the flat, affectless tone of so many of Stein's generational cohort that "tends to always trend towards a slight rising question at the end of even simple declarative sentences." Neither identifiably male or female, "there is no foundation or soul within the speaker on which the voice can rest and rise." But "above all, it is a sexless voice. Not, I hasten to add, a 'gay' voice.... No, this is a new old voice of a generation of ostensible men and women who have been educated and acculturated out of, or say rather, to the far side of any gender at all. It is, as I have indicated above, the voice of the neutered.... "

Here, Vanderleun seems to be describing one of the inevitable consequences of the sexual and generational blending I referred to above. This "new voice that we hear throughout the land from so many of the young betokens a weaker and less certain brand of citizen than we have been used to in our history. Neither male nor female, neither gay nor straight, neither.... well, not anything substantive really. A generation finely tuned to irony and nothingness and tone deaf to duty and soul."

posted by JR 2:52 PM

Thursday, October 26, 2006

 

GOOGLEBOMB

Don't take too much notice of the post below. As you may or may not know, Leftist Chris Bowers from MyDD is organizing a massive Googlebomb for the 2006 elections. The sad reality is that is an effort that could, at least in a few close races, move a few hundred votes away from a Republican candidate to a Democrat. So, in an effort to level the playing field, John Hawkins has put together a list of 45 key races that right-of-center bloggers can Googlebomb as well. So, in the interests of to achieving Googlebomb parity with our comrades on the left in the search engine arms race, I have posted the links he recommends below:

Senate

Connecticut: Ned Lamont
Maryland: Ben Cardin
Michigan: Debbie Stanbenow
Missouri: Claire McCaskill
Montana: Jon Tester
New Jersey: Bob Menendez
Tennessee: Harold Ford
Virginia: James Webb

Democrat Held Seats

(CO-03): John Salazar
(GA-03): Jim Marshall
(GA-12): John Barrow
(IA-03): Leonard Boswell
(IL-08): Melissa Bean
(IL-17): Phil Hare
(IN-07): Julia Carson
(NC-13): Brad Miller
(PA-12): John Murtha
(WV-01): Alan Mollohan

Republican Held Seats

(AZ-08): Gabrielle Giffords
(CT-04): Diane Farrell
(CT-05): Chris Murphy
(CO-07): Ed Perlmutter
(IA-01): Bruce Braley
(IL-06): Tammy Duckworth
(IN-02): Joe Donnelly
(IN-08): Brad Ellsworth
(IN-09): Baron Hill
(FL-13): Christine Jennings
(FL-16): Tim Mahoney
(FL-22): Ron Klein
(KY-03): John Yarmuth
(NC-01): Heath Shuler
(MN-06): Patty Wetterling
(NM-01): Patricia Madrid
(NY-20): Kirsten Gillibrand
(NY-24): Michael Arcuri
(NY-26): Jack Davis
(OH-15): Mary Jo Kilroy
(OH-18): Zack Space
(PA-06): Lois Murphy
(PA-08): Patrick Murphy
(PA-07): Joe Sestak
(PA-10): Chris Carney
(VA-02): Phil Kellam
(WI-08): Steve Kagen

posted by JR 12:15 AM

Thursday, September 28, 2006

 

DEAR AMANDA

I very rarely bother to fisk Leftist articles. It is much more interesting to spend my time looking at articles that endeavour to consider all the facts of a matter rather than looking at the very selective attention to the facts that characterizes Leftist writing. A reader has however drawn my attention to a typical bit of Leftist hate by Australian columnist Amanda Blair and offered some comments on it. I reproduce both the column and the comments on it below. I thought however that I might make a few comments in passing on the column myself:

Our wonderfully caring Amanda is unhappy with the way senior members of the Australian government have repeately told Australia's Muslims that they should shape up or ship out. In response to that, dearest Amanda puts forward the hoary argument that since not all Muslims are the same we should consider them only as individuals and not as a group. That most Leftist discourse consists of NOTHING BUT talk about groups ("The poor", "Minorities", "Women", "Zionists" etc.) does not of course embarrass Amanda one bit. And according to Amanda's logic we should all in fact be struck dumb -- since all words in our language are words for categories. There are for instance large dogs, small dogs, black dogs and white dogs, tame dogs and fierce dogs so obviously we should not talk of dogs -- right?

Allowance should of course always be made in official policy for the characteristics of individuals (something that Leftists seem to find extraordinarily hard to do) but Prime Minister Howard has repeatedly done just that -- stressing that the problem lies with a minority of Muslims only, not with all Muslims. And yet it is of Mr Howard that sad Amanda is most critical.

What would you say about someone who was careful to speak slowly and clearly to someone who appeared to be of immigrant origin? Would you describe them as polite, considerate etc.? Amanda does not. When Mr Howard did that she made the very large leap of saying that it showed him to be a "little Englander". Since he is Australian, not English, that would appear to be a snide accusation of racism. The irony of the fact that the original little Englanders of the 19th century were radical opponents of imperialism is of course quite lost on our Amanda. She appears to be one of that fortunately rare but very amusing ilk who like to use big words and expressions without really knowing what they mean. She is, most probably, the product of a modern journalism education.

She also seems to be claiming that Australians are much less happy with their immigrants than are Americans. Since Australia has had for around 60 years now a policy of deliberately encouraging immigration -- something that only Israel could rival -- that is as fact-free as the rest of her diatribe.

To say any more about her pathetic outburst would, I think, be to take it far more seriously than it deserves. I have however interpolated a few more comments in italics. The text of Amanda's column follows, followed in turn by comments from a reader:




Muslims, myths and fear mongering

By Amanda Blair

Who'd want to be a Muslim in Australia? John Howard has decided to identify a "very small section" of Australia's Muslim community for not integrating. Of course, it beggars the question, if it's so small, why bother highlighting it? But, no, he feels it proper to single them out and suggest they learn English and learn also that in this country, there's equality between men and women.

John Howard is Prime Minister of one of the world's most multicultural countries. And I think he's totally without understanding for what it is to be multicultural. I realised this some months ago, seeing footage of him at a function. He was speaking to a woman wearing a Muslim headscarf, asking her how long she'd been in the country. It was classic Basil Fawlty stuff, speaking quite deliberately as though she were deaf. She replied: "I was born here."

Howard is a Little Englander. Not a Modern Australian - nor, for that matter, a man of the modern world. His comments on Friday were akin to the sort of stuff my grandfather came out with while talking about "the Japs in 1942". Can you imagine the backlash if Tony Blair made these remarks in modern Britain? Or even George Bush? America has its problems, but it cherishes the fact it was built on migrant populations and God help anyone who doesn't respect it.

Of course, I can already hear some of you chuntering on about "political correctness" - that everyone has a right to free speech. Well, sure, but Howard has a responsibility to be fair to ALL Australians, not just those who subscribe to his fantasy of a quarter-acre-block and a Commodore station wagon for all.

The problem is, there's fear in this country and overseas about terrorism. And I think John Howard is quite simply vote-getting by playing - all very subtly - to those fears. Muslims have become the bogeymen in the closet, at least for those thong-wearing, beer-drinking barbecue jockeys griping about people who "aren't like us". The "equality to women" thing is a classic hot button, one that appeals to a dimly-perceived image of suppression under a veil.

Let's put that straight. There are a billion Muslims in the world operating under a string of regional and national interpretations of the Koran. Oxford-educated Benazir Bhutto was able to rise to the No. 1 job in Pakistan [Only as heir to her popular father]. A suppressed woman? Hardly. There are nations where Muslim women have the option to wear the veil, many of them freely choosing to do so, saying how it's liberating to be removed from the vanity and self-consciousness that prevails in other nations. But yes, the Taliban made second-class citizens of women, although it's an extremist group that has happily been ousted.

(While we're at it, I know Catholic women who are suppressed. [Typical Leftist moral equivalence. Catholics are hard on women in some ways so that excuses the much crueler Muslim oppression of women, apparently. And two wrongs make a right, I guess] I know women from atheist households who are suppressed. And if this Government cherishes equality, how about some legislation that guarantees equal pay and conditions for women?) But that's the point: Howard is governing a nation that loves to watch Border Security, its most popular TV show - a foul, fear-mongering take on Fortress Australia, where dinky di Aussies take out bad guys - brown guys with poor command of the language, here to take our jobs and our women.

John Howard, this is what you're doing to modern Australia. [Now comes the typical elitist contempt for ordinary Australians, complete with mimicry of a working-class accent] I know two Anglo-Australian women. Recently, they were on the Gold Coast enjoying their Kath and Kim-style holiday, all fake tans and "cardonnay". They were waiting for a hotel lift to go to the top floor. "And, we were standing there - roight? - and then the lift arrived and then - then - we looked and saw there was a whole heap of Muslim women in their headscarfs an' that. An' Mum an' Oi looked at each other and we thought, we thought, 'Aww hell, they're probably terrorists', so we didn't get in with them.' Oi don't wanna get blown up." Like I said, who'd want to be a Muslim in Australia?





And one of Amanda's readers offers some carefully referenced comments:

I was intrigued by your piece in the Sunday Mail of September 3, and your follow up `Here's a Thought' in the September 10 issue. Mostly I find your writing pretty close to the mark, but in this case unfortunately you are wrong on many counts.

Re. your question "How many of them do you know". I know, and have met, and have read letters, comments, and articles from many hundreds of `them' of all sorts of persuasions.

THEM AND US

Your question about us and them, and what exactly is our way of life in this concept can be answered quite simply. Yes of course there is an `us' and there is a `them'.

The `us' includes the modern Christians, Judaists, Buddhists, Shinto's, moderate Muslims etc. that accept freedom (of speech, religion etc.), equality (of sexes, races, colours, religion, sexual orientation, size, etc.), and the rule of law where those laws are based on the above principles (but it doesn't include people and organizations that claim moderation when speaking in English, French, German, Japanese, etc., but preach the opposite when speaking in Arabic, Indonesian, etc.).

The `them' includes the Fascists, Communists, IslamISTS, and other totalitarian ideologies that do not accept the Rule of Law, or accept only a rule of law based on principles diametrically opposed to the above `us' legal principles.

THE KORAN

Next we need to get a few things straight. If you have studied the Koran and the Hadiths you will know that the sanitized version of Islam that is being peddled by much of our media (5) (9) (19) is not the version portrayed in the Koran and the Hadiths. That sanitized version is the version we would all like Islam to become, but it is not the mainstream version. The true Islam is the Koranic version as printed in the Koran and the Hadiths. This is the version being taught in nearly all of the Muslim schools and Mosques. (15) (16) (Do you own a copy of the Koran? Is it a true translation or one of the sanitized versions?)

In fact senior Islamic teachers and religious leaders regard followers of moderate versions of Islam to be infidels - unbelievers. And don't be fooled by the claim that some that the more peaceful and moderate clauses in the Koran prove that the religion is peaceful. Those claims are based principally on texts from early chapters (suras) originating from Muhammad's Mecca period, but these clauses are abrogated by the later chapters written in Medina. (2) (15) (16)

All of these situations need to be fixed, and we need to support the truly moderate Muslims, and to shut out and delegitimize, and remove from positions of influence those that preach intolerance, murder, terrorism, etc.

The situation you portrayed in your `Kath and Kim' example is counterproductive to the above aims and should not have happened.

WORLD LEADERS

Being a person with access to overseas media, you should know that your claim that Tony Blair and George Bush would not be able to make similar comments to those made by John Howard is totally false. Both of those leaders (and many others) have been very critical of immigrants and residents that don't accept their host country's laws and moral imperatives.

Your comments about John Howard's method of speaking when talking to a woman wearing a head scarf are also off the mark. If you have conversed with as many people from non-English speaking background as I have, then you find that whenever you see evidence that the person may be from that background, you automatically speak slowly and deliberately to avoid embarrassment to them. When you have ascertained their English speaking skills, you revert to a method of speaking appropriate to their skills level.

It does however speak volumes to the fact that many people (especially females) from certain backgrounds have limited or non-existent English speaking capability.
In this case the person had adequate English speaking shills, but the Prime Minister would not have known that until she answered him.

Of course our leaders and we make mistakes, but we should learn from them. Invaluable learning and analysis tools are history and overseas experiences. Unfortunately many of us seem unwilling or unable to learn from these sources. Fortunately there has been a steady positive shift towards realism from some of the world's leaders in response to the above pressures. (1) (12)

XENOPHOBIA

As for xenophobia, increasingly we see `home grown' second and subsequent generation young people being radicalized by the teachings of the propagators of the true Islam, with the result that home grown intolerance, intimidation, and terrorism is increasingly becoming the problem in many countries. (4) (8) (10) (11) (12)

TRENDS

There is ample evidence that contrary to popular opinion, rather than becoming more moderate, most Islamic countries are becoming more traditional/fundamentalist/extreme in their attitudes and lawmaking. (13) One of a multitude of examples is the recent law changes in the formerly moderate Malaysia, where it is now legal for husbands to have more than one wife, where husbands now have even more control of their wives, and where free speech has been further curtailed, etc.

With this trend in mind, we can see that there is a decreasing, not an increasing likelihood that someone like Benazir Bhutto could rise to power in these countries in the future.

DANGERS

I note your claim that John Howard was just `vote getting' when he made comments about terrorism dangers. Do you honestly believe that there is no danger? If you do then you are ignoring all of the available evidence. If you don't then you are being dishonest in your writings.

I find it unconscionable that leaders like Simon Crean can say on national TV that there was/is no danger to Australia or Australians from terrorist activities when they should know this to be untrue. (As you will remember Crean said that a couple of days before the Bali bombing).

CONCLUSIONS

I would very much like the followers of that and similar religions and ideologies to forsake the intolerant and violent parts of Koranic and other teachings, and become peaceful additions to our and similar communities. Unfortunately the trend is in the opposite direction. An examination of what has happened and is continuing to happen overseas reinforces this opinion. (3) (5) (7) (13) (17)

Those who do not accept the `us' principles above and whose ultimate aim is to replace our laws and moral principles with their own should instead settle in countries that do accept their principles.

Before you make pronouncements on other people's attitudes and actions in this matter you need to learn a lot more about Islam, and the real `war on terror' (21) (23). Sure there are a lot of people who are xenophobic, intolerant, and prejudiced, and there are a lot that adopt the ostrich `head in the sand' principle but there are also a lot that have made a concerted effort to understand the multitude of challenges that face us in this modern world.

We all also need to examine and learn from what has happened in overseas countries, because if we don't, the same disasters that have befallen them will be visited on us in the future. (24)


REFERENCES

(Please note that these are only a few of the many available - some others I have read are more relevant, but I don't have them in my local listings).

(1) http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3913
(2) http://www.meforum.org/article/1003
(3) http://www.meforum/article/994
(4) http://www.meforum.org/article/687
(5) http://www.meforum.org/article/998
(6) http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,15983737,00.html
(7) http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/000769print.html
(8) http://www.danielpipes.org/article3835
(9) http://www.honestreporting.com/ssi/printversion.asp?pageurl=/articles/45884734/
(10) Chicago Tribune Sept 19 2004 "Struggle for the Soul of Islam".
(11) http://www.alertnet.org/printable.htm?url=/thenews/newsdesk/isl19172.htm
(12) "Public Statement, Release of 9/11 Commission Report, the Hon. H. Kean and the Hon. Lee H Hamilton", July 22, 2004.
(13) News Max Magazine June19, 2004, "Saudis, heads-in-sand, saw no evil".
(14) http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/printable.asp?id=15363
(15) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, by Robert Spencer, Regenery Publishing.
(16) The Sword of the Prophet, by Serge Trifkovic, Regina Orthodox Press.
(17) Eurabia, The Euro-Arab Axis, by Bat Ye'or, Fairleigh Dickson Press.
(18) Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh, Human Events Books
(19) http://www.meforum.org/article/139
(20) Jordanians turning against terrorism, Associated Press, Nov 14 2005.
(21) http://www.meforum.org/article/974
(22) The Course of History is Changed, Paul Sperry, FrontPageMagazine.com, December 14, 2005
(23) MEMRI, Special Report No. 24, December 26, 2003.
(24) www.danielpipes.org/article/1639

posted by JR 10:35 AM

Saturday, August 19, 2006

 

Finally, a man worth killing

A movie review of "King Arthur" -- reviewed by Jon N. Hall

For some time now I've been boycotting Hollywood and therefore must wait for films to come to cable. So it is only recently that I have seen what might be the ultimate in Freedom films: 2004's King Arthur. I didn't think I'd like it as much as I do, but there's so much to commend it. First off, it's a very pretty film. Some of the shots remind me of Pre-Raphaelite paintings. Hans Zimmer has delivered a fine orchestral score, sort of a new-agey Brucknerian thing with Celtic overtones. And there's a haunting song sung by Maire Brennan, the lead singer in the Celtic band Clannad and older sister of singer Enya. There's one helluva great battle scene on a frozen lake that surely must be inspired by Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky (1938). The special effects in this scene are tip-top. The acting is fine throughout; Ray Winstone's Bors stands out. Screenwriter David Franzoni (Gladiator) has written a great script, with goodly dollops of humor. Interestingly, the director is an African-American, Antoine Fuqua (Tears of the Sun).

But the most creative and original thing about this particular King Arthur, and what jazzes me most about it, is the very concept of the film. This is a de-mythologizing of the story. You find none of the mysticism and magic found in Camelot, Excalibur and other renderings. It's an attempt to make it real, to set it down in history.

Arthur is a 5th century Roman commander policing Britannia. His knights are from Sarmatia, the steppes of present-day Ukraine. Arthur is Christian and his knights-Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain, Dagonet, Tristan, and Bors-are pagan. The story begins in 452 A.D. (Incidentally, this so happens to be one year after the great Battle of Chƒlons-sur-Marne, one of the most important battles in history, where Romans allied with Visigoths beat back the Huns. It was the last major battle of the Western Roman Empire, which fell in 476 A.D., ushering in the Dark Ages.) Romans have gone to the defeated Sarmatia to conscript Lancelot, still just a lad, for military service in Britannia. The action then jumps forward 15 years, and it is here that the continuing theme of Freedom asserts itself. For it is the eve of Arthur and his knight's discharge from their 15-year military service-they are about to become free men. Arthur plans to go to Rome, which he idealizes, and his Sarmatian knights plan to go home to Sarmatia, although Bors is considering staying in Britannia.

But Freedom is to be postponed, as Rome has one last mission for the knights before granting them their discharge papers, and it is more dangerous than any other. A mighty Saxon army is invading to the north. (This is historically accurate inasmuch as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes did invade the island in the 5th century). Rome is withdrawing from "indefensible outposts" like Britannia, and needs the knights to rescue an important Roman family whose estate lies between them and the invading Saxons. Trouble is: the estate is north of Hadrian's Wall, the land of the fierce Woads (native Britons, so named for the blue pigment they apply to their skin). Since Rome is abandoning Britannia to the invading Saxons, the knights feel they've been fighting for nothing. But to gain their Freedom they must obey this final order and rescue the family.

As expected, while riding north Arthur and his knights are attacked by the Woads. But just as they are about to be massacred Merlin, the leader of the Woads, calls it off and lets them live. Old Merlin has other plans for Arthur. So they make it to the estate, and there they are shocked to see the wretched condition of the Woad slaves. They're malnourished and are being overworked and abused by the Romans. Arthur informs everyone that a vast and terrible army that will show no mercy is fast approaching, and he prepares to evacuate everyone immediately, including the slaves and serfs. Tristan returns from his reconnoitering and informs Arthur that they have no time; the Saxons are very near. It is beginning to snow, and they hear the Saxon war drums reverberating through the hills.

Right as they are about to evacuate Arthur eyes a suspicious-looking building. Though time is of the essence, they break down the door and find a dungeon where Woads are being punished for their heresies. They rescue the 2 Woads who haven't succumbed, a boy and one Guinevere, whom Arthur himself carries out. They then set out on their escape. (The scenes at the estate and of the subsequent snowy journey back to safety are the most beautiful in the movie. These are the Pre-Raphaelite scenes. And on the journey Zimmer's score blazes forth in its Brucknerian mode.)

At the Roman estate north of Hadrian's Wall

During the trek we learn that Arthur is only half Roman, his mother was a Briton. One night during their journey back to safety Guinevere walks away from their encampment, trying to lure Arthur to follow her, which he does. And out of the snowy mists appears Merlin, Arthur's mortal enemy. Merlin knows the Romans are withdrawing from the island and that the fearsome Saxons are on the march. Though the Woads have fought Arthur for years, they respect his military prowess and believe he can do anything. And inasmuch as Arthur is half Briton, Merlin entreats him not to go with the Romans to Rome, but stay and lead them against the Saxons. They need a "master of war".

They make it back, and receive their discharge papers, making them free men. Guinevere picks up where Merlin left off and tells Arthur, "These are your people." Soon the Saxons arrive. Arthur goes to the battlements and sees the campfires of the Saxons glowing in the night. At that moment he decides. He realizes he cannot abandon his mother's people, his people, the native Britons, to the Saxons. He tells his men, "Knights, my journey with you must end here. May God go with you."

The next day the Romans and knights head for the sea to flee the island, while Arthur stays to fight the Saxons with the Woads. But the knights can't bring themselves to abandon Arthur and come back to fight with their great leader. And they prevail. And the knights decide to stay in Britain. And Arthur and Guinevere get married. And the Woads make Arthur their king. And there you have it. The End.

That's the skeleton of the story. I could go on and on; there are so many wonderful scenes and details I've omitted, but I leave them for you to discover. The liberties taken with the story might rankle history sticklers and Arthurian purists. But I'll have none of it; screenwriter Franzoni is after much bigger game than just another retelling. This is one big hymn to Freedom, references to Freedom echo throughout the movie.

Caveat: I must conclude that the version of the film I've seen is the PG-13 theatrical release, not the Director's Cut, which is about 14 minutes longer. So I cannot vouch for the extended version and my comments are confined to the PG-13 version. Although there's much action in this shorter version, there's no gore. No severed arteries spurting, no entrails falling onto the battlefield. The PG-13 version works so well for me that I'm a bit averse to screening the Director's Cut, which is unrated. The PG-13 version is available at Amazon.com. Christians may take exception to how the Church comes off. But this is misguided. The one sex scene in the short version, which is not nude, is about as tasteful as any you're likely to see in cinema since the `50s.

In my book, character is everything. So let's look at some.

Franzoni's knights are not your dandified goody-two-shoes affairs you find in other Arthurian narratives. They're tough customers, hardened by years of fighting. They're life-takers and heart-breakers; the kind of guys who eat their own guts for breakfast and ask for seconds. But they're not stamped out of cookie cutters; each is unique from the others. Dagonet is the strong selfless silent type. Bors is loud and lewd but dotes on his kids. Lancelot and Galahad just want to survive and go home to Sarmatia. Tristan is an uncanny shot and has a taste for fighting. Gawain seems rather jaded and tired. And Guinevere is no dainty flower, either. She enters the climactic battle along with the men and kicks Saxon butt. And the cast fleshes out these characters superbly. Stellan Skarsgard's Saxon heavy is delicious. The cast contains a Swede, a Dane, a German, an Italian, some Irish, and lots of English blokes, but nary an American that I'm aware of.

Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Keira Knightley (Guinevere),
Clive Owen (Arthur, a.k.a Artorius Castus)

But the title character is the one that most intrigues. This Arthur is an interesting combination of Boy Scout and Dirty Harry. In defending Rome he has spilled blood and taken lives for years, yet he talks to God. He prays to Him to spare his men on their last perilous mission so that they may attain their Freedom, and offers up his own life in the bargain. Clive Owen's Arthur has a natural nobility, dignity, and grace, and his understated performance grows on you. (Why isn't this guy in the first rank of matinee idols? Maybe he's just too manly, today's women preferring the more easily manipulated metro-sexual androgyne.)

One wonderful detail of this Arthur is that he's a disciple of Pelagius. (Pelagius is an historical figure, a 5th century British monk whose doctrines were considered heretical.) Though Arthur loves Rome, he does not accept the Roman idea that "some men are born to be slaves", and has embraced Pelagius' philosophy of Freedom. Pelagius is a father figure for Arthur. When the young Alecto informs Arthur that back in Rome Pelagius has been excommunicated and killed, Arthur is stricken. Alecto continues, "the Rome you talk of doesn't exist, except in your dreams." (Hats off to Franzoni. Putting Pelagius in the story is marvelously inventive, and helps to make the story real.)

David Franzoni

Franzoni's wonderful script teems with great dialog. I could supply a hyperlink to a website of it, but I'm not gonna do it-see the movie first. But here's a taste. Just before the climatic battle scene the Saxons wave the white flag and Arthur, sword in hand, rides out alone to parley with the Saxon leader, also alone:

Saxon leader: Arthur. Wherever I go on this wretched island I hear your name. Always half-whispered, as if you were a . . . god. All I see is flesh, blood. No more god than the creature you're sitting on.

Arthur: Speak your terms, Saxon.

Saxon leader: The Romans have left you. Who are you fighting for?

Arthur: I fight for a cause beyond Rome's or your understanding.

Saxon leader: Ah. You come to beg a truce. You should be on your knees.

[Arthur thrusts his sword to within a foot of the Saxon's head.]
Arthur: I came to see your face, so that I alone may find you on the battlefield. And it would be good for you to mark my face, Saxon, for the next time you see it, it will be the last thing you see on this earth.

[Arthur rides off for battle.]
Saxon leader: Ah, finally, a man worth killing

Some may contend that there are other more-deserving nominees for the title of "Ultimate Freedom Film of All Time". Such films as Braveheart, Spartacus, and The Return of the King, are obvious contenders. But I'm sticking with Franzoni's King Arthur. And probably because it took place in the 5th century, when Western Civilization was threatened big-time. Rather like today.

I have no idea what screenwriter Franzoni's political persuasion is, but his is a film conservatives can love. Indeed, it is must-see cinema for conservatives. It celebrates so many of the values and virtues conservatives hold dear: Duty, Honor, Courage, Loyalty, Sacrifice, Homeland, Faith, Family, and, of course, Freedom.

Now that the Saxon is subdued, converted, and assimilated, we see new threats to civilization. We need new "masters of war"-new Arthurs. Where these new Arthurs are to come from, or who they may be, I do not know. But I do know that we have our new champion of Freedom-our new Pelagius, if you will-in the person of David Horowitz. And that is why it is so absolutely fitting that the Center now bears his name. Perhaps as never before, Freedom needs her defenders, institutions like The David Horowitz Freedom Center. And for spiritual sustenance, we can always use another Freedom film.

Jon Hall lives in the Kansas City area. In his youth he would amuse himself by telling folks he was a Pelagian.

posted by JR 9:39 PM

Monday, August 07, 2006

 

Hey, I’m Anti-War, Too!

By Arlene Peck

Just because I am against war, doesn’t mean that I can’t see the necessity of fighting one... especially when I realize that I am watching a wave of savage 7th century barbarians climbing over the hill ready to kill everyone in sight. I just happen to be a little more basic in my thinking than what I am seeing in most of the press and for sure the political pundits in the EU and United Nations. We have an enemy that wants to kill us. And, when I say “us” I, am talking about our entire western culture. Israel doesn’t have a thing to do about it except that they are a modern democratic country living in a bad neighborhood, surrounded by a savage culture that has been carefully nurtured on hatred and survives on submission. Do you remember when we lived 'normal' lives and were not consumed 24/7 with pictures of raging savages with fists raised shouting "Jihad" "Jihad?”

We have turned the men in this country into such feminized versions of manhood that they have no conception of what war really is. All the new pretty boys and soft-core-feminist news commentators need is that they look like Sophia Loren and be about 20 years old. Gone are the Walter Cronkites or Edward R. Morrows who actually had a grasp of history and the “big picture" and recognized the realities of war. The new ‘think tanks’ deliver split screen ‘debates’ between groups of men or women who have never even seen battle beyond the ROTC. Yet, they know, with absolute conviction, that all Israel has to do to stop this war of aggression against them is to ‘cease fire’ and put another group of unfriendly and incompetent United Nations ‘soldiers’ along their borders , and it will magically all go away.

Our country is filled with wimps; so-called men who, in my opinion, couldn’t have gotten a date for the prom but feel so assured of their politically correct positions that they are giving advice about how to run a war. A war, incidentally, that should never run over two weeks time. Gawd! What happened to our men? Real men, like those of my father's era, who fought in the Second World War and never had a problem with their identity. They knew who the enemy was and what they had to do about it. The war they fought didn’t have a deadline of two weeks!

Today, some political pundit gets in front of the camera and tells us with complete authority that "Folks, this conflict is going to have to go on another couple of weeks"

I think it first happened when the magazines begin to convince them that it was a ‘manly’ thing to shave their chest and body parts so they could have ‘’carved abs’. Hell, I’ll bet the men in Israel still have hairy chests. I will not be surprised if I opened GQ one day and saw that they had managed to removed the belly button as the ultimate rejection of motherhood. However, I digress.

Maybe because I have actually been to the area a couple of dozen times and visited many of the Arab countries… including Lebanon in June of 1982, as a journalist covering the IDF and again in 1993, that I was able to see with my own eyes what a sick society the Jewish state is actually fighting. Now, I don't have to go so far to see what the Israelis live with every day. All one has to do is walk into any of your local mosques and listen to what they are saying... here! In America!

Last year, I spent a few hours listening to what this “gentle” nation was saying at a mosque here, in Los Angeles. Granted, they did not tell their well-dressed western audience to go out and kill everyone who is not one of them, as, I have no doubt, is the case with Imams in Arab countries. They were more sophisticated than that. They gave "sermons" telling the audience that their job was to go back to their homes and channel their “American” children into educational tracks leading to occupations such as journalism and politics , because those are the areas they need to ‘infiltrate’ to get their point across. Folks, that is what scares the living bee-gees out of me! Because a lot of our media reporting looks like they have done just that!

I have a friend who told me about her return last year to her hometown of Dearborn, Michigan for a class reunion. She even went back to her school for the obligatory visit. Rhona was astounded! Gone were the cheerleaders and girls in tight jeans. Headscarves and clothes that completely covered the female students have now replaced them. Dearborn Michigan! That was her moment of truth.

However, I truly believe that only a few of my fellow Americans are ‘getting’ it. The rest I just chalk up to basic Anti-Semitism. They have already welcomed the Muslims into their countries and are becoming Islamic dominated nations. Already their children are being indoctrinated by this death cult, which lives for death, in anticipation of their seventy-two virgins.

I am at the point that I don't have the slightest clue for whom to cast my vote in the next election. I've long been a fan of Joseph Farah, the founder and editor of World Net Daily, and I completely agree with what he wrote in a recent article. "Personally, I don't think Republicans or Democrats truly get it when it comes to the Mideast. The last U.S. president who comprehended Israel's value as an ally against Islamic-fascism was President Reagan." I couldn't agree more with his thinking that if it weren't for the evangelical component of the Republican Party, and the religious right it contains, U.S. politicians would have abandoned Israel long ago. Now I understand why the left is so determined to shut down "the religious right!"

The Democrats seem to have no policy except that of staying neutral and being available to 'give a hug' and form a support group when necessary. They seem to adhere to a policy of staying separate from the conflict so as not to acknowledge the fact that we are in a war of good vs. evil that will destroy us all, if we lose! I live in fear that neither party actually “gets it!”

I grew up believing that America stood for something. When did we turn into a nation that embraces all that is hell bent on destroying everything that America stands for?

posted by JR 4:41 PM

Monday, July 24, 2006

 

"duty, honor, country"

DUTY'S CALLING: It's Our Duty to Replace the Word Beauty at the VA's New $4 Million "Landmark Gateway Plaza"

By Robert L. Rosebrock

Since 1898, The United States Military Academy has had the words "Duty, Honor, Country" proudly emblazoned on its coat of arms and boldly engraved on some of its oldest buildings. The motto has become such a distinct code for military leadership and loyalty to our country that these time-honored ideals have become firmly embedded into the minds and hearts of all who actively serve in our Armed Forces, regardless of his or her respective branch of service

In his famous "Duty,ÿHonor, Country" speech given to the West Point Cadets in 1962, General Douglas MacArthur resolutely declared: "Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn."

This exemplary oration by the General is considered to be among the greatest speeches in American history. It was not only eloquently delivered but his tribute was so singular in purpose that even a small child could understand the overwhelming importance of this sacred motto.

The General's inspirational message notwithstanding, he further forewarned: "The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule."

Well, the General's feared prophecy has now come true and it's been validated at the newly erected $4 million "Landmark Gateway Plaza" and perimeter fence at the local Veterans Administration grounds in Brentwood.

There, at the corner of Wilshire and San Vicente Boulevards, and in bold, bronzed letters are the words "Beauty, Honor, Country." This fallacious effort to belittle the rigors of military duty and pass it off as quaint beauty is either a foolish blunder or outright blasphemy against the code entrusted to the highest calling of public service, our Armed Forces, and the timeless tradition of "Duty, Honor, Country."

Just because someone thought it was clever that beauty rhymes with duty certainly doesn't justify making such a contemptuous change to the legacy of this heralded motto. In fact, there is no rhyme or reason for taking this distinct and hallowed word and replacing it with a nebulous and shallow word.

While a small child could easily understand the reverent tribute to the motto in the General's patriotic speech, he or she would not be able to understand the mockery of it at the Veteran's sacred property.


Above and Beyond the Call of Duty

Duty with Honor is such a paramount responsibility in protecting our Country that the Medal of Honor is awarded to the heroic few, who at the risk of their own life, go above and beyond the call of duty. Unfortunately, there are those who are charged with dereliction to duty and they are consequently dishonorably discharged from the military.

General George Patton, Jr., another legendary World War II hero truly understood the significance of duty to our country and summed it up this way: "Duty is but discipline carried to its highest degree."

In a proud tribute to our military men and women on Armed Forces Day in 1985, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed: "This is a day we set aside to remember and thank those Americans who wear our country's uniform and who serve our nation in so many places around the globe. Many are far from home, and things you and I take for granted -- family, friends, all the good things that go with life in our hometowns -- they've given all these things up for the sake of a challenge and to answer a call. The challenge is the task of defending freedom, and the call they've answered is summarized in three words: `Duty, Honor, Country.'"

George Putnam, the 91-year legendary radio talk show host, decorated World War II Marine, and a true American patriot has always ended his popular "Talk Back" program with "Duty, Honor, Country."


Who's Behind `Beauty Gate'?

The magnitude and importance of Duty is so significant in this patriotic creed that it is the first word declared. So, just how did changing it to beauty actually come about, why, and by whom?

The Veterans Park Conservancy, a non-profit community organization in cooperation with the local Veterans Administration, designed, approved and built the new Gateway Plaza and perimeter fence and then dedicated the project on March 28, 2006. For nearly a year prior, the construction was shielded from public view with a temporary canvass-covered chain link fence, which was kept up for a short period of time after the dedication.

Over Memorial Day weekend, I happened to see Mr. Chuck Dorman, Chief Administrator of the Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and he asked what I thought about the new fence. I congratulated him and said that it helps to distinguish the Veterans' rightful property.

Later, I stopped to take a closer look at the new Gateway Plaza entry and saw the words "Beauty, Honor, Country." I was dumbfounded, because I've never seen this phrase attributed to the Veterans or the Military.

Consequently, I sent a follow-up e-mail to Mr. Dorman stating that the change of words must be a mistake and "Using the word `beauty' in place of `Duty' makes no sense and certainly lessens the significance of the original military motto. If beauty is actually the chosen word, I'd like to know who determined it and why. If it is a mistake, the word beauty should be removed immediately until the word Duty can officially replace it."

Many Veterans and non-Veterans are now asking was it an innocent mistake or an intentional plan. No explanation has been made and prior to this article going to print, Mr. Dorman had not responded to my e-mail inquiry.


A Public Park or the Veterans Home?

In addition to the beauty debacle at the Plaza, on the opposite side of the entry gate are also bronzed letters that boldly declare this to be the "Los Angeles National Veterans Park." Let there be no misunderstanding; the Veterans property is not a public national park! To the contrary, these sacred grounds were permanently deeded for the essential use as a Veterans Home and Healthcare Center.

Nearly 120 years ago, Arcadia Bandini Stearns de Baker and Senator Percival Jones donated more than 500 acres to the federal government for the specific use and benefit of soldiers and sailors. Accordingly, de Baker's great-great nephew, Ricardo Bandini Johnson, recently declared: "It states six times in the deed that it be permanently maintained as a branch of a home for sailors and soldiers."

Carolina Barrie, also a descendant of the de Baker family has conveyed stories about how ex-soldiers and sailors walked hundreds of miles when it first opened, further noting that at one time, "it housed 45,000 ex-soldiers."

Ms. Barrie has also spoken out against any proposed commercial development of the Veterans property, stating that "If they start with 10 acres, there will be another 20 acres." She's absolutely right, and the same argument can be made about a public national park.

So instead of making a public park on the 16 acres that are now in question, what really needs to be considered is a "Veterans Arboretum and Conservatory" with specialty botanical gardens to provide natural therapy and rehabilitation for patients.


By Invitation Only

The above notwithstanding, the question still remains as to who approved all these unthinkable word and name changes, and why? Not only were these revisions made unilaterally, but Veterans as a whole were not even invited to the dedication ceremony. In fact, the press release to the media declared: "Note to editors: Because of security considerations, this is an invitation-only event. Press I.D. is required. "

What `security considerations' could possibly be involved when it comes to Veterans being invited to their own property? After all, it's the Veterans who have continuously secured the safety of our nation so why are they now considered a threat to the security of their very own property? And who anointed the `press' to be held in higher regard than our Veterans? Have they somehow forgotten that if it weren't for our Veterans, there wouldn't even be a "Freedom of the Press," or any of our other treasured freedoms?


Different Times -- Same Treatment

It's simply inconceivable that there was an `invitation only' dedication for a new project supposedly in honor of our Veterans on their own exclusive property, and then they weren't even invited. It makes you wonder what was so secretive about this dedication and why.

Nevertheless, as more and more Veterans are learning of this unforgivable slap in the face by the Conservancy and the local VA, this kind of disrespect and ingratitude toward Veterans is nothing new.

Contrary to a misconstrued public opinion, our Vietnam War Veterans did not return "all messed up" from infantry combat. Instead, these young soldiers served our country with courage and honor while fighting the enemy abroad, only to return home to a new enemy, an ungrateful society that spat upon them and called them vile names and ostracized them from being welcomed citizens in their own communities.

It's become apparent that time has not healed the societal wounds inflicted upon Vietnam War Veterans, nor has society's disrespect and disdain been lessened. In fact, the more time passes the more it stands still and the deeper the wounds get. Will this tormenting pain of ingratitude ever go away, or will it only get more infectious?


No Friends and No Home

In spite of their honorable duty to our country, society's scornful contempt and disrespect toward Vietnam War Veterans caused major psychological disorders for many. As a result, they tragically resorted to the only `friend' they had left and that was alcohol or drugs, and over the years, many ended up homeless. Today, the local VA is the only possible hope they have left and they deserve to be at this century-old establishment that is rightfully theirs -- lock, land and fellowship.

So, in truth, these Veterans really are not homeless because this property is their legitimate home, just as it has been for all Veterans since 1888. Consequently, the comfort of a warm bed, three square meals, a hot shower, clean clothes and sincere encouragement may be the only incentive they need to realize that there is new hope and a much better way to live.


A New Direction

We can be grateful that there is a positive and constructive future for homeless Veterans and it can be found at New Directions, Inc., headquartered on the local VA property. This non-profit organization offers a long-term drug and alcohol treatment program while providing food, shelter and rehabilitation to Veterans that were previously without a home.

New Directions was co-founded by John Keaveney, a Vietnam War Veteran and the organization's Chief Operating Officer, and Toni Reinis, the Executive Director. Together with their dedicated staff, they run the most successful recovery establishment for Veterans in the United States. All community members should support this remarkable organization by volunteering their time and/or through financial donations.


A Sobering Reality

One thing that history has taught over the years is that alcoholism is not a disgrace, but failure to get proper treatment for it is. Moreover, alcoholism or drug abuse is not confined to homeless Veterans.

Lest we've forgotten, the University Synagogue in Brentwood holds weekly Alcohol Anonymous meetings and has the largest number of attendees west of the Mississippi River. Many of those who regularly attend these meetings to straighten out their lives are doctors, dentists, attorneys, bankers, movie producers, actors, athletes and other professional and established members from surrounding communities. Consequently, the self-righteous need to stop rebuking the homeless Veterans and realize that alcoholism and drug abuse is a disease that takes an even toll on all members of a society.


Welcome Home Veterans

Jay Handal, president of the Greater West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce has relentlessly and dutifully called for government funding to provide safe housing and proper healthcare for the estimated 27,000 homeless Veterans in Los Angeles. Jay has also challenged WLA Chamber members and the surrounding communities with this responsible proposition: "Let's begin to fix the problem with real solutions. While we build a $4 million fence around the veterans park preserve area, how about investing in those lives who invested in ours?" How could anyone possibly disagree with or deny Jay's patriotic and purposeful plea for help?

Likewise, Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a Vietnam-era Veteran who has been a major supporter for helping the homeless Veterans, recently declared: "They are the walking wounded and it is our sacred obligation to help them."

Because of the painful memory scars that have cut deep into their hearts and mind, these Veterans deserve the very best treatment we can provide. Think about it; how many homeless Veterans could get a whole new start in life if we spent $4 million providing them with the proper healthcare services and guidance they deserve?


No Veteran Left Behind

The deed to the Veterans property is as sacred as the United States Constitution they pledged to protect and defend when they raised their right hand and solemnly swore: "I am prepared to give my life for my country."

Like all those who serve in the military, they pledged to make the ultimate sacrifice for the benefit of their fellow citizens. So, instead of building a public park that mainly benefits neighboring homeowners and their families while homeless Veterans are left behind on the streets, let's open the doors to their rightful home and give them a chance at starting anew. That's certainly a very small sacrifice to make for the very big debt that is owed for our freedom and independence.

General Omar Bradley, also a World War II hero, reminded all Americans that "Sacrifice, not selfishness, must be the eternal price of liberty."


Land Swap vs. Word Swap

As was covered in the June issue of the "West Los Angeles Business Monthly," local politicians and community members have been expressing outrage over the proposed `land swap' between developers and the 10-acre U.S. Army Reserve Center at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue.

Asserting that he was speaking on behalf of the Veterans, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky declared: "This is hallowed ground!" And indeed it is, just as "Duty, Honor, Country" are hallowed words.

If local politicians and residents are really sincere about their claim of fighting for the best interest of our Veterans and this proposed `land swap,' then they should be even more outraged and supportive over the actual `word swap' at the Gateway Plaza across the street.

Correspondingly, it's their duty to demand the replacement of the word beauty and it's also their duty and responsibility to insure that the Veterans property will always be used as it was originally intended: "To be permanently maintained as a branch of a home for sailors and soldiers."


Wide Open Spaces

There's a cast of neighboring residents who have become veterans at trying to annex the Veterans property for whatever cause they unilaterally deem is for the "good of all." Accordingly, they operate on the premise that what belongs to them is theirs but what belongs to the Veterans is negotiable, and this false sense of entitlement must stop.

We keep hearing that the Veterans property is the last open space on LA's affluent Westside. This is simply not true. If residents of the surrounding communities feel there's a necessity for a public park or whatever serves their interest, then they need to start going to the Brentwood and Los Angeles Country Clubs where there's plenty of open space and ask them to part with some of their cherished land. And if they don't comply with your demands, then use eminent domain if your cause is so just and truly for the best interests of everyone.

Make no mistake; these two neighboring Country Clubs have far more acreage than do the Veterans. Consequently, residents, special interest groups and developers need to stop infringing upon the Veterans property and start negotiating with these two Clubs for new land resources.

Moreover, instead of the misguided efforts to convert the staid Veterans property into a national park that will become overrun with campers, RV's, tour buses and whatnot, there needs to be a genuine focus on the long-term purpose of the VA, and that is to provide a safe haven and optimum healthcare services for our Veterans now, and the future. Anything else directly violates the terms of their deeded property.


Duty's Calling

In observation of all the usurpation and transformation taking place that are contradictory to the true legacy of the Veterans property and military tradition, the time has come for Veterans to collectively unite and rigorously safeguard their `family estate' from outside forces. Consequently, Veterans need to be as passionate about protecting the deed to their property as they were at protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

If it requires the continuous rattling the terms of their deed that this property must be "permanently maintained as a branch of a home for sailors and soldiers," then the Veterans need to keep rattling until their message is heard loud and clear.

Duty is calling to protect and preserve this sacred home within our sacred homeland. Never forget, and never let future generations of Veterans forget, that the only purpose of this property is to care for the health and well being of fellow Veterans.


"Duty, Honor, Country"

This time-honored creed encapsulates the most basic obligation for the perpetual guardianship of our great nation. Consequently, the words should not just be engraved on historic buildings at the West Point Military Academy or emblazoned on its coat of arms.

Nor should they be the rallying code for only those who actively serve in our Armed Forces. And most certainly, they should never be unilaterally changed by an unsanctioned campaign that translates their bold and true purpose into a feeble and contradictory notion.

Instead, "Duty, Honor, Country" means exactly what it says and should be proudly displayed everywhere, all the time, because it's the duty of each and every American to honorably preserve and protect our great country.


"I slept and dreamed that life was Beauty;

I woke, and found that life was Duty."

Ellen Sturgis Hooper, American Poet (1816-1841)


To read or listen to General MacArthur's speech, "Duty, Honor, Country," go to:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurthayeraward.html


Article by Robert L. Rosebrock: President of Healthy Hour Enterprises, U.S. Army Veteran, Vietnam-era. You can write him at DutysCalling@aol.com. Reproduced here by permision of the author. The author adds:

"Could you please make a note that this article appears in the "Greater West Los Angeles Business Monthly," the newspaper for the Greater West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. I'd also like it known that I am not responding to the original blog spot submitted by Jeffers Dodge. I sent Mr. Dodge a copy of the article in late June, as I sent to many people, asking if he could forward the article on to like-minded individuals. Unfortunately, he has passed this information off as his story own story without ever acknowledging me. Politics as usual. Accordingly, we're trying to keep this from any political campaign grandstanding, but mistakes do happen."

posted by JR 12:43 PM

Monday, June 19, 2006

 

The Utter Dysfunction of the United Nations

A report written by "a concerned group of current and former UN employees" and emailed from IO Watch.

Recently Mark Malloch Brown, deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, said that "Middle America" did not know how the US is constructively engaged with the UN because of UN detractors and too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping over too many years. Friends, the UN deserves to be bashed and bashed hard. Please allow us to give you a glimpse into how the United Nations is run:

Hirings and promotions routinely violate UN rules (and are illegal under most national laws) and revolve around patronage and whom one knows rather than professional qualifications. Poorly performing managers are simply moved into different management slots while others are placed in senior positions solely because of their nationality, or because of favors owed to them by their supervisors or colleagues.

Salaries for UN employees are free of taxes and come with six weeks vacation, 11 holidays, 10 sick days that are often used as vacation, plus 4 weeks of "home leave", rental and housing grants to supplement an already generous salary (we all make an average of $7,000-$10,000 a month tax free), a pension at 8% of salary times years of service that can be cashed out tax free at any time, and educational subsidies for children of UN employees. Many also participate in an "alternative work schedule" in which they get every other Friday off. But don't even try to apply. Your application will not be acknowledged nor will you ever get invited for a job interview. You must know someone to work at the UN (or worse, sleep with them).

Several of us have advanced degrees in management and have been trained to manage large public organizations, yet we are blocked from advancing by bureaucrats in their 50s with no management training, education, or experience - only sitting in their chairs because they are friends with someone in a higher position. We threaten them because they know they are there based only on their connections.

And there is a profound lack of accountability within the UN regarding budget and resource allocation, resulting in loss of millions upon millions each year through skimming, graft and corruption. Simple procurement that would normally take five minutes using modern technology systems takes 2-3 months in the UN. And many United Nations Development Program country offices pay "local experts" outrageously high sums of money for products of dubious quality. Such contracts would never be made by other international aid agencies such as USAID that have much stronger internal controls and oversight.

We are all familiar with outrageous examples of scandals within the UN system, and yet time and again the scandal is covered up. In fact, a recent article on internal management in the Financial Times cited a UN-commissioned report released in 1994 that was remarkably damning and yet, as the article noted, nothing has changed which has led to this present crisis of credibility at the UN.

Despite its dysfunction, if the UN were actually making a difference, many would mutter to themselves but the UN deserves its strongest bashing because of its profound inability to respond to genocide, war, famine, natural disasters, and corruption.

Kofi Annan, current head of the United Nations who ironically lives in a mansion in New York worth about $10 million, was head of peacekeeping operations in 1994 in Rwanda when 800,000 people died. In 2004, he said "I believed at that time that I was doing my best" despite the fact that he held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict and declined to provide more logistic and material support to stop the slaughter.

And don't forget that ten years ago thousands of Bosnian Muslims were murdered by the Serb militias who were in a UN protected "safe haven" with hundreds of UN soldiers assigned to defend them. Yet the UN stood by while the entire adult and teenage male population was systematically butchered.

Kofi Annan was unable to stop mismanagement of the Oil-for-Food Program that allowed Saddam Hussein's regime to embezzle $4.4 billion through pricing irregularities and an additional $5.7 billion through illegal oil smuggling. And for several years Kofi's son Kojo received payments from the Swiss company Cotecna (while not even working there!), which won a lucrative contract under the UN Oil for Food program.

Kofi Annan protected Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, against a report that found him guilty of sexual harassment by declaring him innocent. This created a global protest against Annan, resulting in Lubbers being eventually forced to resign, not because of his own egregious actions, but because he was starting to adversely impact Annan's public image. By the way, Annan's image is propped up around the world thanks to an $85 million dollar annual "communications" budget. What other modern corporation has two directors of communication like the UN doe - one for the UN "Secretariat" and one for the Secretary General.

Kofi Annan accepted a $500,000 prize from the ruler of Dubai, courtesy of a judges' panel full of U.N. cronies, one member of which Annan then appointed to a high U.N. job! By the way, Annan was advised to take the prize money by Malloch Brown who rents a home in Westchester County from his friend George Soros for $12,000 a month with a $287,087 annual salary.

Kofi Annan remains in power despite continuing sexual abuse scandals by UN peacekeepers. A 2005 internal UN investigation found that sexual abuse and forced pregnancies has been reported in at least five countries where UN peacekeepers have been deployed including the Congo, Haiti, Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, and Liberia.

And Kofi Annan remains in power while genocide continues in Darfur, while Zimbabwe tailspins into despotism, while up to a third of the population of some African countries will die from AIDS, while government corruption keeps the poorest countries in starkest poverty, and while the U.N. Human Rights Council includes repressive non-democratic states such as Cuba, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

Kofi Annan and Mark Malloch Brown arrogantly ignore the fact that the quality of life of several of us has come close to being destroyed because of the mismanagement, abuse, fraud and corruption. Most who work for the UN are so used to its dysfunctionality that they have NO idea how sick the organization is or they are unwilling to come forward because UN labor laws and protections are abysmal. Coming forward to a kangaroo court will only result in firing or worse. Please refer to the recent report prepared by UK Barrister and Human Rights QC Geoffrey Robertson on behalf of UN Staff, which highlights the gross deficiencies of worker protections at the UN at www.iowatch.org - and read about so many more abuses at www.iowatch.org.

Adding insult to injury, the newly created OIOS (the new "independent" internal oversight panel established to "reform" the UN) has been strong-armed by Malloch Brown and is not independent because its meager budget comes directly from the UN, equal to about one-half of Annan's annual PR budget! Thus all are dissuaded from within the UN from coming forward.

And what really happened at UNDP, the organization that Malloch Brown used to "lead"? Why would Malloch Brown leave his influential post as head of UNDP to spend a year defending the scandals swirling around Kofi Annan and then announce that he would resign when Kofi leaves at the end of this year? Because he royally mismanaged UNDP. Everyone at UNDP knows this but is too scared to share the details of what happened for fear of retaliation by Brown. But ask UNDP Country Directors and UNDP Practice Managers what happened under King Mark's reign and you will get a completely different picture of his mismanagement skills and bombastic ways.

Another example, in order to uphold their political neutrality, UN employees are expressly barred from political participation and yet UNDP employee Justin Leites was allowed to campaign for U.S. Presidential candidate John Kerry - with MMB's approval!

As the walls literally crumble down around them, those who work for the UN and citizens who believe in the founding principles of the UN have no understanding how bad it really is. Unfortunately, we encourage young people who are seeking a career in international affairs to avoid the United Nations at all costs. We wish there would come a day when we would no longer make this recommendation.

Of course the senior leadership of the UN try to hide the profound problems of the UN but shame on them for saying that Americans don't know or understand how the US is engaged with the UN. If you and everyone in Middle America truly understood what ails the UN, the US, which funds $3.3 billion annually or 22% of the entire UN budget, would shut off the money spigot yesterday.

And remember - the talk of "reforming the UN" has gone on for over a DECADE. In sum, the UN should be shuttered, allowing a brand new organization to emerge because the current UN is broken beyond repair.

Not much has changed since the UN was founded 60 years ago. The UN could have done much, much better in making the word a better place.

Make no mistake. This is about the future of YOUR world – a world of some 180 countries desperate for a better life for all their citizens. Don't let self-interested, incompetent middle-aged bureaucrat hacks – most raised and educated under dictatorships - determine the future of OUR world.

Please contact your two Senators and your representative to the House of Representatives by clicking here: http://www.house.gov/writerep/. Ask your Senators and Congressman to stop discussing "reform" of the UN. Ask your Senators and Congressman to create a NEW organization that can lead the world well into the 21st Century. This is NOT a Democrats vs. Republicans debate. All Democrats and all Republicans should be able to easily agree that if deep, deep reform is not possible, the UN should be closed and a new organization should be created to truly make the world a better place. This is a non-partisan issue! Please share this with family and friends and post it on your favorite blogs. For more information, please contact Edward Patrick Flaherty at info@iowatch.org who represents UN employees including our views here.

posted by JR 7:01 PM

Monday, June 05, 2006

 

HATRED OF LIMBAUGH

The following two letters by enraged Leftist, Dennis Kostecki, appeared in "The Hawaii Tribune-Herald" A reply to the second one is given:

Limbaugh's chumps

April 16, 2006

With a shrinking presidential approval rating, Rush Limbaugh is now telling his radio audience that more people listen to him than anyone else. A certain type tunes in fanatically to hear the word "liberal" demonized ad infinitum, (this seems to empower anger-ridden types) and acts as some bizarre form of therapy for these people as it appears to provide a temporary "fix" for them.

Buck-skinned attorney Gerry Spence in his best-selling book, "Give Me Liberty," says Limbaugh is "a people-hater adored by people-haters." Limbaugh has hated Democrats (aka liberals) for some time now and has made an extraordinarily fine living attacking them.

Now (as in the McCarthy Era) he's linking liberalism to socialism (two neoconserv "dirty words" in a row) attempting to distract his radio audience from the very real fact that someday this administration's approval rate could drop to zero percent (as the Iraq war drags on and on) and there goes his fans and his megamillion dollar paycheck as well. But some poor, deluded chumps will rally around this OxyContin-inspired hate-monger anyway, twistedly thinking he represents "The American Way."

Dennis Kostecki

Waimea




Rush to judgment

June 4, 2006

It is utterly fascinating to see the power that the likes of Rush Limbaugh has in our society. It's even more fascinating how his legions of faithful listeners froth at the mouth when Limbaugh's racist, sexist, welfare-mom-hating rantings are revealed for the far-right lunacy that it is. I don't recall when such a hate-monger has ever been more revered. And of course one Republican after another is a guest on his show.

Rex Potts ("From another chump" May 21) feels insulted that this paper would publish anything negative about one of America's most despicable excuses for a human being. The listeners laugh and guffaw as Limbaugh insults gays, all Democrats, welfare mothers, "rag-heads" (his words), Hispanics, and any person who calls this administration on the carpet. Limbaugh now refers to the media as "the drive-by media" when they publish something Limbaugh doesn't agree with.

And everything, of course, is permissible and hilarious to his fans just as long as the flag is waved while doing it and someone is insulted.

It seems to me "Limbaugh's Chumps" is an excellent way to describe these angry people who have a drug addict for their guru.

Dennis Kostecki

Waimea




Here we go again. We have been down this road before, but it seems reader Kostecki needed another try at venting his spleen. In the free market of ideas Rush Limbaugh is popular with a certain segment of adult society so they listen to his program, and presumably people who dislike him do not listen. Evidently listeners in his radio audience like his audio radiance and support the station advertisers.

For Kostecki to say he listens to Rush even though he really hates him so much sounds masochistic. Would any of you keep going to a restaurant you did not like just so you could complain about the food ? I wouldn't either. Mr. Kosteck's analysis of this radio program and his railing on negatively about all the listeners is not even remotely close to the actual program as I listen to it on occasion. If his intention in writing was to get people to not listen to Rush on KPUA , then I think his attempt has failed. If on the other hand the intent was to show all readers just how much hatred he is capable of harboring, he is immensely successful. His diatribe might have the opposite effect of that which he intended, whereby folks would tune in just find out what all the fuss was about. Sounds fair to me.

John Bowers

Kea'au

posted by JR 11:18 AM

Monday, May 15, 2006

 

"Racist supermarkets" at Syracuse University in New York

It didn't happen on television. It went unreported by the local newspapers. But in the first months of the 2006 spring semester, a debate about race between Syracuse University students required the involvement of Judicial Affairs.

In February, Melissa Samuels, a Day Hall resident adviser for the sixth floor and sophomore international relations major, posted an article by Dr. Peggy McIntosh called "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" on the wall outside of her door, said Kyle Galarneau, one of Samuels' residents.

The article lists a number of advantages that whites receive in society without even knowing they exist. McIntosh's twelfth point specifically created reaction. It stated: "I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair."

Galarneau, an aerospace engineering major, took offense to the board and began expressing his opinion. "(The quote) is a stereotype and I said, 'Just because a grocery store doesn't have an aisle of fried chicken, cornbread, and watermelon doesn't mean they are racist,'" Galarneau said.

Galarneau tried to clarify his statement. "Yes, it is a stereotype and I can see how it's offensive," Galarneau said of his previous comment. "But, I feel like she interpreted what I said in a different way than I meant it."

Samuels, who was asked on multiple occasions about the incident, declined to comment. Galarneau said Samuels then wrote up Galarneau for his comments and the incident was processed to Judicial Affairs.

A week went by, and then Galarneau was kicked off the floor for a week. SU's Office of Residential Life has a policy that prohibits their RA's from speaking to the press.

Professor Laurence Thomas, who teaches political theory and philosophy in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and the College of Arts and Sciences, said there is a hesitance in people to discuss difficult and divisive issues like racism.

The above article originally appeared here dated 5.11.06. The heading was "Student kicked-off floor for biased comment" and the subheading was "Racial bias incident in Day Hall reflects campus-wide need for change"

posted by JR 8:50 AM

Monday, May 08, 2006

 

Protesters call anti-bullying bill `vague,' say minorities aren't protected

By Karla D. Shores
South Florida Sun-Sentinel Education Writer
Posted April 18 2006

Human rights supporters rallied against what they called a "vague" anti-bullying bill Monday afternoon, claiming the legislation leaves the most vulnerable students, such as gays and minorities, unprotected.

Protesters said the proposed legislation, written by Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, fails to specifically ban bullying based on race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical ability or appearance. They asked constituents to demand Bogdanoff make changes to reflect minority groups.

"Right now we have a bill that would undo decades of work to make students safe by repealing all the strongest anti-harassment policies we have in Florida schools," said gay activist Stratton Pollitzer, addressing about 45 people in front of Broward schools offices in downtown Fort Lauderdale. "It would seem seductively simple to say `all students,' but it doesn't get the job done. There are certain forms of harassment that are considered acceptable."

Pollitzer, director of Equality Florida South Florida, said the bill would also weaken current anti-discrimination policies in place in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade county school districts.

Bogdanoff, reached in her Tallahassee office, said she would not use selective language to define who should be protected because she does not want to uphold the safety of one child over another.

"They are saying there are certain children who deserve more protection than others," said Bogdanoff. "I want to protect all children."

Bogdanoff called protesters of the bill "misinformed" and said the only change she would make might be to clarify that her bill does not preclude school districts from creating a separate discrimination policy.

School Board members and representatives from the Democratic Black Caucus, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization of Women, and the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, also attended the rally.

Bogdanoff's proposed legislation, House Bill 535, could be in front of the Education Council today. That is the last stop before the bill is introduced to the floor.

The above story originally appeared here but is now offline.

posted by JR 7:25 PM

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

 

THE UNBEARABLE FLEXIBILITY OF BELIEFS: SCANDINAVIAN FELLOW TRAVELERS

By: Lennart Sjöberg

(Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics. E-mail: lsjoberg@fastmail.fm)

Abstract

This paper is about the political psychology of opportunism and risk denial. The concept of fellow travelers is applied to the analysis of four Scandinavian writers (three of them very well-known locally) who traveled to Nazi Germany in the 1930's and the People=s Republic of China (PRC) during the Cultural Revolution. Their writings are analyzed for the distortions of reality they depicted, often quite glaring. In most cases, the admiration they expressed for totalitarian and brutal regimes was connected with a rejection of their own culture, in spite of the fact that they had reached very prominent positions in their home countries and were, in three cases, invested with considerable power. The cases are discussed from a social psychological standpoint, on the presumption that understanding the sort of evil propaganda practiced by some prominent members of a democratic country should be of some aid towards promoting human dignity.

A fellow traveler is a person who openly endorses significant aspects a totalitarian regime, without being committed in the sense of being an active member of a Nazi or communist party. Fellow travelers from the USA and Western Europe have been discussed in the light of current knowledge about the Nazi and communist dictatorships, and also with regard to what was known at the time of their writings (Caute, 1988; Griffiths, 1980). These people, often "liberals", were deluded by their hosts in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nazi Germany or China to give positive, even glowing, accounts of the "progress" achieved by the totalitarian regimes of these three countries, and to deny or ignore any existence of a dark side. They were, to use Lenin's term, "useful idiots" and their writings were often regarded as very credible in the Western democracies and given prominent attention by exposure in important media. The notion of a "rational" society was indeed very alluring to these people and many of their readers.

The fellow travelers were many and several cases have been widely discussed. Yet, by no means all cases are well known. Memories of such writings are short since their authors, understandably, were not always eager to have them preserved or reprinted. In this paper, I discuss a few Scandinavian fellow travelers that carry some interest because of their local prominence or, in one case, because of a later encounter with a historical figure of great importance. Three traveled to Nazi Germany in the 30's and one to communist China during the Cultural Revolution. A few additional cases are briefly noted.

The purpose of the present paper is to analyze the distorted world views that form the basis of extreme political views, and to do so with the help of public statements and rhetoric available in print. The distortion by itself is a depressing banality, but its details and dynamics are interesting. Attitude research in social psychology is often concerned with less strong convictions and matters of merely passing interest. The fellow travelers were traveling to the hot spots of their times, and they came back full of illusions that they tried to persuade people to believe. They were the willing servants of tyrants, not forced by violence and threat of violence, but lured by their own vanity and deeply held anti-democratic values. Such people are by no means rare, and we should learn about them.

Böök, Landquist and Hitler

Two persons of towering importance in Swedish cultural life of the 1930's were John Landquist and Fredrik Böök. Böök was an important literary critic at Svenska Dagbladet (the major conservative morning newspaper in Stockholm), had been a professor of literature at the University of Lund, and was a member of the enormously prestigious Swedish Academy, which awarded the Nobel prize in literature. Landquist likewise had a background in literary criticism, had edited Strindberg's collected works, was the cultural editor of Aftonbladet (at the time the largest newspaper in Sweden, published as an evening paper and something of a tabloid in modern terms). Landquist was to be appointed to the chair of Psychology and Education at the University of Lund in 1936. It should be added that in those times, professorial appointments were very few and highly prestigious.

Böök

Böök was a literary prodigy, signing his first book contract at the age of 18. He was enormously successful in his professional life, and enormously productive, publishing some 200 books as well as innumerable articles and edited works. Having achieved a professorial appointment in Lund at the age of 39, he stayed there for only 4 years, then left to a senior appointment as editor of Svenska Dagbladet in Stockholm. This appointment enabled him to quadruple his professorial salary.

Yet, he was by no means popular. As a literary critic he showed little mercy with many authors, favoring a few, among them foremost Swedish author and Nobel laureate Verner von Heidenstam, who intervened in his favor at several critical points in his career and finally suggested him for election to the Swedish Academy. His political writings were not well liked by the majority of intellectuals and politically active persons in Sweden, and his extreme pro-German stance probably had little resonance among the population. His books often met with some very aggressive criticisms in liberal and socialist media. In conservative circles he also was seen as a liability at times, and there was no clear support for him at all times. Although he was no anti-semite he did show some racist tendencies against blacks. An extensive biography on Böök is available (Nordin, 1994).

Already in the spring of 1933, Böök was to publish a book entitled Hitlers Tyskland (Hitler's Germany) (Böök, 1933b). Böök's book must have been written quickly, since it deals with Germany in the spring of 1933 and was released in July of that year. It has some marks of haste in poor proofreading. It also has no preface, statement of purpose or any account of how and when the information was obtained. It is based, however, on a number of articles published in Svenska Dagbladet. The book is written in a terse and somewhat archaic style no longer used in Sweden, and probably unusual even in 1933. The reader is apparently presumed to know German, because the many important citations in that language are not translated. The book was quickly translated and published in German (Böök, 1934), English (Böök, 1933a) and Danish (Böök, 1933b).

Böök's message is the following. We see in Germany under Hitler a national awakening and enormous enthusiasm, especially among the young. The regime is admittedly brutal but also very efficient and clever. Hitler himself is undoubtedly a great man and basically democratic, in an original sense of the word, contrasted with the "formal" democracy of such countries as the USA and Great Britain.

The antisemitic strand of the National Socialist policies is regretted by Böök, who feels that it may be OK to fire people who are or were not loyal with Germany, but not simply because they are Jews. Most Jews are not traitors to the German cause, according to him. Some are, however, and some have excelled in "anti-germanism". Anti-germanism exists among the Jews just as well as anti-semitism exists among "Aryans". It is regrettable, but is the truth. Some Jews have been corrupt and they have supported each others' vested interests against the Germans and become rich and powerful at the expense of the people of Germany. This must stop.

Böök claimed that he met with Hitler in 1933 and tried to persuade him to a less aggressive policy against the Jews. Böök seems to have believed that Hitler´s policy at this point was harmful to the long term interests of Germany. Hitler did not agree, of course, and more or less threw him out after having delivered a long aggressive monologue. When the book "Hitler´s Germany" was published in a German translation it did not include the sections where Böök criticized the German policies toward Jews.

Be all that as it may, Hitler's aggression towards the Jews is mostly verbal, says Böök. It will lead to no physical harm, and there is no boycott or overt antisemitism, other than some Jews being fired from their jobs. Böök also is uneasy about censorship and control of the German press. Very unnecessary, according to him. Almost all are already very loyal to the regime. Undoubtedly, things will improve both with regard to the press and the Jewish question, as time goes by. After all, we witness a national revolution and revolutions are seldom neat affairs.

Germans are no dangerous people. They are, in fact, innocent and defenseless, decent and kind. They would not stand a chance in a new war against the Poles or the Checks. They have been grossly mistreated by the Western allies after the war, especially by the treaty of Versailles. German culture is enormously important and so much more advanced than that of the primitive Russians or the childish Italians. It must be saved from Bolshevism. Indeed, Hitler has saved Europe from communism.

Hitler himself, a soldier first and foremost, is enormously perceptive and has a great will-power. His youth was spent in construction work in Vienna and Munich. Hitler knows very well the plights of the workers, and he is honestly and profoundly engaged in improving life for all Germans. Other leaders are hardly mentioned, with the exception of Göbbels who is given a glowing description. Hitler´s Mein Kampf is clearly a very great book, although the parts about the Jews are a failure.

Böök acts as an apologist for the brutal Nazi dictatorship. Playing with words, Hitler is said to be basically democratic, albeit in a more basic than "formal" sense of the word. Böök is ominously hinting at his close relationship with the Nazi leaders. Any independent journalist or author would have told his readers just how he came into contact with them and what the extent of those contacts were. Böök gives the reader none of this.

Böök goes on and on. The Nazi project is enormously hopeful and important. It is about saving Europe from Bolshevism, no more and no less. To do so, a German renewal is necessary and much can be excused in the name of this noble goal. The great demonstrations and the military elegance of the Nazis are quite impressive in Böök's eyes. The speeches and the propaganda are naturally coarse and lack subtlety but that is a necessary ingredient in propaganda which, by the way, Hitler and Göbbels have learned from the Western powers and their smearing of Germany during the war. Book burning, treated in the final chapter of the book, is not at all regrettable, a very remarkable statement by a member of the Swedish Academy. It is an efficient expression of rejection of unworthy works, and what is scientifically important, such as Marx (sic!), is always available to researchers. (Although Marx is so boring that it would lead to no harm to make his works more generally available). Interestingly, Böök admires Marx and the socialist strands of National Socialism are just as attractive to him as the nationalist ones.

Böök was to continue to support German interests, and even moved to Berlin for some time in the end of the 1930s. In 1940 he published a small book called Tyskt väsen och svensk lösen (German nature and Swedish password) (Böök, 1940). The message is that German militarism and brutality is a reaction to oppression from its enemies, in particular during the first world war and its aftermath, but also earlier. It is, however, comforting to see how the present war is conducted by German who are gentlemen and quite merciful (sic!). There are no massacres. Sweden must accept a new Europe and not be prejudiced against the Germans, although we do have different values and a very different historical experience. The current German way of being will be replaced by the mild forces of life, for German nature is basically humanistic and deeply cultural. The Nazis are forever changing.

Böök's pro-German attitude was deep and pervasive throughout his adult life. Thulstrup gave a very clear analysis of his writings about international politics from WWI and onwards, always ending up with a pro-German stance (Thulstrup, 1941). It is interesting to inquire about how this attitude was established.

There are several problems in trying to understand the political attitudes of a fellow traveler. Why were they acquired? And when? In the case of Böök there is a fairly extensive literature and at least one detailed biography (Nordin, 1994). Nordin claims that Böök´s extremely pro-German attitude was not established until the beginning of WWI. However, if that is true it was indeed established amazingly fast. Already in the early fall of 1914 it is possible to discern the extreme views that Böök held. The book he published in 1916 about his trip to France (Böök, 1916) is remarkably biased and full of disdain for the French. According to Nordin (Nordin, 1994), Böök had been invited to join in this visit to France in order to have at least one well known person who was known to be pro-German in the group and Böök qualified indeed for that role.

Maybe Böök´s attitudes were somehow prepared by earlier experiences. Many people in Sweden were pro-German, and Swedish culture had received much input from Germany. The first foreign language to learn in Swedish secondary schools used to be German, it changed to English only after WW2. Böök's mentor, von Heidenstam, was also a great admirer of German culture, but he did not react to the outbreak of WWI in the same belligerent manner as Böök.

So where do we finally find Böök? Was he a Nazi? Almost, but not quite. He was not in agreement with the policies towards the Jews, but otherwise he seemed to subscribe to all of the Nazi project, as it looked in 1933. He loved German culture and was very pro-German and cold towards the Western powers, including France. Yet, there is no saying that he subscribed to military aggression against neighboring countries, or violence in general. Hence, his naivete. He saw clearly some of the brutality of the regime but he excused it as a necessary and temporary excesses that would soon pass, the underlying and very advanced German culture would surely prevail. He did not support a Nazi regime in Sweden, at least not openly. He seemed to have considered a Nazi regime as good or necessary for Germany, but not suitable in Sweden. This is a typical fellow traveler attitude (Griffiths, 1980).

Landquist

Böök's book about Hitler's Germany was given a glowing review by Landquist in Aftonbladet (Landquist, 1933c). To summarize briefly the message of this very extensive review: a great book! Böök is not committed to any side, but a positive cultural liberal (whatever that means). The regular liberals, on the other hand, have not lived up to their duty to make a liberal judgment of current events, and just shown their lack of a balanced mind. (Landquist is not explicit about this, but the reader gets the impression that the "liberals" have been critical of Hitler). Böök is on the contrary out to seek the truth, whether it is pleasant or not.

People in Sweden have not understood that Hitler is basically a democrat [in an original and ruthless sense of the word (sic)], and that he despises the upper classes (that may have been true). He has found a basis in the masses, not in the upper class or in a dynasty. He is a good socialist. The people's unity is founded in the common war experience. The anti-semitic policies of Hitler are regrettable but will surely disappear after some time. There are too many human relations in Germany (sic). Dictatorship is regrettable, but democracy can be criticized as well. If democracy is to prevail, it is because it is supported by honor and hard work, not by "libertarian excesses". We do not know the future fate of Germany, but must study it with an open mind. This is the defensive concluding note of the review, which is an attempt to defend Böök’s pro-Nazi stand.

Landquist was soon to travel to the new Germany himself and he published a series of articles in Aftonbladet in the fall of 1933. The stage is set by an article about traveling on the "Hindenburg" to Germany with a group of Scandinavian journalists (Landquist, 1933f). The article gives a romantic account of that fantastic experience of floating in the air over the beautiful German landscape. Dr. Göbbels succeeded clearly in setting a positive stage for the visit of the Nordic journalists in this way.

The first meeting was with a number of industrialists (Landquist, 1933e). After a brief interlude in a rural setting (more festive than usual, due to the beautiful red swastika flags) the first stop was I. G. Farben and its leader, Geheimerat and Professor Carl Duisberg. The workers were busy and singing. The allies had robbed I. G. Farben after the war. Communism had been rampant among the workers who systematically had stolen from the company; Duisberg had had to employ some 40 detectives and order body searches of employees when leaving work.

Next to Krupp. Almost no arms were being manufactured here, but the factories were very impressive. A whole city for workers had been donated by Alfred Krupp. In the evening, beer drinking and a speech by the doyen of German industry, Staatsrat Thyssen. He gave vent to unreserved homage of Hitler and expressed great personal warmth to the Führer. Hitler had introduced a new idea to history, that of leadership. Whatever would happen, the German people was behind its leader. Thyssen was also very peace oriented and positive to France. Germany WANTED peace and would achieve it.

The third article describes a visit to a concentration camp (Landquist, 1933b) at Prettin, Saxonia. The very fact that such a visit was allowed by the German hosts shows how open-minded and honest they were. They had surely nothing to conceal. (That the visit could have been rigged seems not to have occurred to Landquist and is nowhere mentioned in the article).

The inmates were quite varying, only few looked Jewish. The older, especially, appeared closed and bitter, the younger more open. Bodily punishment was prohibited, and on the whole the treatment of the inmates was "not inhuman". The inmates were mostly communists, but did not admit to having done anything illegal. They looked healthy enough, a meal (soup) was tasted by Landquist who found it nourishing and tasty. There was not enough work for the prisoners, only 25% of the time, the rest of the time was used for sport. The work they did was agricultural. It was not heavy but somewhat boring, some said. In other words, the concentration camp was much like a boarding-house with something of a low-budget profile.

The rooms were clean, but there were no beds, so inmates had to sleep on the floor. The prisoners surely suffered psychologically, not physically, since they had to live together in such a varied group of people, and with no information about when they could be released (assuming they would ever be released, something Landquist takes for granted). They were incarcerated not under law, but due to political necessity, to pacify the country. And note that they were not executed, as prisoners in Russia or during the French revolution. Anyway, concentration camps should be abolished as soon as possible, Landquist hoped, and they were, in fact, already being phased out. In only two months, the number of prisoners had dropped from 40,000 to 20,000.

Concentration camps were of course not yet the death machines that they would become later. Still, Landquist's account is very misleading. He pretends that the inmates were only communists, but it was known at the time that many other groups were incarcerated in the camps, such as social democrats. One reads with disbelief his report that physical punishment did not occur because it was asserted to be "prohibited". More realistic views of the Nazi concentration camps were available already in the fall of 1933, when Landquist wrote his article (Arnold-Foster, 1933).

The subsequent article gives a political analysis of national socialism (Landquist, 1933a). Here, Landquist pointed to similarities between national socialism and "bolshevism". They both turned against class society and did not tolerate the weak, wavering democratic society with all its divisions. It is pure humbug to depict national socialism as a party of the right. It has a true democratic passion. The mass is always present, always salient.

What Hitler has done is similar to the policies of old kings of Sweden: speak directly to the people, not through a parliament. Hitler wants his thoughts to be the people's thoughts, and he is close to socialism. Some excesses have been necessary, but the regime makes its utmost to compensate the people, among other things with grandiose festivals. (The festival of crafts in Berlin is described). And patriotism is, of course, given the first place. Through patriotism will come democracy. People are puritanistic and even the upper classes wear only simple clothes. This is very nice and quite a break with the habits of rich people in the Weimar republic.

A work camp near Essen is described. Unemployed can join such camps if they wish, but youths who want to enter a university must first spend 20 weeks in agricultural work. The idea of the regime is to foster respect for work, only the working person has a place in the unity of the people. Especially agricultural work is highly valued. The rentier is as anti-social as a tramp.

The youngsters of the Essen camp were in a good mood and looked open and free. (They were free to leave the camp at any time, if they got a regular job, but had apparently to return if they lost the job. Presumably they were not free to leave the camp if they did not get a job, but Landquist does not mention that). A year ago some 50% of the camp dwellers had been communists, according to the camp warden. Apparently they were not so any more.

Youth in Germany make a strong impression. Many have important posts, the festive processions with their young and nice SA guards are ever present. Innumerable groups of youngsters marched in the morning to Munich to celebrate the Day of Art. They expressed hope and renewal. Is this a display of hostility? No, not at all. What they want to fight is a spiritual enemy inside, moral decay and desperation. It is indeed innocent and also pathetic since its outcome is uncertain, yet it is necessary.

The final article is about Germany's decision to leave the League of nations, which took place while Landquist was still in Germany (Landquist, 1933d). Hitler's speech of 14 October 1933 surely promised peace with France, now nobody could suspect Germany of having any hostile intentions. In all of Germany, peace was the word of the day, and even the concept of pacifist, recently despised and hated, was now a positive thing. The peace initiative coincided with leaving the League of Nations, a very clever political move. The decision itself was apparently very quickly taken, and showed impressive force of action. Germans loved peace and wanted nothing more than peace. They just wanted a decent future among decent friends, according to the Prime Minister of Bavaria (Wagner).

Landquist finally had a few reservations. The regime made it hard for women to have gainful employment, but here a new development was planned. Freedom of the press was no more and censors appeared sometimes to be just stupid. However, it was impossible to imagine that this was not just a passing phase, the German culture was too strong for it to linger. The lack of a functioning legal system was the most serious drawback, but that was a response to bolshevism. Improvements were much more likely in the case of National Socialism, built on living historical culture, than Bolshevism, a case of "abstract semi-culture" (whatever that is). The German regime has its good sides, and we must be careful not to reject it entirely.

The strongest impressions in Germany are youth and unity. The young have learnt idealism, to let the common good prevail rather than the individual good. They are immature and prejudiced right now, but they will mature, and hatred and prejudice will disappear. Indeed, pacifism is now an accepted value of great valor, while it used to be despised.

Inga Arvad in Nazi Germany

Inga Arvad (born 1913) was a young Danish upper class woman who had been elected miss Denmark in 1929. She is best known for her amorous relationship with John F. Kennedy in Washington, D. C., in 1941-42 (Hamilton, 1992). The FBI suspected Arvad of espionage and it is known that she had been well connected with leading Nazi circles. There was even an infamous photograph of her together with Hitler. She admitted to the FBI that she had been offered, by the Germans upon her moving to the USA, to work for Nazi propaganda there. There was also a rumor that she had been working for Nazi propaganda in Denmark. She said she had declined the offer. In addition, Arvad was at this time married to a Hungarian film maker, Paul Fejos, who was employed by Swedish financier Axel Wenner-Gren (another of Inga’s lovers) and the latter was closely associated with the Nazis, identified as such by American intelligence. John F. Kennedy, a young ensign then working for Naval Intelligence, was attracted to Arvad and they became lovers. At the time of her affair with Kennedy, Arvad was working as a journalist for the Washington Times-Herald.

Hamilton discusses the question whether Arvad was a Nazi agent of some kind, and dismisses this suspicion, important at the time, on the ground that there is no solid evidence for it. That may be true, depending upon what is required for evidence to be sufficiently solid, but the political values of Arvad are still of some interest and as a fellow traveler she is a good illustration of a naivete that was not unusual in Scandinavia in the 30's. In addition, a very different picture of Arvad is provided by a TV documentary (Anonymous, 1991). In this source, it is stated, among other things, that:

- Arvad made frequent and unexplained trips to Berlin around 1939-40
-  she sent lengthy telegrams to Berlin from the USA in 1940-41
-  she questioned JFK (as recorded by FBI) about sensitive information about US top military leaders and administrators
- JFK himself seems to have been aware of the risk that she was a spy and joked to her about it
- she gave information to Wenner-Gren and was well paid by him
-  she was an outspoken anti-semite and greatly admired Hitler and Germany, something she made no secret of

Besides, there is a photo of Hitler with a warm personal dedication to Arvad, dated 1936 (St. John, 1997). The documentary also points to several intriguing and unexplained aspects of Arvad's initial career in the US, such as how she managed to be accepted by the prestigious Columbia school of journalism (she had no previous college education), how she made so quick and frequent contacts with the very top Nazi leadership that even the German Foreign office was alarmed at the time, or how she could, after only a few months at Columbia, end up with the ideal job for a Nazi agent, as a society reporter in Washington, DC, working for a leading isolationist newspaper.

In 1935-36 Arvad had published several articles in evening newspaper Berlingske Aftenavis, published by the same publisher as Berlingske Tidende, the most important Danish newspaper. In these articles she gave accounts of interviews with Nazi luminaries, culminating in two interviews with Hitler, in 1935 and 1936. I have located these articles, and give here a brief summary of their contents. It should be noted that Arvad later trivialized these articles, saying that she had just asked about A trivial things like what people had for breakfast@ (Hamilton, 1992). As we shall see, the articles are far more interesting and revealing than that.

Arvad's articles about the Nazis

A Danish-speaking police commissioner. To her delight, Arvad noted that the Nazi Police Commissioner of Berlin, Admiral von Levetzow, had been raised in Denmark and spoke fluent Danish. He had attended high-school in Copenhagen, and that fact is stated in the heading of the article. The admiral turned out to be a great friend of Denmark.

The Commissioner told her that he saw the job to head the Berlin police, 15,000 men, as an important challenge. It had been offered to him, a naval officer, immediately after the Nazis had seized power. There had been a lot of crime in the capital, and book-sellers had sold sexually explicit books. But now, crime was down by 50% and the dirty book-stores had been closed or at least the books were prohibited. The admiral confided in her that he saw Denmark as his second fatherland (Arvad, 1935b).

von Levetzow apparently was charmed by Arvad, and let her visit Berlin prisons (I have seen no accounts of these visits by Arvad, however), and introduced her both to Himmler and to his daughters, who became her friends. Later, Arvad was to make the amazing statement to the FBI that von Levetzow was her uncle (he was probably not, but the sources have different opinions on this matter) and that she stayed with von Levetzow while in Berlin (Hamilton, 1992). If the latter is true it is likewise amazing.

Women in Nazi Germany. Arvad published three articles about Nazi women. Two were interviews with actress Emmy Sonnemann, the fiancé of Hermann Göring, and Joseph Göbbels=s wife Magda (Arvad, 1935a, 1935d), the third a more general article about women in Germany (Arvad, 1935e). The latter article also featured photographs of 4 prominent Nazi women: Frau Dr. Göbbels, Frau Emmy Göring, Frau Gertrud Scholls-Klink (official Führerin of German women), and the famous film director Leni Riefenstahl.

What are women in the Third Reich like? Well, says Arvad, do not expect to see a lot of women with heavy make-up and eccentric Paris clothes. On the contrary, it is striking how many intelligent, open-minded women with low-heel shoes that you meet, women with great energy and a clear conscience of goals. Frau Dr. Göbbels, who is unusually beautiful and intelligent, tells Arvad that women need not be MP's to serve the fatherland. A woman can pull the strings behind the scene.

Frau Scholls-Klink is a small woman with blue eyes radiant of iron energy. She is the happy mother of 6 wonderful children, but she raises not only them, but ALL young women of the Reich. She leads the Women's Work Service where all German young women must serve before they are 25.

Arvad visits a work camp for young girls. There she meets with a group of happy, healthy girls, whose eyes seem to say: "Isn't life just wonderful"? (Apparently only their eyes said so for there is no mentioning of any interview with any of them).

Leni Riefenstahl is briefly mentioned in the article but does not seem to have been interviewed by Arvad. At any rate, it is stressed that she just got a prize for the movie "Triumph of the will" (the well-known propaganda piece about the 1934 Nürnberg party rally) and that she has an important position as Party Film Consultant.

How did Emmy Sonnemann manage to attract the important and strong General and Prime Minister Hermann Göring? Well, the answer is all but obvious: she is a woman full of grace and charm. Besides, the Führer himself introduced her to Göring. (We are not told how she happened to be a friend of Hitler's).

Emmy admires greatly not only the General but also his previous, now deceased, wife Karin and keeps Karin's portrait standing beside Göring's. Is she happy? Of course, she is only sorry that her mother did not live to see her marital success. Emmy Göring's first goal in life is to make her husband forget his political problems while he is at home, but she is not a background figure. The General lets her represent the country, and she does so gracefully, and she is very popular. But she had to give up her career after marriage, of course. As an additional piece of information, we learn that the General is a great friend of animals. The Görings used to have a lion at home but it grew to be a little too big, so Hermann donated it to the Berlin zoo. It is about to have cubs, and the happy couple will adopt one of them. The positive contact with the Görings earned Arvad an invitation to their wedding which she attended (Hamilton, 1992).

In a second interview, Arvad pays a visit to Joseph and Magda Göbbels's beautiful home (Arvad, 1935a). (Lots of flowers, very pretty). Charming children are introduced. Magda has intelligent eyes. Her opinion is that a woman's place is in her home, but she will still have influence, due to her female intuition, in pulling strings. (Göring=s wife to be, Emmy Sonnemann, had the same idea, as we have just seen). Hitler is a frequent guest, he is a genius and a man with a heart for those who are weak and suffer.

Meeting the Führer. The first of the two interviews with Hitler took an hour according to the published account (Arvad, 1935c). She had to work for months to get a chance to interview him. One day, Dr. Göbbels suddenly sent a message: "The door is open, come immediately". And she went there. How should she greet him? Do you say "Heil Hitler!" to himself? She did it, and he seemed pleased. She sits down, and Hitler's gaze is upon her. His eyes are full of the goodness of his heart and radiate forcefulness.

How about his private life?

"Well, there is not time for much of it. Just my little house in Bavaria, the only thing I own. It must now be expanded because of my duties. Why are you a vegetarian and a teetotaller? Well, animal corpses are a strange kind of human food, they just give a brief kick, like alcohol. As a vegetarian, you live longer and in a better condition. Look at the lion, it can eat half a calf, but can only run for half an hour. But an elephant can with no problems run for six hours. But anyway, those of us who took part in the war do not get to be old - it is incredible how young people are when they die."

How did you become a great speaker, Herr Reichskansler? Were you born with it or did you learn it?

"Both. You do not quickly realize for yourself that you have such a talent, only after long practice. But the ability must be developed and practiced. Have you seen much of Germany, by the way?

Yes, I have seen all of it, so to say, but why are the mine workers such devoted National Socialists? Their life seems horrible.

"You are wrong, they love their work, in spite of its risks. They are like the soldiers of the front who feel that they protect all others.

How about women's position in the Reich? Could there be a woman minister?

"No, no, absolutely not. They must be real women. We raise healthy, successful and physically trained men for them, what more can a woman ask for?

When they part, the Führer smiles heartily and in an excellent mood he says: -

"You are really nice. Next time you are in Berlin you may visit me.

The second interview took place in connection with the 1936 Olympics in Berlin (Arvad, 1936b), in his gigantic, but sparsely furnitured, office. Hitler was once more the easiest person in the world to interview. He willingly answered all questions.

About the Olympics - he was not quite satisfied. Germany would have needed more than 3 years to prepare. Anyway, he was very impressed with Japanese runners. And he was especially proud of the German women's achievements. But should not women stay at home?

"No, no, absolutely not! Innumerable women have prominent positions in Germany, we only wish that they keep to such jobs where their womanhood is adequate. I recently read about a case in the USA where a female sheriff was to execute a criminal. This would not be acceptable in the Reich - but sports and suitable work are OK for women.

A large finishing section of the interview deals with the theme of optimism, which Hitler brought up.

"Optimism is necessary for all important projects, and it is the characteristic of youth. I got all my important ideas when I was quite young. I study history. Only optimists had any importance in history.

I have many plans on a 10- or even 20-year basis. Perhaps I shall not live to see them realized. Germany has probably more plans than any other nation in Europe. But to carry them through, I must have peace!

But have you not already carried through a lot?

"Yes, indeed. The people loves me... You should join me in my limosine, and see how the people loves me...

Do you have a private wish?

"Yes, to travel. But there is no time for that... I saw the coastline of Denmark, it was so pretty. Yes, travel... that is what I want to do.

Was she a Nazi and a spy?

Arvad comes through in these articles as a great admirer of the Nazis, but not necessarily as a Nazi herself. In contrast to Swedes Böök and Landquist, she was however clearly anti-semitic. But there is no way to tell just how close to a Nazi she was, because she only scratches the surface of things and stays in a descriptive mode. She refrains from any criticism, of course, and she does convey an impression that all is well in Germany, very well indeed. People are happy and goal oriented. Crime is going down, etc etc. The brutality of the regime, the anti-semitism and the oppressive treatment of political opposition, as well as the very aggressive foreign policies and frantic armament - these things seem just not to exist. The articles could as well have been published in a traditional bourgeois ladies= magazine, with an interest in the "human" and "psychological" side of things. In Hitler, who was about to become one of the worst mass murderers of all times and at the time of the Arvad interviews already was responsible for many murders, she only saw the idealism of a German patriot, a good heart and great forcefulness and charm.

It is striking that the articles give so little information. An alleged hour with Hitler, the first interview, is summarized with his answers to four or five questions. These answers could not have taken more than 10 minutes for him to make and for her to write down, at the most. One wonders what happened in the other 50 minutes. At any rate, she and Hitler were on friendly terms and she was given a seat in the Führer's box at the Stadium during the 1936 Olympics (Hamilton, 1992). Her explanation that this was because she was a foreign correspondent cannot be taken seriously. There were surely hundreds of such correspondents in Berlin at the time, who were not given a seat in Führer's box.

Information about Arvad is sketchy and inconsistent at important points. Was von Levetzow really her uncle? That should be possible to find out, but so far different answers to the question have been given. Maybe he was her uncle and maybe he did introduce her to Nazi leaders. Why else would she stay with him? (Pardon the naive question). Arvad may have been a mythomaniac. She apparently lied about having been elected Miss World in 1929 (she got the 4th place in that competition in Paris). Arvad's erotic escapades were many and she had at least one more lover than JFK at the time of their romance, besides being married to Fejos. It is also stated that both Hitler and Göring enjoyed her erotic favors (Anonymous, 1991).

Whether she was a spy or agent of some kind cannot be established with any certainty. Some writers, including Hamilton, deny the suspicions against her entirely but with little justification. Several US agencies and politicians, including President Roosevelt, were quite suspicious of her at the time, and there are indications that she was deeply involved with the top Nazi leadership and that she worked for Wenner-Gren, who also was very much involved with the Germans. On the other hand, her behavior in the USA was not very smart if she was an agent. She openly supported Germany and voiced strong prejudice against Jews. She had been known to be a friend of Hitler's, information easily available and indeed the reason why the FBI got interested in her in the first place. Spies and agents must surely be much more covert than that.

Olof Lagercrantz in China

In 1970, the editor of Sweden's leading daily newspaper, Dagens Nyheter (DN), traveled to PRC and then published a number of articles in that newspaper. These articles make interesting reading today, 30 years later, in the light of knowledge that we now have about the events that took place in China in those turbulent times. The articles are available in German (Lagercrantz, 1971) and Spanish (Lagercrantz, 1972) translation.

The name of the traveler was Olof Lagercrantz (born in 1911) and he played an important role in the cultural life of Sweden for decades, both as a journalist and as an author. Lagercrantz had been a cultural editor of DN under the legendary editorship of Herbert Tingsten. Tingsten was a well-known professor of political science before accepting the job as editor and, under his directorship, the newspaper became a very outspoken and influential liberal voice in Swedish political and cultural debate. When he retired in 1960 Lagercrantz was appointed his successor. Up to that point, Lagercrantz had kept a low profile in politics - he was mostly known as a poet and a literary critic - but that was to change. Under his rule, the newspaper - still officially labeled "liberal" - was to assume a leftist, often extreme leftist, position.

The China articles constitute something of a climax of the leftist vogue of DN, and at the time Swedish society as a whole was turning left. Its new and young Prime Minister, Olof Palme, had made his career a few years earlier as an outspoken critic of US policies in Vietnam, and was an ardent supporter of Castro's Cuba. The trade unions had been quickly radicalized in the end of the 1960's and salary differences were about to be drastically decreased. Palme was perfectly fitted to follow and to lead this movement, and DN under Lagercrantz as the leading newspaper with enormous influence on debate and opinion formation in Sweden, was the perfect companion.

Indeed, Lagercrantz seems to have admired Palme enormously. He wrote a review of a book published by Palme in 1974. Almost all commentators on Palme have seen him as controversial and polarizing. Not so Lagercrantz. In a review full of glowing admiration he wrote that "Olof Palme is, for better or for worse and to some extent against his own nature, the beloved leader we have created and supported throughout the centuries. He is basically the leader that we all want". But whatever Palme was, he was no uniting force. It took a complete lack of reality contact to see him that way. The China articles illustrate the same blindness.

It may be added that the two Swedish television channels of the time were under government control and also leftist (especially TV2, a then fairly new channel), as much of the rest of the print media (there were important exceptions, of course) and the radio, also government controlled. What Lagercrantz wrote about China was thus placed in a very prominent position, and probably given much credibility. Opinion polls have shown that Swedes do trust the quality newspapers and government TV and radio, while they distrust politicians, the labor leaders and tabloids. DN is a prime example of a Swedish quality newspaper.

Lagercrantz's China project should be seen also in the light of Jan Myrdal's earlier and very successful writings about red China. Myrdal was one of the first Western authors and journalists allowed to visit Mao's China for an extended period of time, and he did so in the beginning of the 60's. His book (Myrdal, 1963, 1965) was translated to many languages, and widely believed to give a correct picture of the situation in China. In hindsight, it is a naive distortion of reality, and its author shows little or no insight into the plight of the Chinese under communist dictatorship. In particular, the disastrous famine resulting from Mao's failed "great leap" of 1960-61 (Becker, 1996) is nowhere apparent in the book, which depicts rural life in China as altogether positive. However, this is a criticism that was not often heard in the 1960's and Myrdal was to embark on a very successful career as an author and journalist. In 1968, he spoke with great success to the radicalized students in Sweden, and he has enjoyed, since the 1960's and up to today, easy access to all major Swedish media, in spite of growing skepticism to his Maoist and Stalinist world views.

Setting the stage. The first article was published 10 November 1970 (Lagercrantz, 1970a). On the first page of DN that day, the heading reads "Smiling is self defense in China of togetherness (gemenskap)". In the article Lagercrantz focuses on how many smiling people he had seen, speculating that smiling is necessary to cope with all the frictions among 800 million people in the largest country of the world, and on his interpretation that "people" meant so much more in China than in the West. He wrote

"The decisive difference between China and our world is that the concrete people, as they go and stand on their two legs, mean so enormously much more than with us, and that this is experienced as coming home to something known and recently past". (p. 3).

It seems that this impression was related to the lack of technology in China, and to Mao's famous dictum that the atom bomb was a "paper tiger". Thus, the stage was set. In China, people are smiling and friendly, and the value of human beings in that country is enormous. This notion seems to be a pure fantasy product.

Barefoot journalists. Lagercrantz visited a newspaper in Shanghai (Lagercrantz, 1970d) and was told that journalists now must spend 3 months working in agriculture, where they would train "barefoot journalists" to report to the newspaper. All is politics, and rightly so. If you are asked "How are you" and answer "fine, thanks" you have revealed you bourgeois mentality. You should have answered something like "Fine, thanks to my studies of the writings of Chairman Mao". Ridiculous? Not at all. We live in the West, says Lagercrantz, in a state of false innocence. We do many things that seem innocent - playing with our children, washing our cars etc - but in fact are not because they imply that we abstain from working for a better world - "if you do not hoist a red flag you hoist a white flag".

Is the press allowed to criticize the party? Yes, of course. Examples are given when the newspaper sided with workers in a factory who had criticized the management. It was not made clear in what sense this showed that the party could be criticized.

The happy peasants. The rural areas in China are alive, and there is never a boring moment (Lagercrantz, 1970e). All those things that happen seem either happy, productive or slight mishaps. A very good harvest is in the making, the ninth in a row. Irrigation works are very impressive.

The people's commune "October" is a good, representative example. In 5 years livestock increased 61%, number of tractors 425%, and income in fixed prices 90%. Productivity increased 19%. These figures are in all probability representative for all of China - there is no famine in China.

Still, it is primitive. But, who are we to criticize? Just consider all the risks of the way of life in the West. Every second death threatens our children in a traffic which is more and more intense, and air and water are polluted. All this is due to the market economy. But in China, there can never be unemployment. It will not be allowed. The large cities are a threat to the West, but in China young people are happy to move to the rural areas and work for the common good. Besides, the Chinese are convinced that it is not Destiny which rules, but that humans can change things. Indeed, Mao is the most optimistic person in the world. China will create a new human being and a new society.

Secondary education. Lagercrantz visited high school no 23 in Beijing (Lagercrantz, 1970b). The students were sent to work in factories and communes and there they were graded for entry to a university. The school worked hard to obliterate the destructive influence of Liu-Shao Chi, which had created a rift between workers and intellectuals. Indeed, says Lagercrantz, the growing gap between theory and practice is one of the most serious problems of our civilization. China tries to solve that problem in a radical manner.

Lagercrantz grants that before coming to China, he had seen their strategy in this respect as bizarre and abstract, distant. Now, seeing it concretely, it seemed natural, reasonable and sensible. School subjects should be organized in direct relation to practical life and the students should work in factories tied to the schools. This was done at High school no 23 with excellent results.

Barefoot doctors. Medical doctors were of course also subjected to the education prescribed by the Cultural revolution, they were sent to work in the fields and factories and in this way, says Lagercrantz, they learned many things they could use to improve their medical practice. However, Mao had also prescribed that students be accepted from primary schools for brief education of perhaps 3 months, then sent to the communes as "barefoot doctors". They could then learn from the people about natural medicine, acupuncture etc. Intellectual qualifications take too much place in the selection of future doctors, according to Lagercrantz. These people do not understand their patients, they are too distant. Besides, they have no empathy. Empathy should be the criterion for selection of medical students.

It has been "proven" that the Chinese have succeeded to wipe out almost entirely cholera, bubonic plague and smallpox. The Chinese experiments with medical care appeared to be eminently sensible in the eyes of Lagercrantz. "Coming to China with our prejudices and arrogance is decidedly not called for. What is called for is to listen humbly" (Lagercrantz, 1970c).

These articles by Lagercrantz are a set of rather typical examples of the writings of a fellow traveler. The official picture that the regime wants to communicate is readily accepted, with a few token reservations. Absolutely no negative information is anywhere provided in these articles and the tremendous suffering of the Chinese people under the cultural revolution (Jiaqi & Gao, 1996) seems not to have existed at all.

On the other hand, Western society is subjected to serious criticism. The environment is being destroyed by pollution, it is claimed, but nowhere is it mentioned that similar problems may be at hand in China. Of course, the Chinese environmental problems are now known to be enormous while they are under at least some degree of control in the industrialized west.

General discussion

The rhetoric and reality distortions of the writings summarized here are striking. Human misery was simply not seen, nor were oppression and cruelty. The propaganda picture was swallowed immediately and without any questioning at all by Lagercrantz and Arvad, with only a few mild reservations by Böök and Landquist. On the other hand, Landquist even managed to visit a concentration camp and find it to be mostly a rather pleasant place, maybe slightly depressing because it was so boring, but not really bad. He apparently believed every word of his hosts when they assured him that no physical "punishments" ever were given to the inmates, that they were in fact prohibited. And the soup they were fed tasted so good.

The rhetorical tricks used by the authors are only too obvious. There may be some things that seem to us to be undesirable, but who are we to judge? We must remember the special background of these countries. And things are surely developing in a positive direction. We can already see strong indications of that. So many, many positive things exist. Why ponder on the few drawbacks?

There are some interesting similarities among the four fellow travelers I have presented here. Widely different in some background characteristics, they did share an upper class and establishment basis. They had easy access to major media. They wrote well. They were obviously quite intelligent people. Yet they came out with conclusions that were outrageously wrong. Why?

In the cases of Böök, Landquist and Lagercrantz you can discern a discontent with the society to which they belonged. Lagercrantz is quite explicit about this, Landquist somewhat less but he surely has an axe to grind with a liberal establishment whose criticism of Germany he resents deeply. Arvad really does not tell, but her background was that of an unstable person, having eloped with an Arab diplomat (or student?) at the age of 16 and under pressure from a very ambitious mother. It is not unlikely that she shared similar attitudes toward the society from which she came. In her female charm, she had a very powerful weapon, not available to the middle-aged men. She was also the only one to get an interview with the Führer himself, and to have a personal relationship established with the leading circles. On the other hand, her journalism was more superficial and dealt mostly with personal details rather than politics, while it still by no means excluded politics altogether.

In all four cases we see a fascination with an alleged unity of society and people working for the common good. They were dismayed, in other words, with the divisions and conflicts and egotism they saw in modern Western society. They longed for unity and idealism. All four fellow travelers were also strongly attracted to autocratic leadership. Hitler and Mao were wise men in their eyes, wise and strong and benevolent. They saw no despotism or fanaticism in them. There was probably a longing for deferring to authority (Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1996).

Nazi and communist thinking is frequently concerned with consipracy theories of various kinds. For the Nazis, the Jews were the prime example of a group plotting to destroy their world. For the communists, similar anti-semitic thoughts are connected to notions about Jewish capitalists and their alleged conspiracies. The tendency to construct such paranoic belief structures is probably connected with a feeling of alienation and powerlessness (Abalakina?Paap at al., 1999), and general suspiciousness has been found to be related to enhanced risk beliefs (Sjöberg, 2005). The feeling of being powerless and that society is run by upper echelons with little regard for the common man is wide-spread (Sjöberg, 1996, 1997), even in a democratic country such as Sweden.

The lure of fascism is well described by Griffiths (Griffiths, 1980). The communist state established by Lenin was undoubtedly a source of great concern to the Right, and Fascism seemed like a successful way of channeling the collectivist urges of the workers, tying them to nationalist causes and at the same time preserving the existing economic power structure. How could it otherwise be done? In the USA and UK, and in Scandinavia, there were other solutions. Representative democracy provided for the development of a power position of reformist socialist movements, and the beginnings of the welfare state could be seen. These reformist movements, the Social Democrats, were however not quite as likely to accept the economical existing power structure and the established variation in wealth, and were ready to legislate important changes by means of taxation. They also tended to be provocative in their anti-militaristic and anti-establishment rhetoric. Their democratic credibility was at times seen as doubtful.

Griffiths wrote:

"If there is one fact, in relation to political behavior, which has emerged from this study, it is that most people take their political stances from ignorance or from carelessness". (p. 378).

Only a direct threat to their own society could alert the British to the realities of the Nazi regime and its brutality and ruthlessness, according to him. This may be part of the truth, though he did not really study "most people" but various members of elites who had access to media or could otherwise publish their views. Yet, the negligent attitudes to the very strange and different regime of the Nazis, or such far-away and exotic places as China or Cuba, could also be dependent on other factors than ignorance and carelessness. The very nature of the Nazi regime was something new and quite unlikely, especially since Germany was a nation with an advanced and well established culture. The nature of the regime evolved step by step, and even if Hitler's rhetoric was frank enough it could easily be dismissed as just that, as mere rhetoric. After all, German and Austrian politicians had been heard before to make mortal threats especially towards the Jews but not much had come out of that. It was easy to see such threats as just attempts to whip up support among the prejudiced masses.

Griffiths sums up three types of indulgence towards Nazi antisemitism: Germany as a special case which cannot be judged by our standards, it is much worse somewhere else (particularly in Russia), and it does not really happen - or if it happens it is not so bad, after all. The latter can be seen as an example of what we have called Double Denial (Sjöberg & Montgomery, 1999).

Caute (Caute, 1988) published a very detailed account of fellow travelers to communist dictatorships. In many ways, the stories of these people are quite similar to those who traveled to see the wonders of Nazism. But there were also differences. Caute traces the leftist fellow traveler motivations back to the Enlightenment and the cult of Reason. It was all about

""a return to the eighteenth-century vision of a rational, educated and scientific society based on the maximization of resources and the steady improvement (if not perfection) of human nature" (p. 264)

The collectivistic and undemocratic policies of Communists and Nazis were similar, and the Nazis were to a large extent also involved in a modernistic and anti-capitalist project justified as the triumph of Reason. But in their case, there was also a romantic and occult strand (Goodrick-Clarke, 1985). Cult of the Will, and the National character or Race can not to be found as easily in the Communist doctrine. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine proclaimed class war, the Nazis favored national unity in a war against other "races". Maybe the choice of which type of fellow traveler you became was, in the 1930s, mostly a question of ethnic preferences and aversions. Böök was clearly first and foremost a great lover of all things German and that made him into a spokesman for the Nazis. To take another example, Norwegian author Knut Hamsun hated the British and the Americans, and that made him a friend of Germans and Nazis (Hansen, 1978).

The fellow travelers to the USSR in the 1930s were fascinated by what they saw as triumphs of Planning and Reason, and the privileged position of scientists. Indeed, many of the travelers were themselves academics who had been frustrated back home by the lack of funds and recognition awarded to science and scientists. They dreamed of a future society ruled by philosopher-kings, where greedy capitalists no longer had a place. Education should be dominated by Science and Technology, not the traditional Humanities. They yearned for "power, social relevance, status and prestige" (Caute, 1988). The populace would hurry from work to the open meetings of the Academy of Science:

"In the body of the hall the proletariat, fresh from factory, plant, technical school, docks. On the spacious stage file the academicians amid thunderous applause from the gathering". (p. 281).

It is amazing and frightening to see how some of the best minds of a generation could fall prey to the simple propaganda trick of tyrants, simply because they were flattered and felt the sweet smell of power and prestige, and because they had naive beliefs about the nature of humans and society.

Beliefs about society and politics have an unbearable flexibility. You may construe any notion that you wish, no matter how absurd, and cling to it. All the pertinent facts are usually subject to various interpretations, or sources can be questioned. In such a situation, wishful thinking becomes a powerful force, and people mutually reinforce each others' reality distortions. In an interesting recent book, dictators themselves were interviewed and found to exhibit the same kind of reality distortion (Orizio, 2003).

The newspapers in the end of August 1939 are full of wishful speculations that, after all, Hitler wanted no war and was not about to start one. Who could want a war? Hitler has promised that he loves peace, and who are we to question what a great statesman says, to paraphrase a Swedish MP in a debate of his country's defense budget. In April 1940, the Norwegian government received many warnings about an imminent German invasion, but chose to ignore them and did not mobilize its defense, instead ordered an investigation of what it would cost to do so. Stalin, as is well known, also received many warnings about a German invasion in June of 1941 but chose not to believe any of them.

Did fellow travelers cause any harm? Illusions are harmful, and these people did what they could to create and sustain the propaganda myths of their hosts. In some cases, the harm may be intensified by the fact that the traveler is in a unique position to give a credible account of what is happening in a country. Swedish diplomats, most notably Sweden's then ambassador to PRC, Kaj Björk, did much to stop the truth about the killings in Kampuchea to be believed in the Western world, in the end of the 1970's (Lindquist, 1999). (The Swedish diplomats were the first Westerners allowed to visit the country after the communist rise to power). Interestingly, he still, some 25 years later, insists that things were not so bad under the Khmer Rouge, and speaks now about, possibly, some 10 000 murders - a very small percentage of credible estimates published on this topic. AIt was necessary to have a flexible attitude, not to be a "rigid democrat". There could not be so many killings, because there was a shortage of labor. People always die of illness and old age. -- Such nonsense was uttered by Sweden's ambassador to the PRC.

It is characteristic of political opinions that they vary greatly. Are some better and more realistic than others? Can we say that the fellow travelers were unrealistic or had corrupt and distorted views of reality? The answer must take into account what they could have known at the time of their writing, not what we know now even if current knowledge is important in putting their viewpoints in a perspective. Landquist could have found out more about concentration camps than he did, for example, but he chose to be content with the version that his hosts presented. If he had any doubts, he did not present them to his readers. Arvad surely must have known something about the dark side of Adolf Hitler, since the dealings of the Nazi regime had been given wide publicity for years when she met Hitler, and much that had been written about him and the Nazis was highly critical and deeply disturbing to all but the most devoted supporters and sycophants. Yet she chose to portray him as honest and charming and very intelligent and did not hint with a word that there might be another side to the man. These are just a few examples.

It is obvious that the fellow travelers were distorting reality not only from the point of hindsight but also on the basis of their times and the knowledge that was then available. Distortions, then. But were they cynical or honest in the sense that they did believe what they were writing? I believe they were honest in the latter sense of the word. They had distorted opinions and closed their eyes to obvious oppression and cruelty and corruption, but once they had done so they loved the view of the world that they saw and they believed in it. This is the true danger of the flexibility of belief and this is why it may be termed unbearable. People can believe ANYTHING, and tend to develop consistent world views that support their notions to the very end, no matter how bizarre or distorted and unfounded they are. They search for others who share their opinions, and such people can usually be found. Once found, they provide first hand social support which is quite effective as reinforcement. The sects that are the result of this process then form platforms for continued support of beliefs in the unlikely and the grotesque. There are similarities between political and religious beliefs, often noted. But religion has few contacts with the real word and deals with a wholly postulated reality, and with written testimony by people dead long ago. Current sightings of the supernatural are the subject of endless scrutiny and doubt and can never be proven to be anything but hallucinations.

The fellow travelers have typically been slow to retract their distorted world views. Since belief structures are so open and flexible, it is easy to come up with arguments to justify beliefs even in the face of obvious facts that support the opposite views. Jan Myrdal is still arguing in favor of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and prefers to believe that the mass murder stories are just propaganda lies which are part of a giant conspiracy. The revisionist version of the Holocaust is that it never happened to begin with, or if it happened it did so without Hitler's knowledge. And so on. Creating a closed belief structure is not hard, and once in place, it tends to stay. Understanding this process may help us to keep our sanity, even if it also makes us pessimistic.

References


Abalakina-Paap, M., Stephan, W. G., Craig, T., & Gregory, W. L. (1999). Beliefs in conspiracies. Political Psychology, 20, 637-647.
Anonymous. (1991). John F. Kennedy and the Nazi spy: MPI Home Video MP 6068.
Arnold-Foster, W. (1933). Germany's concentration camps. Nineteenth Century and After(November), 559.
Arvad, I. (1935a, 31 July). Alt for damerne. Berlingske Aftenavis, pp. 6.
Arvad, I. (1935b, 2 July 1935). Berlins politi-praesident gik i Östre Borgerdyds. Berlingske Aftenavis.
Arvad, I. (1935c, 30 November 1935). En time hos Adolf Hitler. Berlingske Tidende.
Arvad, I. (1935d, 22 March 1935). Hos Tysklands förste dame. Berlingske Tidende.
Arvad, I. (1935e, 8 December 1935). Kvinden i det tredje rige. Berlingske Tidende.
Arvad, I. (1936a). Dr. Fejos vendte i aftes hjem fra Afrika med enestaaende films. Berlingske Tidende.
Arvad, I. (1936b, 5 September 1936). Kun optimister skaber historie. Berlingske Aftenavis.
Becker, J. (1996). Hungry ghosts. Mao's secret famine. New York: The Free Press.
Borgnäs, L. (2006). En iskall vind drog genom Sverige. Mordet på Olof Palme. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Böök, F. (1916). Resa till Frankrike 1915. Stockholm: Norstedt.
Böök, F. (1933a). An eyewitness in Germany. London.
Böök, F. (1933b). Hitlers Tyskland. Sockholm: Norstedts.
Böök, F. (1934). Hitlers Deutschland von aussen. Munich: Deutschen Akademie.
Böök, F. (1940). Tyskt väsen och svensk lösen. Malmö: Dagens böcker.
Caute, D. (1988). The fellow-travellers: intellectural friends of communism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Goodrick-Clarke, N. (1985). The occult roots of nazism. Secret Aryan cults and their influence on Nazi ideology. New York: New York University Press.
Griffiths, R. (1980). Fellow travellers of the right: British enthusiasts for Nazi Germany 1933-9. London: Constable.
Hamilton, N. (1992). JFK. Reckless youth. New York: Random House.
Hansen, T. (1978). Processen mot Hamsun. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Jiaqi, Y., & Gao, G. (1996). Turbulent decade. A history of the cultural revolution. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Kershaw, I. (1998). Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris. New York: Norton.
Lagercrantz, O. (1970a, 10 November). Leendet självförsvar i gemenskapens Kina. Dagens Nyheter, pp. 1, 3.
Lagercrantz, O. (1970b, 18 November). Läroverk har egna fabriker. Dagens Nyheter, pp. 1, 20.
Lagercrantz, O. (1970c, 25 November). Medkänsla bästa merit för läkare. Dagens Nyheter, pp. 1, 3.
Lagercrantz, O. (1970d, 12 November). Minsta ord från partiet stor nyhet. Dagens Nyheter, pp. 1, 28.
Lagercrantz, O. (1970e, 15 November). Primitivt jordbruk - hårt arbete. Dagens Nyheter, pp. 1, 11.
Lagercrantz, O. (1971). China-Report: Bericht einer Reise. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Lagercrantz, O. (1972). Reportaje sobre China. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Landquist, J. (1933a, 31 October 1933). De röda fanornas Tyskland. Aftonbladet, pp. 4, 19.
Landquist, J. (1933b, 26 October 1933). Ett besök i ett tyskt koncentrationsläger. Aftonbladet, pp. 4.
Landquist, J. (1933c, 11 July 1933). Fredrik Böök om Hitlers Tyskland. Aftonbladet.
Landquist, J. (1933d, 7 November 1933). Tysklands utträde ur N. F. Aftonbladet, pp. 4, 13.
Landquist, J. (1933e, 25 October 1933). Vi vilja freden och vinna vad vi vilja. Aftonbladet, pp. 4,13.
Landquist, J. (1933f, 21 October 1933). Över molnen på Hindenburgs vinge. Aftonbladet, pp. 2.
Lindquist, B. (1999, 11 November). Björk spred tvivel om morden. Svenska Dagbladet, pp. 2.
Lööw, H. (1990). Hakkorset och Wasakärven : en studie av nationalsocialismen i Sverige 1924-1950. Göteborg: University of Göteborg.
Myrdal, J. (1963). Rapport från kinesisk by. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Myrdal, J. (1965). Report from a Chinese village. New York: Pantheon books.
Nordin, S. (1994). Fredrik Böök. En levnadsteckning. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Orizio, R. (2003). Talk of the Devil: Encounters with seven dictators. New York: Walker & Co.
Östergren, B. (1984). Vem är Olof Palme? Stockholm: Timbro.
Prilleltensky, I., & Gonick, L. (1996). Polities change, oppression remains: On the psychology and politics of oppression. Political Psychology, 17, 127-148.
Ray, J. J. (2006). Hitler was a socialist. Accessed 14 April, 2006.
Sjöberg, L. (1996). Riskuppfattning och inställning till svenskt medlemskap i EU. (Risk perception and attitude to Swedish membership in the EU). Stockholm: Styrelsen för Psykologiskt Försvar.
Sjöberg, L. (1997). Valet till EU-parlamentet 1995. En socialpsykologisk studie. (The election to the EU Parliament in 1995. A social psychological study). Stockholm: Styrelsen för psykologiskt försvar.
Sjöberg, L. (2005). The perceived risk of terrorism. Risk Management: An International Journal, 7, 43-61.
Sjöberg, L., & Montgomery, H. (1999). Double denial in attitude formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 606-621.
St. John, B. (1997, 12 September). Hitler photo focuses on twist of fate. The Dallas Morning News, pp. 25A.
Thulstrup, Å. (1941). Fredrik Böök som politisk skriftställare. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.

posted by JR 8:13 PM

Monday, April 17, 2006

 

Men as wimps or vicious villains, women as innocent victims


By: Lennart Sjöberg

(Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden. E-mail: lsjoberg@fastmail.fm)

Abstract

Gender-based prejudice is an important factor in human misery. Its roots are manifold, but one is found in media, in particular in entertainment movies. In the present paper, several movies, conceived in a misoandric mood, are discussed. Women are depicted as victims and good, men as perpetrators and bad. This stereotypical theme is so common that it is not even noticed and it is commonly accepted without reflection. Causes of contemporary misoandry are discussed and it is suggested that they reside in the economic and political conditions, together with the basic psychobiology of love and sex, which have fundamentally changed the conditions of family life in most of the USA and Europe. Reflection on these conditions will not change anything but understanding prejudice is better than not even recognizing how prevalent it is.

The stereotypes of men and women are factors in gender-based prejudice. They are present everywhere: in media, in common-sense thinking and talk, in schools, homes and places of work. In the present paper I focus on the movies where the stereotypes are, at the same time, obvious and invisible. The invisible messages are particularly persuasive and therefore dangerous. The much-celebrated Dutch movie Antonia (1995), which won an Oscar for best foreign movie in 1995, is a very cleverly done piece. Here, women are strong and very clever, even brilliant, and men are either brutal criminals, stupid wimps or mentally disturbed. Marriage is out of the question, of course, and the male role in reproduction, while unfortunately still necessary, is minimized. The movie is extremely clear in its prejudices, so very obvious in its distortions of how real men and women are – yet it was given great praise by critics. On the web site www.imdb.com we read that it is “An immensely charming tribute to life”. More examples will now be mentioned, their structural causes and effects discussed.

The villains

Since a few decades, views of what is male and female are changing. Men and male sexuality are depicted as suspect and malevolent, women as victims. The trend is very obvious in the world of the cinema and clever movie creators do a lot to persuade us about the validity of their values and worldviews. In such movies as Thelma and Louise (1991) women have to resort to violence in order to defend themselves against male abuse. In more brutal variations such as Natural born killers (1994) or the French, much celebrated movie, Baise-moi (2002) violence is exerted without discrimination towards any advances from men towards the heroines of the story. The movie industry is a reflection of the societal values and anxieties, and therefore changing dramatically over time, as a study of silent movies from the time period 1915-1927 shows (Shrock, 1997).

It would be easy to make a long list of movies, which exploit the theme male villains/female victims. Let me take two more examples. Crazy in Alabama (1999) is a black comedy, which starts with a woman murdering her husband, decapitating his body and then carrying around his head in a hatbox. In the end she is brought to court and we learn that the brutal husband certainly deserved to die. The nice old man who is the presiding judge assures us that he has "never sent a lady to the chair, and never will", apparently regardless of what the ladies in question have done. The law is different for men and women, good. The heroine gets a very light sentence and is free to join her lovely and sweet children, whose perfect mother she clearly is.

Movies often exhibit a strong dislike for men. In Glengarry Glen Ross, a group of men are depicted as fiercely competitive, deceptive and ruthless (Greenbaum, 1999); the movie (1992) was huge success. The male malefactor is frequently a pedophile, often abusing his own children. Antonia also develops that theme, which is now more or less routine. More simple Hollywood productions often use incest as a major or supplementary theme, possibly combined with some form of superstition. The movie The gift (2000) is about a clairvoyant fortune-teller who solves a murder case, of course in spite of condescending and aggressive attitudes from male police officers and lawyers. A mentally disturbed car mechanic who is her friend and client provides a supplementary theme. In a central scene, he ties his elderly father to a chair and whips him, then pours gasoline on him and burns him to death, all as retribution for sexual abuse he was subjected to as a child. In Natural born killers the murderous behavior of the heroine is explained by sexual abuse by her father. Murdering first the father satisfies her retribution urge -and that of the audience -, and then also the mother (gasoline again), uttering the standard line to all these mothers who were accomplices: "You did nothing".

In the world of the cinema, all clichés are true and all prejudice realistic. When did we see a movie where a fortune-teller kept getting things wrong? When did we see a movie where a woman had destructive motives and the man was a victim? Yes, there are some movies like that, but note carefully, they are rare and usually do not give the whole burden of guilt to the female perpetrator. In Fatal Attraction (1987) a woman is stalking a man, and she is increasingly unstable and desperate. Why? The man had enjoyed a one-night stand with her and then dropped her. He now has to live with the consequences of his immoral behavior. In The hand that rocks the cradle (1992) all misery is traced to a male scoundrel, a gynecologist who is abusing his patients. One patient reports him and he is exposed, and commits suicide. His widow then seeks retribution. She wants a child, just like the woman in Fatal Attraction, she is after love and children and a family, nothing else.

Thus, Hollywood usually finds excuses for female criminal and aggressive acts, even of the most macabre kind. Clearly, women do not hunger for power, money and sex, as men do. If men maltreat them they may become unstable and, rightly of course, seek retribution, but they are never evil or lecherous. They are victims. A book by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young (Nathanson & Young, 2001) gives many more examples. Nathanson and Young also point out that the phenomenon is so common that it is taken for granted; nobody notices and nobody objects.

It is all very strange. Female aggression is depicted as justified and admirable and always as a response to oppression by men. Male aggression, however, is an outrage especially if sexually motivated and directed towards women and children, which it routinely is. Male abuse of children leads to enormous personality deformations of these children when they grow up, many seem to become serial killers, and of course they become pedophiles themselves and attack their own children. This is the vicious circle of male sexual oppression.

Movies and popular culture in general give a very simplistic picture of the male villains that they so often depict. Screenwriters simply tune in with the common prejudices of their time, hence reinforcing and spreading them even more (Paris, 2000). Of course there are commercial reasons for all of this. The stories are popular and politically correct. Nobody needs to be disturbed by having her prejudices questioned.

One possible reason for all these male villains in movies, and for the routine incest theme, may be the end of the cold war. Before 1990 the conflict between East and West generated thousands of spy stories and other thrillers. It was so wonderfully obvious who were the bad guys and the good guys. Now that conflict is over and movies about the Russian mafia seem not to be quite as attractive as a replacement. Instead, abuse entered the picture as a replacement. Sex is always fascinating as a theme, and combined with brutal serial killers it is irresistible, or so it seems. It is also likely that movies about male abuse of women and children are relatively cheap to make; they need no expensive special effects like Star Wars or spectacular mass scenes like The Gladiator.

Is there nobody out there to stand up for men? Not as far as I can see. In a movie like Magnolia (1999), also highly celebrated, there is a confused character that runs male self-help seminars, played by Tom Cruise. However, the purpose of the seminars is utterly perverse: it is all aimed at developing skills of seducing women, to be used for maximizing the number of sex partners. The childhood of this character was a tragedy because his father (who else?) had let him down. Another main character, now elderly and dying in cancer, is found to have been the perpetrator or incest some decades ago. His wife then leaves him with the line “You deserve to die alone”.

The great anti-male wave in popular culture may have something to do with changing gender roles and unchanging human motivation, as analyzed by psychologists. Let us look at a few books, which contribute to understanding these matters.

The psychology of love

The conflict between male and female, perversely depicted and exploited in popular mass culture, is however not only the outcome of the work of smart and clever media moguls and their greediness. It is probably also biologically based, and maybe a perpetual part of the human condition. John Marshall Townsend, a psychobiologist, has written an interesting book about the biological foundations of the conflict (Townsend, 1998). He argues that the differences between sexes with regard to sexual desire can be understood developmentally. Men have a genetically based desire to have as many children as possible. Women have a desire, also genetic, to give birth to relatively few children and care for them in a stable family together with a "strong" man - a man rich in resources. Townsend makes his case in a persuasive manner and points out that these differences between men and women appear in all cultures and all times as far as we know. The differences in sexual behavior and preferences of men and women are by now well documented in research (Peplau, 2003).

Anthropologists such as Margaret Mead have claimed that they have shown that sexual behavior is wholly or mostly contingent on culture. This is a point, which is only weakly supported by research, if at all, however popular it may be. To take Mead as an example, Derek Freeman has shown that her famous descriptions of "free love" in Samoa in the 1920's had very little to do with realities (Freeman, 1999). It was all a construction with the aim of promoting ideology.

As shown by Townsend men and women tend to have different values when it comes to love and family life. It takes time for a man to learn about the female values, and a woman has the same difficulties vis a vis the male values. It takes time, if it is at all possible and the problem is at all discovered. More communication about what goals you have in life would be of value. Books such as the one by Townsend are informative reading about male and female priorities, but also depressive because everything seems to be pre-determined by our genes. The decreased social pressure towards conformity with the traditional nuclear family has created a market for sex and new relations, but not by any means freedom from our "nature". Rather, it has created exactly the opposite: indulgence in desires and whims to the extent that the stability of families is severely threatened. In this process we are all victims, but most of all the children - something which Townsend amazingly does not mention.

Many marriages and stable relations tend to break down after a certain time. Why? Psychologist Robert Sternberg has given an interesting discussion of this question (Sternberg, 1998). He points out that after a positive start, almost everything can only deteriorate in a relation. This may have something to do with what statisticians call a regression effect. Establishment of a relationship starts out when two people function maximally well together. However, such a high level of happy togetherness is unlikely to prevail for a long time. Unforeseen problems of one kind or another appear. Intimacy between the two parties decreases and mutual interest drops. Especially women seem to find it very hard to accept such a development.

Vicious circles are developed and are further reinforced by the fundamental attribution error (Ross & Fletcher, 1985). We attribute others= behavior to their more or less permanent personality, but our own behavior to flexible adaptation to the situation. Others are therefore seen as less adaptable than we are, and hence there is less hope for improvement. We also find it very easy to explain away our own faults and shortcomings, which are attributed to circumstances beyond our control and we have a long way to go before we accept part of the guilt and try to improve. Many people are very creative when it comes to finding excuses.

Hence, passion and fire in a relation are likely to be fading over time, and here is another and well-known danger. The basic phenomenon is called habituation, meaning that we react more weakly to things habitual to us. A relation who is wholly rigid and predictable creates boredom and a feeling of emptiness and meaninglessness. How do these basic human tendencies interact with gender role changes?

Cultural climate and relationships

Regardless of the reasons, men and women do have different views of love and sex. I think this is an ultimate reason why we see a growing female outrage and indignation, and the development is further strengthened by the threats to families and other relations. The new "freedom" is much more in tune with male than female needs. Families with two full time working parents and small children live a life full of stress and also of worry. Women continue to do most of the chores, and they are many times ambivalent about leaving their children in the care of others. Time during the weeks is scarce and rigidly scheduled with early mornings taking the children to the day-care center, even if they are ill which they often are due to the spread of infections in child groups. Then, at the end of a long working day, they have to hurry back to the day-care center to fetch the kids, shop and prepare dinner, put the children to bed and hope they will go to sleep soon, which they often do not. There is not much energy left for sex after all this. The men will start looking for other women, not least in the places of work, where both sexes now are represented, as a rule.

The picture of the man as a villain may have its basis in these structural conditions, together with the psychobiological differences between the sexes. The promises once given for life turn out to be fragile under the pressure of everyday chores and stress and women are disappointed that the relationship does not give them what they had hoped for. In this way, there is a resonance created for demonizing men, and clever Hollywood producers have a good feeling for what are the trends of the times. So here we are, seated in the cinema or in front of the TV, identifying with the caricatures of realty that movie producers offer. Our prejudices are strengthened, and the chances of finding a more tolerable life-style diminished. If it exists at all.


References

Freeman, D. (1999). The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research. New York: Westview Press.
Greenbaum, A. (1999). "Brass balls: Masculine communication and the discourse of capitalism in David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross". Journal of Men's Studies, 8, 33-43.
Nathanson, P., & Young, K. K. (2001). Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Paris, J. (2000). Myths of childhood. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37-40.
Ross, M., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1985). Attribution and social perception. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. II: Special fields and applications, pp. 73-122). New York: Random House.
Shrock, J. (1997). Desperate deeds, desperate men: Gender, race, and rape in silent feature films, 1915-1927. Journal of Men's Studies, 6, 69-89.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Cupid's arrow: The course of love through time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Townsend, J. M. (1998). What women want - what men want: why the sexes still see love and commitment so differently. New York: Oxford University Press.

posted by JR 6:17 PM

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

 

AN ANTI-BUSH RANT

Your challenge is to guess its origin. Answer below

"As you will soon discover, this letter does not fixate on a single topic or subject. To be perfectly frank and honest, it started out rather focused but I soon found, as I worked on my primary hypothesis and sought corroboration from other sources, that I have quite a number of different things to say about Bush. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. I'm not the first to mention that I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Unbalanced flibbertigibbets like Bush, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in snooty fast-buck artists in order to convince them to subvert existing lines of power and information. If you think about it, what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of an evil wacko. It's a fact. If you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that Bush would prevent me from sleeping soundly at night. And, as I predicted, it did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Bush could have made the same prediction.

Bush asserts that the ideas of "freedom" and "collectivism" are Siamese twins. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Bush's lickspittles have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Bush's unsympathetic, uninformed bromides. It is doubtlessly not a pretty sight. I want to keep this brief: When I first became aware of Bush's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to challenge the present and enrich the future.

If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. For Bush's dissolute plans to succeed, it needs to "dumb down" our society. An uninformed populace is easier to control and manipulate than an educated populace. Faster than you can say "microcinematographic", schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of words like "mechanicocorpuscular" and "floccinaucinihilipilification". They will be incapable of comprehending that Bush can't fool me. I've met randy publishers of hate literature before, so I know that if I were to compile a list of Bush's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that Bush and its mercenaries are the most grungy yahoos you can imagine -- and even then, only in your worst nightmares. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because it is swinging pretty hard on some slender evidence. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Barbarism advances Bush's long-term goal of plutocratic global dictatorship. To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, people who believe that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape need to be worked over with an oak table leg and then sentenced to 20 years of hard labor in order to straighten out their thinking. Second, I don't want to have to hear Bush's rambling streams of consciousness. And finally, I'm sick of Bush sticking its proboscis into everyone else's business."

The "rant" above was sent to me by a reader. He describes its origin as follows:

Where did I find this? On an ANSWER forum? The Democratic National Committee's speeches? A letter from Marx?

None of them. The above letter is actually an *auto-generated* complaint from this website: http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

Granted, I typed in Bush under the "company" box rather than the box to complain about a person (which is why it writes "Bush sticking its proboscis" instead of "his"), but still, it's eerily similar to the daily frothing at the mouth rants that Leftists spew out about the President. Is this how war protesters write their speeches? By using auto-generators?

I wouldn't put it past them, considering that they've been repeating the same things over and over again, that they are flailing for originality.

posted by JR 11:01 PM

Friday, January 27, 2006

 

TRYWORKS TRYING HARDER

My goodness! My derisive comments about the vituperative Leftist "Tryworks" site had a most unexpected result. I actually stimulated them to temporary politeness! What I said must have really hit home. I reproduce below an email I recently received from their "John Moredock" (a.k.a. Ward Churchill?). I reproduce it as an out-of-character curiosity, not because I accept any of the assertions in it.

Dear Mr. Ray,

As you know, we've been rather critical of the Denver media's coverage of the Ward Churchill controversy. One of our major sticking points has been their using absurdly inappropriate sources when discussing Professor Churchill's character - one of those sources being the splinter offshoot of the American Indian Movement you've linked to on your website.

Those folks have a longstanding feud with Professor Churchill, Russell Means, John Trudell and others, who contend that the leadership of AIM Inc. ordered and/or participated in the brutal rape and murder of a youngAmerican Indian activist by the name of Anna Mae Aquash. It's a contention that seems borne out by the fact that one of their members has been convicted of her murder, and another has fled to Canada. If you'd like more on the allegations, please contact Indigenous Women for Justice ( http://tinyurl.com/cqg3z).

And that's not even mentioning their drug-dealing convictions and the embezzlement rumors.

No matter what you think of Churchill's writings, we think you'll agree that using these folks as sources is absurd on its face.

We hope you'll immediately inform your readers of your error.

Thank you for your time, and for the recent upsurge in our readership. It was very kind of you, indeed.

John Moredock
http://tryworks.blogspot.com/

Being polite was obviously painful for them, however, as they shortly thereafter reproduced the above missive on their own site, accompanied by their usual vituperation.

posted by JR 8:54 AM

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

 

CHUCKMAN CHUCKS UP AGAIN

My recent post about the hate-filled Canadian John Chuckman got a speedy email rejoinder from the chuckful one. I cannot find the rejoinder online at the moment so I reproduce it below for the entertainment of all. The sender of the email was Joe Budtz, so whether Chuckman=Budtz I do not know. Maybe Joe is just a kindly soul who wanted to keep me up to date with the latest chucks.

Just a few notes: Chuckie's obsession with Nazism continues. He calls me "Dr. Goebbels". At least he got the "Dr." right. Like many Leftists, he has to resort to ad hominem abuse in lieu of reasoned argument.

He is still hanging on to the 100,000 killed in Iraq myth -- or is he? He seems aware that the best actual body count available was only about a quarter of that. His huffing and puffing about The Lancet is yet another example of one of the the famous fallacies in logic -- the ad verecundiam fallacy in this case. Leftist bias is of long standing in British medical journals (concerning low standards at The Lancet specifically see for example here and here and here) and it is in any case absurd to expect a medical journal to be expert in cluster sampling. Case studies and experiments on clinical groups are their forte. I on the other hand have done more cluster samples than anyone else I know so I do know a leeedle bit about it. I refer readers to my earlier comment on the matter.

He calls me an "angry, unthinking propagandist". Typical Leftist projection of his own motivations. If he had called me an amused mocker of Leftist nonsense, I would have pleaded guilty.

He implies that my thinking is dictated by the book of Deuteronomy. I think highly of the entire Bible but, being an atheist, I think I am pretty proof against any suspicion that my thinking is dictated by any part of it.

Like all Leftists he is shrill about the PATRIOT act but he curiously fails to mention a single one of the horde of abuses that we were once assured would flow from it.

He says: "Robertson and Falwell are slimy manipulators living off people's loneliness". Mere assertion. No proof or evidence offered -- in typically Leftist fashion. If he had said that Robertson and Falwell are inspiring pastors to many, that would have been much more factual.

I could go on and fisk the entire chuck below but I think readers will see from what I have said already that the exercise would be a pointless one. Most people know enough of the facts to balance out the studiously one-sided account the chucker gives of everything. I cannot however resist commenting on his final flourish of self-righteousness when he refers to his training in economics. That great champion of price controls, J.K. Galbraith, is a much acclaimed economist and there are few things more brain-dead than price-controls. Being a former economics teacher, I can vouchsafe that Economics is generally a most enlightening discipline but it is certainly not a foolproof vaccine against Leftist folly.

Anyway, on to the latest chuck:

I normally don't bother answering stuff like this. There's so much ignorance and anger in the world, and especially coming from the United States, that it would be an endless task trying to correct it all. But important facts in this case should be set right.

Dr. Goebbels - for so it seems appropriate to nickname this angry, unthinking propagandist - claims the reference to 100,000 innocents killed is thoroughly discredited. Well, just because one writer at George Mason says so, does not make it so. The number is the result of a statistical study, and it was published in Lancet, one of the world's most important (peer-reviewed) medical journals.

But even if you choose not to accept the words of experts in a scientific journal (and of course Dr. Goebbels lives in a land where biology increasingly is set by the Book of Deuteronomy), there's the separate effort of actually counting corpses, conscientiously led by an American woman, which came up with about 25,000 killed. This study was unquestionably an undercount because of the sheer problem of getting around Iraq to talk to doctors and officials and because of language and cultural difficulties in communicating. I suppose Dr. Goebbels views 25,000 innocents killed not worth mentioning. We also have the recent statements of important British military men concerning American tactics, tactics almost guaranteed to inflict heavy civilian damage. Several important British commanders have been surprisingly blunt in this.

The ugly, repressive laws to which I refer are of course - as any thinking person might immediately grasp - not American laws about civil unions for homosexuals (of which there are very few, and one can only wonder why Goebbels would come up with this hare-brained reference), but the hideous Patriot Act and related oppressive laws. These violate America's own Constitution in dozens of measures. They are disgraceful in a supposedly free society.

Goebbels' reference to Mary Joe Kopechne after asking who it was that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell killed is straight out of the gutter. My piece doesn't mention Sen. Kennedy, nor am I am an admirer. The death of that poor woman hardly deserves to be treated like a hunk of raw meat tossed to hungry animals. Robertson and Falwell are slimy manipulators living off people's loneliness, and they have made countless dumb public statements, but no one is yet aware of their homicidal tendencies.

Dr. Goebbels goes on: "But I guess the red flag would be OK." Red flag? Who mentioned a red flag except Goebbels?

'But "Allah akhbar", meaning "God is great" is OK of course.' Again, who said this but Goebbels? He is arguing with his own disturbed dreams. It certainly sounds like the raving of a lunatic, but then hate and anger do make people act unbalanced.

"Illegally under what law? Are heaps of U.N. resolutions that Saddam refused to comply with and big majority votes in the U.S. Congress not enough?" The UN was, in fact, deliberately ignored by Bush when he couldn't secure Security Council authority.

UN arms inspectors were frantically at work then to find whether Hussein had violated resolutions. They found absolutely nothing, confirming what previous UN arms inspectors had told us. US forces, after the illegal invasion, tried for months to come up with proof and failed completely. About the time of Bush's second election, the Secretary-General of the UN made the un equivocal statement that the invasion was illegal. The British government, as has since been revealed, was advised by its own experts in secret that the invasion would be illegal. Expert after expert in international law has agreed.

But you don't need experts to understand the technical legal points. How does a majority of the US Congress make it okay to bomb and invade a foreign country? If all countries behaved that way, the world would be reduced to complete anarchy. Besides, the Congress cowardly never declared war, it just passed resolutions which mean nothing to anyone else in the world. But if you are fired up with the spirit of Dr. Goebbels, none of the facts matter.

"How nasty of them to kill terrorists while the terrorists are trying to kill them!" This is Dr. Goebbels' response to my mentioning Marines, after a bowing of the head, going out to kill more Iraqis in their own homes. Before the invasion, there were no terrorists in Hussein's Iraq, anymore than there were in the old Soviet Union. It was in fact one of the last places on earth they'd even think of going. Brutal secret police do have a way of assuring such things.

Yet Bush always dishonestly or stupidly said there were, and Dr. Goebbels clearly believes, years later, the word of the most misinformed and dishonest president in American history.

Of course, Bush also insists on calling the people now fighting a guerilla war against US forces terrorists. This usage is just plain dumb. When you fight invaders, you are not a terrorist, you are a patriot or resister by most people's reckoning.

But today we do know something new, and we owe the knowledge to people like Bush and Dr. Goebbels. The Iraqi resistance has become the world's great training ground for young Arab men angry with American injustice. Bush has stirred a hornets' nest that will plague the world for decades. People who understood this before the invasion tried to tell Bush, but, out of sheer stupidity, he wouldn't listen. Just like Dr. Goebbels answering words he either hasn't read or doesn't understand.

" [Chuckman] Being a Canadian Leftist." Sorry, Dr. Goebbels, but in this as in virtually everything else you simply don't know what you talking about. I am a classically trained economist, and a strong believer in markets. I just tend to strongly dislike mass murder in the name of freedom. But then people like Goebbels never are much concerned about identifying truth.

posted by JR 12:50 PM

Friday, January 06, 2006

 

MY DUTCH CORRESPONDENT ON "AUTHENTICITY"

My expatriate Dutch correspondent sent me an interesting comment on the Netherlands which I put up below on 4th. He now weighs in on the comparison between Australians and Americans in respect of "authenticity". He has lived in America for a long time so his is a well-informed outsider's view. He is initially referring to this post:

"Visiting a country and living there are two different experiences. For this reason I really must object to your conclusion that most people in America care most about "... making a good impression. It seems to me that most Americans don't really know who they are at all. They are constantly aware of their "image" and often wonder how they can improve it but "being themselves" is almost a meaningless expression to them." Your observations really are no more valid than my mother's when she visited here, which was about a dozen times through the years, usually for three or four weeks at a time. In fact, hers may be more valid than yours because she's been around longer than you. Among typical remarks that I remember were:

- Back in Holland, we worry about what happens in Spain, and in Russia, and in India, and all these other places. Here, people don't know anything about them, and they really don't care. They live in a world unto its own.

- Back in Holland people dress up to go to the beach. Here, they don't care what they wear. Don't they know it's disrespectful to wear shorts to church?

- Oh, look, look! I've never seen somebody that fat! And where did she find those pants? (At that point I had to stop her from taking a picture of one of the numerous fatties waddling down the mall - usually while sticking something in her mouth.)

- Why do they let you sit on a dry one? ("Waarom laten ze je op een droogje zitten?") This refers to the fact that when you drop in on somebody for a visit, they converse pleasantly but don't offer tea or coffee or anything else, the way everyone does in Holland. On the other hand, if you ask for it they won't be offended, but they would be in Holland.)

You will agree that none of these observations describes people terribly preoccupied with making a good impression. On the other hand, through the years I have met a fair number of Americans who were all phony. Some were bureaucrats who performed useless jobs, and they had some inkling of it; their main preoccupation was indeed to keep up appearances. Some were typical self-promoters, the kind of people who are always out looking to make a fast buck on somebody else's money. Salesmanship has reached its highest level in America, and to a non-believer in what they're selling it can be painfully obvious. Some were semi-intellectuals who larded their writing with foreign expressions that they spelled completely wrong - one of my pet peeves in this country, but maybe it shows I'm a snob at heart. I even corrected David Horowitz on that. And every summer season we saw a peculiar type of phony people migrate north: Homo Californicus. As is true of everybody else you could guess their age, but with more uncertainty. Their faces were a little too smooth. Their hair was too abundant, and every strand was in just the right place. Their leisure wear was too expensive, and they ordered their food and drink with the studied nonchalance of people on a movie set. The Hollywood crowd; it sounds like you may have met some. They have things in common with people living on the other coast, in New England. The kind of guy who refuses to eat a perfectly good oyster because it's too big. But there's so much in-between! Have you met any Amish, or any Scandinavians from Minnesota?

That Homo Californicus is a special case was especially obvious to us on those occasions when gangs of them came up here to get their souls worked on. There was a place called the Ken Keyes center here in town, founded by a fellow - now dead - who had written a number of self-improvement books. At the center, which he ran inside an abandoned hospital, they conducted seminars that drew lots of people from Southern California (and from New York), people who had made good money but didn't feel real good about themselves - usually the two seemed connected. So they sat around in groups a lot comparing their orgasms and saying sappy things to each other, and sometimes taking off their clothes to be more honest. Obviously, thanks to the encounter-group vibes they got along with each other famously - then when they got to the restaurant it was "Hey, can we get some service here!" "Hey, I want some of that too!" and so on, an indication to us that their souls needed more work. The other occasion was the Maharishi era. Troops of Homo Calfornicus would descend on us dressed in red, orange and yellow, and they were very excited. They were on their way to the Maharishi's ranch in central Oregon, probably to bring him another Rolls Royce. Again, it had something to do with their inner lives but it didn't do a lot of good considering that the principals in the Maharishi's scam were convicted of various somewhat nasty crimes. Haven't seen any of the orange-red-yellow crowd lately; I think these days they come up here to play golf, but that's another story.

To make a long story short -- it takes all kinds to make the world go around. And some people don't push as hard as others".

I replied

Yes. California has some pretty disgusting types and you describe them well. But my comparison was really of big city Americans with big city Australians and if Los Angelenos and New Yorkers appal you, you would LOVE Sydney and Melbourne people. I venture to assert that if we have here any of the types you describe they are very few and far between.

posted by JR 1:47 PM

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

 

AN EXPATRIATE DUTCHMAN ON THE NETHERLANDS

From a regular correspondent who was moved to comment by my reference here to this stupid site

It's rare to see such a muddle-headed, poorly written trash site. The guy thinks it's important to mention he is a Drs., which means roughly he has an M.A. in something. (Doctorandus = someone who is to ready to go for a doctorate or Ph.D but the title implies no certainly about that part - if you follow what I mean.) This is typical - just because somebody has an academic title and thinks he can write in English, he assumes his stuff is worth reading.

I'm afraid, though, that a lot of what he says is typical of the attitudes over there. I was there for about a week last month, celebrating my mother's 90th. My older brother dropped in, and he immediately launched into the standard "Bush lied, etc." rant. So I simply asked why, if Bush lied before the Iraq invasion, he didn't just lie afterward as well, planting a few WMDs for the news media? That left him quiet. The trouble is, though, they have not developed strong alternative media like we have in the US in recent decades. At NRC-Handelsblad, for instance, pure irritation made me quit reading what their USA foreign correspondent had to say about America because it was abundantly clear that intellectually he never ventured outside the MSM cocoon in Washington. His reporting amounted to regurgitating all the standard pedantic anti-American leftist claptrap. Of course, there may be some psychological reason for it. When people travel to a different country they love to find what they know. It's just that a foreign correspondent worth his salt should grow beyond that. This guy, Marc Chavannes, has now been put in charge of that prominent paper and they can't figure out why subscriptions keep dropping.

I have found a few Dutch websites that are worth reading. Geenstijl.nl is funny and constantly pokes fun at that pedantic society. Dutchdisease.com deals primarily with the muslim problem, and is full of incidents of violence perpetrated primarily by the Moroccan hoodlums, and the judiciary's jellyfish-like attitude toward them.

Talk about a society that has been ruined by statism and leftism, Not to forget officious hyperactivity. First, in the seventies, The Hague decided there must be greater job opportunities for younger workers, so they funded a big program of early retirement called VUT. Lots of people retired at 50. A few years later they discovered a workers' shortage, so they started importing foreign workers, first some from European mediterranean countries, then from Turkey, then from Algeria and Morocco. Beyond a doubt the Moroccans have been the worst; a lot of them seem to come from an area that has all the social graces of Jenghis Khan. and they are determined never to integrate; when they marry they import some veiled girl from the Rift. Into this mix the government dumped opportunists from Surinam and the Dutch Antilles, heavily subsidized former colonies whose residents, for quite some time, had free entry to the mother land. For years there was a virtual airlift of welfare-seekers and cocaine importers, all at taxpayers' expense. And all through these years the socialists were in charge, doing their multicultural thing. IF present trends continue, including the vast difference in population growth between the natives and the non-natives, that country will have ruined itself in another generation or two. The logic of the numbers will be inescapable.

No doubt some leftist reading this will accuse me of "hate" and foreigner-phobia. All I'm saying is, there is a difference between immigration by people who respect their new society and attempt to integrate, and bringing in boatloads of people who are simply determined to take over. Unless forced by wars or other calamities, people in any society have the right to be shielded from social upheavals engineered by know-it-alls who know nothing.

posted by JR 11:30 PM

Thursday, December 29, 2005

 

HISPANIC IQ

I recently had an interesting correspondence with the heroic Steve Sailer -- who makes a business out of discussing those things that establishment intellectuals regard as unmentionable -- i.e. human differences generally and IQ in particular. Steve and I agree on many things but disagree on Hispanic IQ. Briefly, the IQ studies show average Hispanic IQ to be somewhere between black and white average IQ and Steve takes that at face-value whereas I am more cautious in deciding what inferences to make from such studies. I have set out my doubts at some length here and Steve wrote after reading that article.

I imagine that what I said left Steve's views unchanged but I thought it might be useful to mention here the points of our discussion. I will start out with our initial exchange of emails in full but will summarize after that point:

Steve wrote:

I read your essay on Hispanic IQ, and while you make many good points, let me try to put the issue in a a more realistic perspective. Below is a description of the best meta-study of ethnic differences in IQ in the United States.
Over 39 studies measuring over 5 million individuals, the non-Hispanic white vs. Hispanic gap turned out to be 0.72 standard deviations. This fits with what you can see on the street here in America: the IQ problem isn't as bad for Hispanics as for blacks, but it's also highly unlikely that Hispanics on average will ever achieve statistical equality of accomplishment with whites and Asians in IQ-influenced fields, which will cause more strain.

The key point to understand is that Latinos in the United States are not randomly selected from the entire Latin American population.

- Prosperous Mexicans almost never immigrate to the U.S. -- they like it just fine in Mexico.

- One long term pattern in Latin America is recruitment of the most ambitious and effective young darker men into the fairer upper class. They and their sons are likely to marry fairer women than themselves and their descendents will wind up looking quite European, and be unlikely to immigrate.

- A long term trend in immigration to America has been for the Mexican immigrants to increasingly come from farther south in Mexico in the poorer and more Indian areas. The first big movement from Mexico into the U.S. occurred during the Mexican Revolution of 1911-1920, when many middle class people from the recently settled and more prosperous north of Mexico fled to Texas, especially San Antonio. Immigration tended to be from the north of Mexico, where the economy is more modern and the residents more European in ancestry and habits. Over the decades, the center of migration has moved south into the more
Indian areas. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of "Hispanics" in America who don't even speak Spanish, but instead speak Indian languages like Mixtec.

These patterns help explain why Hispanic-Americans on average haven't been rising up the ladder as your theory predicts. Although some assimilate into the American mainstream, the newcomers are even more divorced from the American mainstream.

Source: Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer III, F. S. & Tyler, P. (2001) "Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 54, 297-330.

I replied

What you say lacks psychometric caution. Like most laymen and many psychologists, you treat tests as black boxes that just keep on giving. That is not remotely so. Psychometricians take great care with validity -- whether a test measures what it purports to measure. And a test that is highly valid among one group (say Anglos) may be much less valid among another group (say Hispanics). And if the test is not valid nor are comparisons that use it.

For that reason, psychometricians insist on external evidence that the test is valid and when we use tests to assess groups, we must look for external evidence about those groups. We need to see whether the external evidence lines up with what the test tells us. And I think the brilliant INDEPENDENT achievements of pre-Columbus meso-Americans are not consistent with them being a retarded group. Quantifying the criterion is always a vexing problem however so it does boil down to a matter of judgment.

Note that Sephardic Jews score about the same as Hispanics. What do you conclude from that?

Next email

Steve failed to reply to my point about the Sephardim and simply re-iterated his argument that smart Mexicans marry up and stay in Mexico -- with only the dummies emigrating. In reply I pointed out that class differences in IQ are small -- particularly in socially rigid places like Mexico where the chances of using high intelligence to rise socially are small. And that even if there is a drain of high IQ native people into the small white elite that would certainly be too small an effect relative to the native population size to move native IQ noticeably. I ended: "And note that it is the despised dark Indians who built the meso-American civilizations".

Steve replied

I've climbed to the top of the pyramids outside Mexico City. They are impressive, no doubt about it. But citing them as evidence overriding the enormous weight of modern data has to be the worst validity study I've ever heard of. There is nothing wrong with the average IQ of Hispanic-Americans -- it's very close to the world average. The real world performance of Latinos in the United States in terms of education, income, literacy, professional attainments, and the like closely tracks what you would expect from the 39 IQ studies summarized in that metastudy which you ought to read.

I replied

I am sure one of your 19th century predecessors must have said: " The real world performance of the Irish in the United States in terms of education, income, literacy, professional attainments, and the like closely tracks what you would expect of their apparent intelligence". I think you should familiarize yourself with the fragile validity of tests -- particularly when used cross-culturally.

In conclusion

Steve may well be right and the average IQ of Hispanics as recorded in various testing sessions may accurately reflect their genetic potential but I think you have to make some large assumptions to believe that. Perhaps because I am a psychometrician and know well the poor quality of much of the data that my fellow psychologists produce, I am much more impressed by historical data than by psychological data. In the case of blacks there is no contradiction between the two sorts of data so I see nothing to argue with. The civilizational non-achievenents of blacks mirror what the tests tell us. The fact that black populations everywhere are mired in severe levels of every sort of social dysfunction is to my mind all the evidence we need of inherent black mental limitations -- whatever the tests say. But in the case of Hispanics that is not so. That the pre-Columbus Indians built in isolation civilizations that were in every way comparable with the great ancient civilizations of Eurasia implies to me that their descendants are potentially the equal of Eurasians.

As a final note I probably should mention that the meta-analysis Steve relies on is a very weak reed to lean on. Meta-analyses are only as good as the data they summarize and tend in fact to include a lot of low quality data. And the data in the Roth et al study are a good example of that. Even the most elementary precaution of using data from culture-fair tests only seems to have been ignored.

Update:

Steve has requested that I add the following comments from him:

"1. The non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel average well below the Ashkenazi on both IQ tests and real world measures of intellectual accomplishment. This disparity continues to be a major social problem in Israel, causing much divisiveness.

2. The existence of impressive archaelogical ruins doesn't say a huge amount about the economic potential of the current inhabitants of a country. Egypt has even more spectacular ruins than Mexico, but Egypt does not have a particularly scintillating population today. Iraq, home of Sumer and Babylon, has much more impressive ruins than Finland, but the Finns today are better at designing cell phones.

3. Dr. Ray implies that some IQ tests are biased against Hispanics. No doubt, but the evidence that this would make much difference is surprisingly lacking. In the huge meta-analysis of 39 studies that Dr. Ray pooh-poohs, the 95% confidence range of the studies ran from .60 to .88 standard deviations between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics in average IQ, so there's not a huge amount of disagreement among all the various types of IQ tests.

Here are some other results:

The gap between whites and Mexican-Americans on the SAT college admissions test is 77 percent of the size of the gap between whites and blacks. (See page 11 of this 820k PDF.)

On the SAT's competitor, the ACT, the white-Mexican gap is 71 percent of the white-black gap. (It_Ts 56 percent for other Hispanics.)

IQ? The huge 1980 NSLY study run by the U.S. military, which formed the basis for The Bell Curve, found Latinos scored 14 points below whites, or 77 percent of the white-black IQ gap.

The 1965 Coleman report found a 13-point white-Hispanic IQ gap.

IQ reports from Latin America are not encouraging either. Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in their important book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" found, on a scale with white Americans as 100, scores like: Mexico, 87; Ecuador, 80; Peru 90; Puerto Rico, 84; Guatemala, 79; Argentina, 96; Uruguay, 96. (Read my review for all the caveats and implications.)

What about on school achievement tests, notably the National Assessment of Educational Progress? Dr. Stephan Thernstrom of Harvard graciously provided the following raw data, to which I've added some straightforward calculations. (Number fans click here for table).

Conclusion: overall, the white-immigrant Hispanic achievement gap is actually 14% worse than the notoriously large white-black disparity. That's not surprising due to language problems. But for American-born Hispanic children (not just second generation, as many might assume, but the second up through the seventh generation), the gap is 67% as large as the white-black variance. In other words, it's in line with all the other evidence.

4. For Dr. Ray, this is a purely theoretical question. Virtually no Latin Americans are illegally immigrating to Australia. As an American, however, this is a question of massive import. Do I want to bet my country's future based on a bunch of pyramids in Mexico?

My comment on the above update:

Steve's point 1 adopts a view of the Sephardim that is certainly an unusual one. As I understand it, the lower levels of Sephardi achievement are in Israel normally attributed to a variety of rather obvious cultural differences -- and the Sephardim are certainly nowhere near the humble level of achievement that characterizes most Hispanics in the USA today. And even the Ashkenazim in Israel do of course have an average IQ that is much lower than what the high levels of Israeli intellectual achivement would lead one to expect.

Steve's point 2 does raise an interesting and much-mulled question: Why have many populations who were once advanced now fallen in the world? Why are the modern descendants of the great Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations so low in the scale of modern-day achievement? I am afraid that the answer is a simple one. The modern-day inhabitants of those geographical areas are to a large extent NOT descendants of those who built the ancient civilizations. They are descendants of invaders -- of whom the Arabs are merely the most recent. I know of no-one, however, who claims that the modern day Amerindians are not the descendants of those who built the many great meso-American civilizations.

Steve's point 3: I have never disputed that all the tests show Hispanics at a disadvantage. What I am dubious about is whether the disadvantage is genetically encoded. I have set out my reasons for such doubts in my earlier article. I have not however specifically commented previously on the Latin American IQ averages Steve mentions so I think I should observe here that they are very much what one would expect of people living a primarily rural existence. Rural populations everywhere score poorly on IQ tests -- for reasons I have discussed in my afore-mentioned article.

Steve's point 4 is essentially ad hominem but he is a doughty campaigner so that is to be expected and forgiven. Ad hominem arguments do however have no scholarly merit.

Update 2

I should probably expand a little my comment that the Sephardim do a lot better in Israel than do Hispanics in America. Look at the list below of Sephardim (strictly, Mizrahim) in Israel and ask how many Hispanics occupy similar positions in the USA:

Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, former Labor Party Chairman
Moshe Katsav, President of the State of Israel
Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Minister of Defense
David Levy, former Minister of Foreign Affairs

posted by JR 6:29 PM

Friday, October 21, 2005

 

AN INFANTILE CULTURE

By: "Just an old man"

In the USA, we have the answer. It is used as a slogan for a famous national retail firm: "I don't want to grow up. I'm a Toys R' Us Kid!"

That is the answer. Or you could listen to The Wall, a famous protest song in which the singer whines that 'we don't need no education'. In a world where life is easy, it is a sore temptation for many people to reject all notions of 'growing up' or 'assuming adult obligations'. Of course a part of this phenomenon is to engineer an educational system that leaves out all of the essentials that kids should be learning in order to deal even fairly well with daily life when they are on their own.

The result is quite clear - at least on my street. it is a typical suburban street in a town near a small city. The neighbors are mostly young couples. They avoid each other. They judge each other by appearances. They not only have no sense of living in a community but work hard at remaining isolated so as to have all their time to devote entirely to their own personal interests.

This is why I don't cut my lawn. It drives these kids crazy. While they work hard at shaving their lawns down to bare dirt, a weekly chore that produces vast patches of dead grass during the frequent droughts and luxuriant growths of weeds, my lawn is tall, superbly green, and a delight to walk on. Of course it would help if these kids knew something about lawn care - but that would mean taking time away from shopping or television or something else they value dearly. They sometimes spend hours driving around to buy cooked food because they can't be bothered even heating up a frozen dinner - far too crude and plebeian.

The US economy is driven by consumerism. The less people know about usefulness, value, and need for such things, the easier it is to sell MP3 Ipods that play music of such low quality that it makes my skin crawl. Of course it is nice to have a cellular telephone. Then one partner can call the other right from inside the supermarket to discuss what to buy. While Japan moves toward much higher quality digital sound systems that play 96 kHz sampled music, the rest of the world downgrades its music source quality to below cassette quality. After all, the unit fits easily into a shirt pocket.

As far as the food situation is concerned, the human animal is evolved to crave very specific foods to satisfy the body's systems. A bit of butter (horrors) triggers a satisfaction sensing system, as does meat fat, in ways that nothing else can. So I cheat. I buy 'natural' peanut butter, mix in a stick of real butter, and use the resulting mixture. but don't tell anyone. Its a secret. Yes, this mixture must be refrigerated.

Why do modern foods fail to satisfy and cause people to eat far too much? Its the use of hydrogenated vegetable oils, synthetic compounds that the body does NOT recognize as 'food', in so many things. Burger King is careful to add meat fats to its frying oil blend just to satisfy the body. And such natural foods satisfy even when far less is eaten.

People just don't learn things these days. They get a bland, often mostly false, education that is based on memorizing the contents of books and then regurgitating that information. Governments mandate national tests based on this notion. Its good enough to create a non-thinking class of workers who will never quite understand why life fails to satisfy them.

posted by JR 7:20 PM

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

 

PERENNIAL CHILDREN

By Nils Dahl

I recently restarted my studies of this most curious animal called homo sapiens. I just wanted to understand why people behave the way they do. I figured it out. All of it. Unfortunately, it all agrees with theories I formed as a young teenager while observing others in school. First a bit of background. My iq has been measured as something like 170. Probably incorrect but what the heck. People who use their minds a lot, particularly self-motivated students, tend to vary considerably in objectives and purpose.

Although everyone is different, even identical twins, there are general categories that serve nicely as guidelines for starters.

In my high school class, there was one lad who aimed for high level executive status. He was mostly inept at almost everything. He studied ways of garnering status with the absolute minimum of work. He graduated as salutatorian of the class of '59. He held various positions to gain this award. He went for president of the school newspaper and the school acting group - where little work was required. He did fairly well in class. He had his father make a very fancy project that won him the state science fair. Bill couldn't use a screwdriver but somehow, with no power tools or skills, he 'made' a pumped CO2 infrared laser. His father was director of a division of United Technologies that makes jet engines. so you can guess who made the laser. he cheated his way into a high honor position and the teachers gave it to him.

Bill represents the type who has aspirations to hold high political office or executive level positions where he just gets advice and makes guesses and what to do. His morals were abysmal. He saw no problems with lying, cheating, or anything else that got him where he wanted to go. He was a mostly anti-social snob who dated the head cheerleader.

At the opposite end of scale were the emotionally immature gang types who rejected learning and loved to make fun of the best students. Some of these kids had excellent minds. They could, as most students do, memorize and regurgitate information. None of them could think, reason, analyze, and form conclusions on their own. Their goal was to behave like their chosen peers to gain company, mainly in the form of a pack that gained strength in numbers.

Then there is this loner. The AV kid. The kid who ran the greenhouse, the photo lab, set up nature walks for the biology teacher, and did innovative - and sometimes a bit risky - chemical experiments. Or took turns teaching physics to others. The shy genius who never was approached by anyone except for harassment. The self-driven kid who just wanted to understand the world.

I finished enough of the classical junk by age 13 to decide that philosophy was just a word game for people with a desire to babble endlessly about nothing in particular. I loved sematics, psychology, and math as independent study topics. My own basement darkroom. Or the radio transmitter for shortwave HAM work. Or making speaker systems and building the electronics for the home music system from parts and kits.

So if you want to see a very good movie (US) try finding The Loser. Its about a kid much like me who ends up in a New York City college with a bunch of immature losers from rich families - and what they do to him. And how he not only survives but excels.

Frankly, there are a great number of people who choose to live a criminal lifestyle. Some of them break laws. Most of them make laws and hold other political offices. Even the best politicians indulge in feeding on the system they create, run, and benefit from. Its an ancient tradition from the earliest days of civilization. In today's world, those who start off with money can quickly gain power. Our John Kerry is one such example. He started off in high school by dating a girl from the famous Kennedy family. He built his contacts among the most powerful people in the Democratic Party. He married ultra rich women - twice. His current wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is sole heir to the Heinz Food empire. These rich people grow up in worlds where the harsh realities of daily life never touch them. They learn social systems and philosophies, discuss solutions to problems they cannot understand, and generally behave like the lords of older times. Sometimes an individual goes a bit haywire and turns into a Pol Pot, a sociopath who 'knows' that he can reform his country just by first eliminating the 'problem'. The problem is all the people who created the infrastructure of the current society, so he kills or enslaves all of them - and any others who disagree. After all, he has 'the answer'. Castro, Hilter, Stalin, and others were like that.

Most who study such classic phenomena make one mistake. They look at the symptoms instead of figuring out WHY such individuals come to exist in the first place. The answer is simple. As children, they form a foundation of beliefs about the world instead of actually learning what the world is like. Consider children living in a cave in ancient times. They see crude drawings on walls that depict horrible dangers to their lives and they develop a fear of that world outside the cave. As they mature physically, they retain their child-like emotional baggage and use that as the basis for all choices. They impose their child-like beliefs on everything they see and hear.

Sit down and read a book. Notice how your brain shuts out almost all sensory input while you read. Well, people can be dwelling on their belief systems or thinking about 'how to deal with the current situation (of any kind)' instead of paying attention to what is going on. They literally do not see or hear real world events. You likely have students who do this all the time - or used to have students like this. They not only don't know how to learn. They actually practice mental activities that prevent them from gathering information from the outside world. After all, it probably is dangerous - and may even conflict with their belief systems. I remember freshman year in college. Roger Scoville. Never will forget him. Son of an ultra-rich doctor who practiced in New York City. Roger's favorite habit was urinating on the steam radiator in the dorm hallway so that it would generate a major stink. Fortunately, he joined a fraternity where he could behave like an animal in like minded company. What struck me most was that every single student was dedicated to his own personal lifestyle. The notion of co-operative studies or anything else except stupid children's games was non-existent. Why does a college or university try so hard to choose a diverse group of freshmen? Well, they follow a notion, a belief, that is pure nonsense - a myth they created.

So while I spent four years working to understand things, others stayed children and just played. The professors were generally excellent people. But I learned nothing about the real world until I graduated and had to do Army duty. I chose a 3 year enlistment and ended up at the US Army's only movie studio. See the world. Well, at least some places in Turkey and in South Vietnam - and Mercury, Nevada, where atomic bombs were tested. I just kept on learning. The Army officers rarely, if ever, bothered me.

So my basic theory is this. Everyone builds and maintains an 'inner child' of an emotional sort during the earliest years. It is this inner child that greatly influences behavior for the rest of that person's life. Since I spent most of my childhood alone, reading and exploring the world around my home, I kept right on doing solitary studies and still do such things. Now and then I send messages to a friend somewhere in the world. On a few occasions, the world changes as a result. That would be telling. Some people embrace currently popular movements and turn themselves into hippies or something else. Or they follow some cult leader and end up drinking Koolaid laced with poison. Or whatever. Emotional immaturity tends to drive a constant search for support groups of some kind - and many kinds of support groups exist. Scientology, Moonies, Feminist movements, liberal causes of many kinds. But all such people have one thing in common. They think and act based on fantasy belief systems that they have created - to replace that frightening and often terrible real world that they want to avoid interacting with.

In today's world, it is common - in my area - to encounter a woman shopper who behaves as if she were all alone and could do anything she wanted to. I actually had one woman ram her shopping cart into mine and threaten 'to smash in your face if you don't get out of my way'. Bit of stress manifesting. Such women tend to marry trophy men and then demand and get total rule of the home. They often mock their husbands' incompetence in public, denying any useful abilities in the man who works to pay for everything. They even decide how their neighbors should live. Children in adult bodies who just 'want what they want when they want it'.

As far as I can determine, Islam is a cult. It is a total lifestyle notion - something far beyond any religion that has ever existed. Well, some self-designated religions are really cults. This cult permits lying and deceit if used on all outside the cult itself or even those whose beliefs differ from those of your particular sect (usually Sunni versus Shia). This is no more rational that a Pol Pot notion of slaughtering all who hold any position of responsibility, leaving only the poor powerless people - who can then be lead into the promised land of a dream society by Pol Pot, of course. Or by Fidel Castro. Etc.

Belief systems almost always are irrational, illogical, and highly resistant to change of any kind.

Educational systems are supposed to encourage learning. In reality, educational systems are mainly job training situations. The kids are herded into rooms, told to sit down and shut up, trained to obey the authority figure, and told to remember lots of 'stuff' because there will be tests. As a result, most just memorize and regurgitate without ever examining and questioning the material they are forced to learn. Undergraduate college is the worse of all.

The most frightening person I ever met held a doctorate in civil engineering from the University of Krakow in Poland. He was a walking, talking organic computer. He had only contempt for everyone who was beneath his educational level. Including me. I must say that teaching him a lesson was a most enjoyable experience. I simply outperformed him - once. He never spoke to me again. Can't imagine why. He literally could NOT learn from anyone because he believed completely in his own superiority. thus nobody else could say anything worth listening to.

This is typical of the educational system in Europe and Japan - perhaps China also. Holders of doctorates are a social class ranking almost as high as the rich elite who 'own things'.

Tom truly believed in his own superiority. So did Pol Pot. And others. So many others. Most confuse knowledge with understanding.

Enough of this rambling on. May your barbie be just the right temp and your cooking food create extreme stress in the neighbors. Watch out for box jellyfish, those awful poisonous snakes, and kangaroos with agendas. Funny thing - most of the Australian movies I have seen deal with anti-social behavior of some sort. I used to dream of seeing Australia and that southern island of New Zealand, where ancient tree ferns still grow. And other things.

We make choices. We deal with the results. We regret making decisions. Some choose to avoid making decisions - only to discover that the world still messes with them. If only they understood.

I leave you with this bit from a famous science fiction story - Venus on the Half Shell. The brave and now immortal explorer has traveled vast distances to the place where 'IT' lives - the being that created the universe. To ask a question. The question is "Why did you create a universe full of suffering and pain, where people live miserable lives and then die?" And the answer is -

"Why not?"

posted by JR 4:26 PM

Sunday, September 25, 2005

 

Rethinking the White Australia Policy

By Andrew Fraser*

[Not even scholars challenging the orthodox view that the White Australia Policy was a "racist" blot on the nation's honour support suggestions that its abolition was a catastrophic mistake. An unshakeable consensus among managerial, professional, political and academic elites in favour of racial egalitarianism has prevented a long overdue re-assessment of the policies permitting mass Third World immigration into Australia. Recent advances in genetics, paleo-anthropology, psychology and medical science have demonstrated the existence of significant racial differences in cognitive and athletic ability, temperament and behaviour. That newly-emergent racial realism confirms the wisdom of the nation's founders. They understood that the comparative ethnic homogeneity of the Anglo-Australian people was a source of strength and unity. The later shift toward a multiracial society has been the product of an ongoing, transnational, managerial revolution from above which can and should be resisted by all patriotic Australians.]

Introduction

Over the past thirty years, Australia, along with just about every other Western society, has been transformed by a revolution engineered from the top down by the leading echelons of the corporate welfare state [1]. New Class cadres of managers, professionals, politicians and academics have dismantled the foundations of Australian nationhood laid down at the time of Federation [2]. The arbitration system, the protective tariff and the White Australia Policy: all have gone in order to facilitate the free flow of capital, technology and labour in a globalist economy.

The most revolutionary, by far, of these radical changes has been the decision to open Australia to mass Third World immigration. In taking this step, the managerial regime has, in effect, followed the wry advice tendered by Bertolt Brecht to the East German government on the occasion of the worker's revolt in 1956: Rather than relying on crude repressive measures, Brecht suggested, the Communist regime should simply dissolve the people and elect a new one [3]. Indeed, since the end of the Second World War a strange alliance of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies and other pressure groups working through the corporate sector and within the centralised apparatus of state power set out deliberately to flood the Anglo-Australian homeland with a polyglot mass of Third World immigrants.

Chief among the ideological weapons deployed in that campaign have been the interwoven myths of equality and universal human rights [4]. The official ideology of the globalist regime has been enshrined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [5]. According to that document, "any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous." There can therefore be "no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere." Those who subscribed to the doctrine of racial egalitarianism were bound to oppose a colour bar on immigration to Australia as being both immoral and pointless: it was axiomatic that "racial differences are not significant differences that need divide mankind."

Racial egalitarianism rather obviously flies in the face of the more realistic premises of the White Australia Policy. The founding fathers of the Australian nation regarded racial differences as a fact of life and racial conflict as the inevitable consequence of a multiracial society. In their view, ethnic homogeneity was one of the great strengths of the Australian nation, one that ought to be preserved and not squandered or thrown away in pursuit of utopian visions of universal harmony in which lions could be re-educated to lie down with lambs [7].

Forty years after Australian governments began to distance themselves from the White Australia Policy, advances in genetics, paleo-anthropology, psychology and medical science are placing the universalist doctrines of racial egalitarianism under serious pressure. A vast range of studies in a number of disciplines have revealed real and important differences between the races in cognitive and athletic ability, behaviour and temperament [8]. Faced with such intellectual challenges, defenders of the ruling orthodoxy are resorting to social ostracism, legal repression and even the sort of physical coercion deployed against members of the One Nation Party some years back [9]. The time is clearly ripe for a courageous and well-informed reappraisal of the White Australia Policy and the decision to dismantle it. Unfortunately, racial realists, concerned to bring common sense to contemporary Australian debates over race and immigration, will be disappointed with two recent books on the White Australia Policy. Both promise much but deliver little because of their authors' determined refusal to take race seriously.

Was the White Australia Policy "Racist"?

The first of these books to appear was written by Keith Windschuttle, a former Marxist academic turned independent neo-conservative writer. Hot on the heels of his controversial revision of the "black armband" view of Aboriginal history, Windschuttle has upset yet another academic applecart. In The White Australia Policy, he sets out to refute the orthodox leftist charge that the immigration legislation enacted shortly after Federation was "racist". On the formal level that is easily done since the Immigration Restriction Act, 1901 (Cth) did not explicitly prohibit non-white immigration. Instead, prospective immigrants were required to pass a dictation test by writing out 50 words in any European language selected by immigration officials.

But, because both the intent and the practical effect of the dictation test were to sharply limit coloured immigration, Australia was open to attack from progressives around the world and, especially during the Cold War, from newly assertive post-colonial regimes in Asia and Africa. Over the last 40 years, a home-grown generation of New Left historians routinely portrayed Australia as a racist pariah nation on a par with South Africa. Ever since the Sixties generation began its long march through the institutions, Australians have been taught to approach their past in a self-hating mood of enthusiastic shame. To his credit, Windschuttle has been one of the few historians to resist this form of intellectual self-flagellation.

Unfortunately, Windschuttle's rehabilitation of the White Australia Policy is premised on a familiar, if pernicious, tenet of neo-conservatism: Like those who claim that the United States is a "creedal nation," [12] Windschuttle maintains that the operating premise of Australian society is the proposition that all people are equal in principle and in potential. Supposedly, Australia's national identity is "based on a civic patriotism," thereby fostering "loyalty to Australia's liberal democratic political institutions rather than to race or ethnicity." He contends that the White Australia Policy, far from being the reactionary spawn of an irredeemably racist nation, grew out of a long-established, progressive program aiming "to extend both the freedom and the dignity of labour." [13]

Earlier movements to end slavery throughout the British Empire and the transportation of convicts to Australia culminated in a concerted campaign to prevent the importation of cheap coolie labour from Asia and the Pacific islands. He claims, therefore, that opposition to Asian immigration was not grounded in fears of "racial contamination." Rather, politicians were concerned both to protect the standard of living of Australian workers and to prevent the emergence of "a racially-based political underclass" that would undermine Australia's egalitarian democracy.

This argument rests upon a false dichotomy. Australia's egalitarian democracy was conceived as a new and better Britannia. [15] Who could have doubted that antipodean Britons, too, were white Europeans? By the turn of the twentieth century, references to the "crimson thread of kinship" binding Australians to the mother country had become a staple of political rhetoric [16]. Most Australians hardly needed to be reminded that blood is thicker than water; nevertheless, Windschuttle portrays their leaders as proto-Boasian anthropologists [17], convinced that race is a nothing more than a social construct. Windschuttle maintains that most early twentieth century Australians were confident that Chinese and Indian labourers would become indistinguishable from white Australians of British stock, once they were detached from the environments fostering their historic cultures of servility [18].

Windschuttle concedes that the immigration restriction movement did attract support from "unequivocally racist" elements. Indeed, he savours the irony in the fact that in early twentieth century Australia, the most sympathetic audience for racial nationalism was found among the bohemian writers, artists and intellectuals of the leftist intelligentsia. That elite minority, then famously associated with the Bulletin magazine, bears an "uncanny resemblance" to the "chattering classes" now: "they agree on almost everything, with the conspicuous exception of immigration policy, where their positions are reversed." [19]

Racial Egalitarianism: Revolution from Above?

By contrast, Windschuttle insists, mainstream Australians have never subscribed to biological theories of race. Influenced instead by the universalistic principles of both evangelical Christianity and the Scottish Enlightenment, they have refused to treat white Europeans as superior and other races as innately and permanently inferior. This, then, is the crux of Windschuttle's argument: Because the White Australia Policy was never based on racial nationalism, it could be-and was-readily jettisoned once the original political, economic and cultural justifications for its adoption lost their potency. "The proof that Australia wore the policy lightly was the ease with which it discarded it." [20]

In other words, if the White Australia Policy really had been steeped in "racist paranoia," it would be difficult to explain the fact that dismantling it in the twenty years from the mid-1950s onward "required no major cultural upheaval and was accomplished with a minimum of fuss by liberal politicians with values similar to those held by the original sceptics and critics when immigration restrictions were introduced in 1901." [21]

Windschuttle is mainly concerned with the rise of the immigration restriction movement. His argument with the academic establishment is pitched as a simple matter of historical fact: Was the White Australia Policy "racist" or not? Another recent book, The Long, Slow Death of White Australia by Gwenda Tavan, deals with its demise. In her first chapter, Tavan differs from Windschuttle on the reasons for the ascendancy of White Australia, insisting that racism and xenophobia were driving forces in the campaign to restrict non-white immigration. But, like Windschuttle, she is struck by the ease with which opponents of the White Australia Policy were able to overturn it. Her brief is to rebut the most obvious explanation for the lack of massive popular resistance to such a fundamental change: namely, that the White Australia Policy was dismantled by an ,lite conspiracy operating in stealth, leaving the Australian people in the dark concerning the nature and magnitude of the mass Third World immigration soon to be inflicted upon them. [22]

Tavan is not especially convincing in her effort to demonstrate that the Australian public readily accepted higher non-European immigration as early as the 1970s. Her main evidence is the fact that the Whitlam government was re-elected in 1974, even after its Minister for Immigration, Al Grassby, publicly proclaimed his determination to bury the White Australia Policy. Of course Whitlam's Labor government was soundly rejected by the electorate in 1975. The incoming Fraser government certainly had no mandate to promote a massive influx of non-white immigrants. Nevertheless, it joined with the Australian Labor Party to forge a bipartisan consensus in favour of Third World immigration.

For decades, there was no effective political opposition to the revolution from above in immigration law and policy. Among the managerial and professional classes, a complacently "cosmopolitan" consensus reigned supreme; the political equilibrium was not upset until the meteoric rise of the One Nation party in the late 1990s. Then, for a brief, shining moment, the patriotic instincts of the more "parochial," outer suburban, white Australians found a political voice. [23] However, much to the relief of the political class, that too often tongue-tied voice of populist protest was largely ineffectual and, in any case, was soon silenced.

Concerned to counter suggestions that the new regime lacked popular support from the beginning, Tavan cites opinion polls from the mid-1970s favouring the then-current rate of Asian migration. When weighing such evidence, one wonders how citizens then would have responded to pollsters had they been presented with an accurate picture of how Sydney and Melbourne, in particular, would look after thirty years of colonisation by Third World immigrants. Tavan acknowledges that, "debate still continues" over how many non-whites should be allowed to enter while insisting that "a majority of Australians since the 1960s have unequivocally rejected any policy that would completely bar non-Europeans from settling." White Australia, she maintains, is no longer a "dominant worldview;" at most, it persists as a "residual cultural form." Even so, she concedes that "the battle against White Australia is not completely won." From Pauline Hanson to the Tampa incident, recent events have revealed that "the (white, Anglo-Celtic) racial-cultural ideals" of Australian nationhood have never been completely extinguished. Tavan fears that, like the slow, silent combustion of an underground coal seam, the fiery force of white racial consciousness may burst, without warning, through the surface somnolence secured, so far, by the multiracialist mullahs of the media, the human rights industry and the educational establishment. [24]

Tavan is clearly ad idem with Windschuttle on the contemporary political issues relating to the nature and significance of race. As committed racial egalitarians, both writers desperately want to drive a stake through the heart of racial realism, once and for all. Tavan and Windschuttle still worry that, despite having been in a state of suspended animation for several decades, residual forms of racial identity might someday reawaken in the hearts of white Australians, perhaps even with renewed vigour and enhanced vitality. For that reason, Windschuttle happily joins the left in its attack upon race as "an unscientific category," as a thoroughly modern, bad idea "engendered by the new social sciences and brought to maturity by the evolutionary biology of the nineteenth century." [25] In the battle between racial realism and racial egalitarianism, former Professor Windschuttle joins his old revolutionary comrades on the barricades, resolutely denying that differences between "races" have a biological or genetic foundation.

In his thoroughly orthodox view, nineteenth century anthropology and biology took a wrong turn when they denied "Enlightenment and Evangelical ideas about the unity of humanity." For him, the evident differences between the various races of mankind are the malleable product of their cultures and the particular stage each may have reached in the long ascent from savagery to civilization. No race is permanently incapable of change and development. Somewhat imprudently, Windschuttle suggests that to take any other view on this question "is to betray one's ignorance of the subject." [26] In fact, to anyone familiar with the rapidly expanding literature on the genetic character of racial differences, Windschuttle's dogmatism is a clear case of what American commentator Steve Sailer calls racial flat-earthism.

Racial Realism Redux?

There is still room for debate on the precise genetic contribution to any given racial difference in, for example, intelligence, temperament, criminality and athletic ability. But, that such racial differences do exist and that they have a biological basis is not any longer open to serious scientific question. As Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele put it, "the case for race hinges on recognition that genetic variation in traits that affect performance and ultimately survival is the fuel on which the evolutionary process runs." Without that "functional genetic variation, there can be no adaptive evolution." Variation "is the norm.and not.the exception in the case of humans." In fact, Sarich and Miele suggest that the range of genetic variation between different races of Homo sapiens is much greater than for any other species, including domesticated dogs. They observe that commonly used genetic tests can determine with great precision not just an individual's race but also "the percentage of racial background in people of mixed ancestry." But until very recently it was impossible to detect the genetic markers distinguishing a cocker spaniel from a wolf. [28]

Race exists and it matters across a wide range of public policy issues. It is of particular relevance to any analysis of immigration law and policy. Windschuttle, however, is determined to remain uncontaminated by the new sciences of racial difference. He does recognize the seemingly insuperable cultural barriers alienating mainstream Australians from other racial groups, particularly the Chinese. Nevertheless he asserts that it is a fundamental error "to slide from the concept of culture to that of race." [29] Cultural differences are not inbred and immutable.

But what if Windschuttle is wrong? What if racial differences are, in large part, biologically or genetically grounded? What if even culture is not simply a social construct but, rather, a phenomenon with a substantial biological component? Windschuttle does document the dominance of Enlightenment and Christian influences in middle Australia, demonstrating that explicitly racialist ideologies have had little appeal to opinion leaders in Australia. But that may mean only that Australians, like other ethnic groups tracing their ancestry to North-western Europe, are predisposed to individualism, exogamy and small nuclear families and, as a consequence, display a relative lack of ethnocentrism.

Thus what Windschuttle describes as a creedal commitment to racial egalitarianism may actually be a defining characteristic of a distinctive European racial identity not shared by other peoples. Kevin McDonald explains Western "cultural" traits as an evolutionary adaptation to the rigours of life in cold, ecologically adverse climates. Natural selection worked there to favour the reproductive success of those individuals capable of sustaining "non-kinship based forms of reciprocity." [30]

Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers. The distinctive culture that emerged from the interaction between the genotype of the English people and their environment can be understood as what Richard Dawkins calls an extended phenotype. [31] Like the spider's web or the beaver's dam, the, extended phenotypes of Western civilization are part of a biocultural feedback loop linking our genes with our environment over countless generations. [32]

The extended phenotype produced by the English people founds its greatest political expression in the phenomenon of nationhood. Appearing first of all in England, the idea of the nation could be understood as what Richard Dawkins might call a "meme" [33] that has been only imperfectly or not at all replicated in the bioculture of other, particularly non-European, races. Some scholars, however, deny that English nationhood is the product of a primordial English ethnicity. It is often remarked that there are very few nations that seem to be ethnically homogeneous and England is not one of them. On this view, the English nation "emerged out of populations deposited by successive waves of alien conquest." It was "through the merging or assimilation of peoples who were originally distinct" that a single English nation arose. According to Margaret Canovan, English nationhood "was in no sense a reflection of primordial ties of blood." On the contrary, the English nation was remarkably inclusive, taking in, not only the scions of Danish, Norman, Saxon and some Welsh stock "but also (and, at the time, more significantly) nobles and commoners." Canovan's case would appear to be clinched by the "subsequent expansion of English into British identity," carrying "the nation even farther away from anything resembling primordial ethnicity." [34]

It seems, then, that civic rather than ethnic nationalism has been the defining feature of not just Australian and American but British identity as well. Roger Scruton lends support to that suggestion when he remarks that modern citizenship presupposes a society of strangers: "The good citizen recognizes obligations towards people who are not, and cannot be, known to him." Such a society of strangers cannot survive without "the kind of courage, discipline and self-sacrifice that stem from civic patriotism." [35] But neither Canovan nor Scruton embrace the bloodless vision of civic patriotism promoted by Keith Windschuttle and the American neo-conservatives. For her part, Canovan acknowledges that nations "are political communities that are experienced as if they were communities of kin." She adds, however, that "the `as if' is vital." [36] In doing so, she seeks to mark out a middle position between ethnic and civic nationalism.

Neither Canovan nor Scruton believe that a nation can be grounded in an abstract loyalty to a particular political regime or constitutional order. For Scruton, it is axiomatic that citizens belong to an inherited community inhabiting an ancestral homeland. Citizens are members of a pre-political community that includes the living, their ancestors and their unborn offspring. Absent generations are among the strangers to whom the good citizen is bound in "a common web of rights and duties." [37] Canovan, too, affirms both that, within any particular nation, "many fellow-nationals really will be blood relations" and that "nations depend upon the symbolism of kinship for much of their emotional appeal." But she rejects the claims of ethnic nationalism, pointing out that "much of that kinship is imagined kinship, and a good deal of it is always fictitious." [38]

The problem with Canovan's argument is that she does not give sufficient weight to the "peculiarities of the English." [39] As a consequence, like Windschuttle, in relation to the White Australia Policy, she sets up a false dichotomy between ethnic and civic nationalism. In the case of England and the old white dominions settled by people of British stock, including the United States, there is simply no contradiction between the two. That is part of the reason why, for two hundred years after the emergence of the English nation, it was the only nation. [40] Even those citizens of a modern nation who are blood relations or co-ethnics are expected to treat each other publicly "as if" they were strangers bound together by a willingness to recognize the fundamental constitutional norms associated with the rule of law, representative government and individual rights. [41] Only a people such as the English, characterized by the "non-kinship based forms of reciprocity" associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a "society of strangers." [42]

It is true, of course, that the English nation was the hybrid product of many pre-existing ethnic groups. But the fact is that the ingredients in the ethnic stew that ultimately produced the English people and, later still, British nation, were not all that genetically remote from one another. Indeed, the Danes, the Saxons, and the Normans were closely related Germanic peoples and the genetic distance between the English, the Scots and the Irish was not much more significant. Precisely because all of the Germanic peoples were relatively individualistic and comparatively less ethnocentric than other Eurasian and African races, they were able to overcome their group differences when they encountered each other in England, merging into a new ethny possessed of its own distinctive language, religion and way of life.

The relative inclusiveness of English national identity was replicated in the settler dominions. In fact, the English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and even continental European settlers in colonial America, English Canada, Australia and New Zealand fused together to become more British than the British in their new homelands. The creation of those colonial British cultures was an important first step on the road to creating new national identities as Americans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders. [43] Civic nationalism was, therefore, a meme replicated best and most easily through the vehicle provided by the Anglo-Saxon genotype. This exposes a fundamental paradox built into the free and open societies of the West: The only racial groups able to fit seamlessly into the society of strangers constituting a civic nation are those whose members can easily shed the deeply-ingrained ethnocentrism and xenophobia characterizing most non-European peoples. Receptivity to civic nationalism, in other words, is found only in a relatively few, mainly North-western European, ethnic or racial groups. In any case, over the past two centuries the nationhood meme has undergone a monstrous mutation. Originally, the English nation created the state as a medium for political self-expression. Since then, the transnational corporate welfare state has taken on a life of its own, asserting its power and right to recreate the nation and its people in whatever form it chooses.

The Downside of Diversity

Other races have produced their own distinctive extended phenotypes; these may not mesh easily with the biocultural interest that Anglo-American societies, in particular, have in the survival and enhanced vitality of their historically unique civic cultures. Black Africans, for example, have been present in large numbers in America, the pre-eminent civic nation, for almost four hundred years without ever having been successfully integrated into the common culture of white Americans. It remains an open question whether other races can be absorbed into the American or the Australian nations more easily than the militantly hyphenated African-Americans. Experience with the overseas Chinese diaspora throughout the Pacific Rim already gives cause for concern. [44] As the Chinese colonies in Australia grow in size, wealth and power, even their Australian-born members may be reluctant to dissolve their ancient collective identity into an individualistic society of strangers owing allegiance to nothing beyond a modern paper constitution, now divorced from its own ancestral roots. Thousands of years ago, the Chinese took an evolutionary path favouring the growth of centralized, authoritarian regimes; not surprisingly, the Chinese today place a premium on clannish behaviour and downplaying the worth of individual creativity. The result has been a people marked by higher average intelligence-but more conformity and hierarchy-than North-western European societies as well as rampant xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

Even when faced with competition from such highly cohesive ethnic groups, a great many individualistic Australians remain utterly oblivious to their own genetic interest in a racially homogeneous society. That interest is threatened, to varying degrees, by the arrival of immigrants genetically distant from the host population. Like any other ethno-nation, white Australians constitute a large, partly inbred, extended family. [45] Since an ethny is "analogous to a population of cousins," even distant kin "carry genetic interests for each other." But, because-at any given level of technology-the Australian landmass has a finite carrying capacity, mass immigration must replace future Australian children with those of other, more or less unrelated, ethnic extended families. If immigrants are genetically remote from the European gene pool, the damage to Australia's genetic interests will be especially pronounced. Frank Salter has calculated that if England, for example, received 12.5 million closely-related Danish immigrants, the genetic loss to the remaining English would be relatively low, amounting to the equivalent of 209,000 children (still a large family to lose.) But the same number of immigrants from India would cause a corresponding loss of 2.6 million children. Since black, sub-Saharan Africans are even more genetically distant from the English, an influx of 12.5 million Bantus would displace the equivalent of 13 million English children. The genetic losses to the English would be greater still if Indians or Bantus had fertility rates higher than the host population. [46]

Apart from the objective genetic interests at stake, a multiracial society forces white Australians to bear other, more subjectively painful social, economic and political costs. At the high end of Australia's immigrant intake, a growing cognitive elite of East Asians threatens to become similar to "market-dominant minorities" such as the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa. [47] Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned: Western-style "old boy" preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and, thus, permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or "ethnic nepotism" practised by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous regimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians. [48]

At the low end of the market for Third World immigrants, tensions are already appearing between white Australians and the growing numbers of black, sub-Saharan Africans settled here by the transnational refugee industry. [49] One can safely predict that, no matter how large this particular Third World colony becomes, black Africans will never become a "market-dominant minority" in Australia. On the contrary, experience "practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems." [50] Unfortunately, experience also demonstrates that any such suggestion will produce nothing short of a hysterical reaction among Australian journalists and academics.

For Australian intellectual and cultural elites, it does not seem to matter that support for such observations can be found in countless academic and official sources. After all, it is hardly news that violent criminals of any race are likely to be people with low IQs who display poor impulse control. [52] Nor is it difficult to establish that, on average, black sub-Saharan Africans score around 70-75 on IQ tests while white Europeans have a mean score of 100 and East Asians about 105. [53] It is equally well-known that young black men have higher levels of serum testosterone-often associated with impulsive behaviour and poor judgement-than whites or East Asians. Now, this does not mean that black Africans carry a "crime gene." Nor can one say that "blacks are genetically more crime-prone than whites." But, as Michael Levin points out, "it does make sense to say that blacks are more prone to behaviour that is in fact criminalized in virtually all societies." [54]

Australians will ignore these racial realities at their peril. Windschuttle, confident that immigrant groups will lose their distinctive racial identities as they become assimilated into the individualistic norms of Western culture, sees no cause for concern in the ethnic replacement of white, Christian Europeans by Chinese or Muslim newcomers. He has "accepted this with equanimity," perhaps even "with a sense of self-congratulation." [55] Like his former academic colleagues, Windschuttle looks upon both "racial prejudice" and "religious intolerance" not as essential ingredients in collective identity but as embarrassing social diseases. [56]

Managerial Multiculturalism

Like the managerial class generally, Windschuttle does not experience his membership of the Australian nation "as if" he belongs to a community of kin. Unlike the bourgeois pioneers of Anglo-American capitalism, managerial-professional elites are no longer rooted in particular communities; they are "at best indifferent and actually hostile to ...specific identities ...derived from class, ethnicity and race, religion, region and gender." Because the power of the managerial class is heightened by the eradication of such identities, its preferred brand of civic nationalism is based upon a "colour-blind" universalism and egalitarianism that is "open to the world." [57] Openness to the world requires the repudiation not just of ethnic nationalism but also of any civic nationalism grounded in "pre-political loyalties of a territorial kind-loyalties rooted in a sense of the common home and of the transgenerational society that resides there." [58] The flip side of the universalism and egalitarianism sponsored by the managerial regime is, therefore, the multicultural politics of identity. Doctrines of racial egalitarianism and official multiculturalism may appear to contradict one another but the social and political function of both is to undermine the white, Christian, masculine and bourgeois values and institutions "that remain the principal constraints on managerial reach and power." [59]

Under the aegis of the globalist regime, the shared civic culture that is the greatest achievement of Anglo-American constitutionalism is being displaced by a neo-feudal system of group representation. Promoting this program, James Tully attacks modern Western constitutionalism because it threatens "the extinction or assimilation of different cultures." Not only did modern constitutionalism authorize "imperial rule of former colonies over Indigenous peoples," it still underwrites "cultural imperialism over the diverse citizens of contemporary societies." [60] Tully's vision of "intercultural" constitutionalism aims to replace the individualistic society of strangers with the politics of cultural recognition. Unfortunately there is one culture that cannot be accommodated within what Tully calls the convention of mutual recognition. To embrace Tully's concept of the constitution as an endless process of intercultural negotiation is to reject the common civic culture of Anglo-American constitutionalism.

Faced with the reality of cultural diversity, the Anglo-American civic culture has been expansive in nature. In other words, it has been "geared toward the assimilation of difference." Tully's multicultural constitutionalism, by contrast, is separatist or exclusive in that it is "geared toward the magnification and encouragement of difference." These two very different constitutional cultures cannot co-exist; a choice between them must be made. Anglo-American civic cultures developed "a strong momentum towards political connectedness" in order to "overcome the separatist pull of diversity and disagreement." Building on long experience with non-kinship based forms of reciprocity, the civic cultures of British-derived societies stimulated the "development of imaginative empathy" among citizens. Everyone was required to imagine himself "in the position of a person whose starting point is radically different" from his own.

Multicultural constitutionalism, by contrast, is already causing our shared civic culture to fragment; the momentum towards separatism is growing. [61] Managerial elites have an obvious interest in dividing subject populations, the better to dominate them. In line with that strategy, multicultural constitutionalism "encourages the citizenry to divide itself into groups in order to win politically controlled benefits." Not surprisingly, once interest groups succeed in "winning special benefits, the separatist pull grows stronger." Group representation spawns new elites with a vested interest in thickening the boundaries between citizens. One corollary of the perennial process of intercultural negotiation is that there can be no possibility of general agreement on public goods. Multicultural constitutionalism assumes "that diversity can be acknowledged and empowered only through constant political battle pitting the races and genders against each other in a never-ending contest for recognition and public benefits." [62]

Tully maintains the pious hope that every group will be able to stand on an equal footing in the contest over recognition and the political rewards that flow from it. However, it has long been an axiom of corporatist interest intermediation that not all groups possess equal procedural status. Groups lacking functional relevance to the globalist system (or which are actually dysfunctional) will be shunted aside unless they possess some other resource that enables them to generate destabilizing conflict. [63] The basic premise that interest groups are not all created equal is particularly true of racial and ethnic groups. Tully is careful to cite William McNeill to make the point that polyethnicity has been the rule rather than the exception in the life of all advanced civilizations. He does not dwell on McNeill's companion observation that ethnic intermingling has produced a "complex ethnic hierarchy" whenever it has occurred. [64]

Any constitutional order that sets out deliberately to grant special privileges to particular ethnic groups inevitably will produce a still more complex ethnic hierarchy. The relative standing of any given group probably will depend to a significant degree on its performance within the global system of needs. There can be no automatic right to consent or cultural continuity or even recognition of group rights within the context of that dynamic system. A group that is functionally relevant or possesses a significant conflict potential today may find itself in the dustbin of history tomorrow. While it may be difficult to predict permanent winners in the incessant competition for increasingly scarce resources in a multiracial Australia, we can be sure that the civic culture created and nurtured by generations of white Anglo-Australians will be the sure loser. As continued Third World immigration provides further impetus to the multiracialist politics of identity, the individualistic society of strangers will be extraordinarily vulnerable to competition from other, tightly-knit, racial groups. In retreat from "the rising tide of colour," [65] white Australians may be forced to reinvent themselves as a people comme les autres, shedding their customary civic universalism in favour of a less natural but more powerfully particularistic racial consciousness. Windschuttle would be among the first to deplore any such development, even as his deracinated model of civic patriotism becomes an ever-more maladaptive threat to the survival of the historic Australian nation.

Racial realists who read Windschuttle's book will discover ample evidence that, if his tender-minded attitudes prevail, white Australians are destined to be displaced by immigrant groups much less sensitive to charges of racism and xenophobia. One example: Windschuttle informs us that the most violent race riots in Australian history were led, not by murderous white racists, but by Japanese pearl divers determined to eliminate competition from Timorese rivals. There were three such riots in Broome, Western Australia, in 1907, 1914, and 1920. The last continued for a week and involved more than half the town's population of 5,000. Seven people were killed and more than 60 seriously injured, dwarfing the casualty figures for the worst of the anti-Chinese goldfield riots of the mid-nineteenth century. [66]

Almost every immigrant group encountered in Windschuttle's narrative, not to mention the Aboriginal population, displays a strong sense of racial solidarity and an aggressive determination to advance its particular ethnic genetic interests. Much the same can be said for the post-war governments in Japan and the Third World leading the diplomatic offensive against the White Australia Policy. Tavan is, of course, sympathetic to their relentless attacks upon Australia's immigration policies; she remains strangely uninterested in the simultaneous determination of those governments to retain tight control over their own borders. Unfortunately this is par for the academic course; "educated" white Australians, leftist "idealists" and right-wing "ratbags" alike, remain, at best, resolutely indifferent and, at worst, actively hostile to the survival of their own ethno-nation. Should "the long, slow death of white Australia" finally come to pass, it will have been due, in no small measure, to the brazen "treason of the intellectuals" marching under the banner of managerial multiculturalism. [67]

Conclusion

Given the relentless and revolutionary assault on their historic national identity, white Australians now face a life-or-death struggle to preserve their homeland. Whether effective resistance to their displacement and dispossession can be mounted is another question. Unlike other racial, ethnic or religious groups well-equipped to practice the politics of identity, white Australians lack a strong, cohesive sense of ethnic solidarity. As a consequence, ordinary Australians favouring a moratorium on non-white immigration cannot count on effective leadership or support from their co-ethnics among political, intellectual and corporate elites. On the contrary, our still predominantly Anglo-Australian rulers are indifferent; some profit from, and others actually take pride in their active collaboration with the Third World colonisation of Australia. None of the major parties, indeed, not one member of the Commonwealth Parliament, offers citizens the option of voting to defend and nurture Australia's Anglo-European identity. The problem, in short, is clear: The Australian nation is bereft of a responsible ruling class. The solution is, in principle, no less obvious: namely, the restoration of a ruling class rooted in the reinvigorated folkways of an authentically Anglo-American civic patriotism, a ruling class re-attached to the history and destiny of its own people. Only time will tell whether and how any such constitutional reformation could take place. [68]

But the problem of an irresponsible ruling class wedded to open borders is not confined to Australia; it threatens the survival of European civilisation as a whole. The growing Islamic presence throughout the West is perhaps the most visible sign of our spiritual decline. [69] As the secular crisis of European modernity deepens, the soul of our society cries out, unheeded, for salvation. Like the Soviet empire before it, the managerial regime in the West rests upon a shaky foundation of deception and fraud. Charles Murray puts the point bluntly. Western elites, he charges, "are living a lie, basing the future of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects." [70] A great many politicians and scholars know or suspect, privately, that there are real differences between racial groups; still they support immigration policies demanding public prevarication about the putative evils of racial discrimination (even though any immigration policy-short of completely open or completely closed borders-inevitably favours some groups over others.) Such mendacious elites pose a greater threat to Western civilization than the Islamic militants they choose to harbour in the heart of the citadel.

Unfortunately, so long as the postmodernist boundary between fact and fiction remains in the eye of the beholder, the truth about that threat becomes a mere matter of opinion. The directorate of the globalist regime draws its deepest inspiration from Hollywood dream factories where manufactured images become the new reality. Organized social and political life in the Western world is largely driven by the psychic power of carefully crafted illusions. One fears, therefore, that it may take a serious and prolonged systemic breakdown to free us from the self-destructive taboo against discussion of innate group differences.

The orthodox doctrine that race is only skin deep is only one of the official fictions underpinning the transnational system; more fundamental to the regime's legitimacy is the cornucopian myth of endless economic growth. Seen through the eyes of the managerial class, Australia is an economy, not a country. Nevertheless, a folk memory still survives of a time when Australia was "the lucky country," the homeland of a particular people of British stock with their own particular way of life. Should the globalist economy first falter and finally fail, regime change may yet become possible for this and other Western countries. It may well be that only a miracle can save us now; all the more reason, then, to recall that God helps only those who help themselves. The capacity to act remains the key to our political salvation. [71]

*Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia 2109. Thanks to Kathe Boehringer, Frank Salter and the anonymous referees for the Deakin Law Review for their helpful comments on various drafts of this article.

Footnotes:

1. On the first stage of the managerial revolution see, James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World (1941). But the use of mass immigration and multiculturalism as weapons in that revolutionary movement assumed primary importance from the 1960s onward see, Paul Edward Gottfried, After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State (1999) and id., Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy (2002); see also, Samuel Francis, Power Trip 3(2) Occidental Q. 69 (2003)
(last visited on Sept. 7, 2005); and Andrew Fraser, A Marx for the Managerial Revolution: Habermas on Law and Democracy, 28 J. L. & Soc. 361 (2001).
2. On the New Class, see Alvin w Gouldner, The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (1979).
3. Bertolt Brecht, The Solution quoted in Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster 58 (1996).
4. See, generally, Samuel Francis, Equality as a Political Weapon in Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993).
5. Included as the Schedule to the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 (Cth).
6. Immigration Reform Group, Immigration Control or Colour Bar? The Background to `White Australia' and a Proposal for Change 92-3 (Kenneth Rivett, ed, 1962).
7. Douglas Cole, `The Crimson Thread of Kinship': Ethnic Ideas in Australia, 1870-1914, 14 Historical Studies 511 (1971).
8. For an introduction to this literature, see, eg, Vincent Sarich & Frank Miele, Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004); Michael Levin, Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean (1997); and J Phillipe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (1997). The entire June, 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law is devoted to the issue of racial differences in cognitive ability. See, in particular, the lead article by J Phillipe Rushton & Arthur Jensen, Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability 11 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 235 (2005). See also, Charles Murray, The Inequality Taboo Commentary (September 2005), a fully annotated version is available online at:
(last visited on Sept. 7,
2005).
9. See, eg, Tim Dick, Uni suspends outspoken academic, Sydney Morning Herald, July 30-31, 2005, at 9; Bernard Lane, African groups take aim at uni lecturer, The Weekend Australian, August 6-7, 2005, at 3; Andrew Fraser, The Trials and Tribulations of Populism in Australia, Telos 127 (Spring 2004) 119-148.
10.Keith Windschuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History (2002).
11. Keith Windschuttle, The White Australia Policy (2005).
12.See, eg, Walter Berns, Making Patriots (2001).
13. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 5-6. The suggestion that the White Australia Policy was based upon a civic rather than ethnic nationalism had already been made earlier in Robert Birrell, A Nation of Our Own: Citizenship and Nation-building in Federation Australia (1995).
14. Id, at 6, 8.
15. Humphrey McQueen, A New Britannia (1970).
16. Cole, supra note 7.
17. Franz Boas was a Jewish anthropologist who played a key role in the anti-Darwinian remaking of American social science. According to Carl Degler, "Boas' influence upon American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated." He engaged in "a life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups." It was "through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture" that he effectively expunged race from American social science. See, Carl Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought 61, 71 (1991). Boas did not approach his work in the neutral spirit of objective scientific inquiry. On the contrary, his pronounced "out-group sensibility" led him to transform anthropology into a formidable ideological weapon, thereby promoting Jewish ethnic interests in what he conceived as a struggle against anti-Semitism. See, Sarich & Miele, supra note 8, at 86-91; and Kevin McDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements 21-30 (1998).
18. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 174-181.
19. Id, at 5, 82.
20. Id, at 67-74, 326.
21. Id, at 9.
22.Gwenda Tavan, The Long, Slow Death of White Australia 227-9 (2005). Tavan, supra note 22, at 210, 225.
23. On the conflict between "cosmopolitans" and "parochials" in contemporary Australia, see Katharine Betts, The Great Divide (1999).
24.Tavan, supra note 22, at 210, 225.
25. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 28-35.
26.Id, at 34, 27.
27. Steve Sailer, Race Flat-Earthers Dangerous to Everyone's Health, available at:
(last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
28. Sarich & Miele, supra note 8, at 8, 21, 184-7.
29. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 285.
30. Kevin McDonald, What Makes Western Culture Unique?, 2(2) Occidental Q. (2002) (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
31. Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype (2d ed. 1999).
32. Louis R Browning, Bioculture: A New Paradigm for the Evolution of Western Populations 4(1) Occidental Q. 31 (2004) (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
33. Dawkins defines a meme as follows: "A unit of cultural inheritance, hypothesized as analogous to the particulate gene, and as naturally selected by virtue of its `phenotypic' consequences on its own survival and replication in the cultural environment," dawkins supra note 31, at 290.
34. Margaret Canovan, Nationhood and Political Theory 58, 75-7 (1996).
35. Roger Scruton, The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat 52, 56 (2002).
36.Canovan, supra note 34, at 87-92, 59.
37. Scruton, supra note 35, at 51-60.
38. Canovan, supra note 34, at 59.
39. On which, see, Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property and Social Transition (1978). The phrase itself was coined in 1965 by EP Thompson, see, The Peculiarities of the English, in The Poverty of Theory (1978).
40. Canovan, supra note 34, at 63.
41. Scruton, supra note 35, at 51.
42. McDonald, supra note 30.
43. Donald Harman Akenson, The Historiography of English-speaking Canada and the Concept of Diaspora: A Skeptical Appreciation, 76 Canadian Historical Rev. 377 (1995).
44. See, generally, Sterling Seagrave, Lords of the Rim (1995); Joel Kotkin, Tribes: How Race, Religion and Ethnicity Determine Success in the Global Economy (1992); Thomas Sowell, Migrations and Cultures: A World View (1996).
45.See, eg, Steve Sailer, It's All Relative: Putting Race in its Proper Perspective, available at:
(last visited on Sept. 7, 2005). Note that Sailer's definition of "race" as an inbred extended family, means that some such descent groups are closely related, such as Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland while others, such as the classic continental races (Africans, Europeans and East Asians), that evolved separately for 40,000 years or so were relatively remote from each other, both genetically and geographically. Race is a fuzzy category precisely because any genetically distinct descent group could be classified as a race. Remember, however, that the concept of a species is no less fuzzy: Are dogs, wolves and coyotes separate or members of the same species?
46. Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration 47, 42, 59-75 (2003).
47.On "market-dominant minorities," see, Amy Chua, World on Fire: How Exporting Free-Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability (2003). An excellent review of Chua's book is available online at: (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005). On Jews as the classic "market-dominant minority:" see, Kevin McDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994); and Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (2004).
48. Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism: New Findings and Evolutionary Theory (Frank Salter ed., 2004).
49. Greg Roberts, Refugees from Africa focus of hate campaign, The Weekend Australian, July 23-24, 2005, at 6.
50. Andrew Fraser, Refugees and "Anglo-Australians", Parramatta Sun, July 6, 2005, at 6.
51.Greg Roberts, Top academic accused of neo-Nazi links, The Australian, July 20, 2005, at 6.
52. Levin, supra note 8, at 291-332.
53. Rushton & Jensen, supra note 8.
54. Levin, supra note 8, at 148, 105-6; Rushton, supra note 8, at 169-170, 267-8. Authorities in many Western countries, including Australia, do not collect or publish comprehensive and reliable statistics showing the relationship between ethnicity and crime. Where statistics on black crime rates, in particular, are available, clear patterns emerge. See, eg the data sets available online at:
(last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
One analysis of US government crime statistics concluded that blacks were responsible for 90% of the incidents of violent interracial crime involving blacks and whites. Blacks in the USA "are as much more violent than whites (four to eight times) as men are more violent than women." See, New Century Foundation, The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1997) available at:
(last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
British experience with black crime can be examined at:
< http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf> (last visited on Aug. 14, 2005).
55. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 25.
56. Immigration Reform Group, supra note 6, at 123.
57. Francis, supra note 1, at 76.
58. Scruton, supra note 35, at 60.
59. Francis, supra note 1, at 76-7.
60. James Tully, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity 70, 96 (1995).
61. Cynthia V Ward, The Limits of `Liberal Republicanism': Why Group-Based Remedies and Republican Citizenship Don't Mix 91 Colum. L. Rev. 581, 585-6 (1991).
62.Id, at 593, 606.
63.Julian Triado, Corporatism, Democracy and Modernity 9 Thesis Eleven 33 (1994).
64. William H McNeill, Polyethnicity and National Identity in World History 76 (1986).
65. See, the prescient work by lothrop Stoddard, The rising tide of color (1920).
66.Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 201.
67. Cf. julien benda, la trahison des Clercs (1927).
68. For one possible strategy, see Andrew Fraser, Reinventing Aristocracy: The Constitutional Reformation of Corporate Governance (1998).
69. Oriana Fallaci, The Rage and the Pride (2002); Scruton, above n 35; Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World (2002).
70. Murray, supra note 8, at 8 [online version].
71. Andrew Fraser, Monarchs and Miracles: Australia's Need for a Patriot King, 5(1) The Occidental Quarterly 35 (2005).

posted by JR 5:42 PM

Sunday, September 18, 2005

 

A Story from an Old Connecticut Swede

In early 1941, the old man was born. He lived and still lives in Wethersfield, a town that has its own unique and amusing history. But this is about barbers.

During World War II, Ralph and Gus arrived in Wethersfield. They set up a barber shop. Both were Italian immigrants -- and very good barbers. They cut children's hair for 25 cents. The old man got his hair cut once a week, usually by Gus - who was grouchy. As the war ended, the barber shop business increased dramatically. Ralph and Gus added chairs until they had 4 barbers working for them in the same shop. Other barber shops opened, all run by Italian immigrants. Competition increased but there was more than enough increase in business to keep every shop growing. The post war baby boom took care of that.

The barbers decided that Something Had To Be Done. So they all got together and formed a Union. Yes, a union of owners of barber shops and employees. They paid their money to the right people and had LAWS passed by the state legislature.

Barber Shops would henceforth only be open 5 days per week - Tuesday through Saturday. They would open at 8:30 am and close at 5:30 pm. No evening hours. This would give all the hard working barbers a 5 day week and would guarantee wages. A state law prohibited price competition. All barber shops charged the same price for haircuts. Take it or leave it. Ralph and Gus had a new building constructed for their new barber shop. It was a nice building. Prices rose rapidly.

When a one man barber shop owned by a wicked non-union older barber opened, he got visited by state health inspectors once a week. After several citations for 'food preparation in a barber shop' (he had his coffee pot in the back), he saw the way the wind was blowing and closed up. Not one non-union barber ever stayed open for long. There were laws to deal with such miscreants.

When haircuts hit $8, people began to wonder what was going on. Men realized that they could also get haircuts in beauty salons. And they didn't turn gay overnight. Suddenly, beauty salons and haircut salons licensed as such began opening by the score.

And the barber shops began being empty. Barbers were laid off. Shops closed. Gus moved back to Italy to live out his declining years in comfort. Ralph sold the big barber shop to a beauty salon and moved back into his original location. Alone. And one day, a few years ago, the tailor next door found Ralph sitting in his barber chair - dead. There were, of course, no customers to notice Ralph's demise.

Connecticut is a unique state. Famous as the last state run by a political machine - headed by the famous John Bailey, who nevere held public office in his life - Bailey's Democrats served in all three branches of government. They made the laws, they enforced the laws, and they ran the government. They still do. Connecticut may be the only state where the head of the AFL-CIO state union is also the head of the Democratic Party. No conflict of course.

The barbers inspired many other groups to form unions, get laws written that forbid competition, mandated price fixing, and did many other things to control whole sectors of the business world. There are approved licensed distributors of liquor who only sell approved brands of liquor. There are liquor store owners who only buy from those licensed distributors, sell at the same prices, sell the same lines of everything, and lock their doors at a state mandated time every evening. the state even mandates closing of stores on Sunday and certain holidays. Most stores are owned by families. There are NO major chain operations. Just opening a liquor store requires a state license - and licenses are allocated by number of stores in a geographic area so as to limit competition.

The dairy farmers combined to form a monopoly that now rules all of New England, setting prices in all 5 states and forcing food chains to go to Pennsylvania just to get lower prices.

Closed shops rule. If there is a union, ALL eligible employees MUST join the union after 90 days. They pay union dues from their first day of employment, of course.

So today, there are far fewer barber shops than there were in 1941, even though populations have grown considerably. All shops are run by very old italian immigrants. When they die, the places close forever. In a state where a group of busines owners could buy laws that protected them from competition, they managed to create a situation where they failed because they never had to compete.

Wethersfield now has two barber shops and three barbers, two less barbers than it had in 1941. And four times the population. Nobody opens a barber shop because a barber shop is still subject to all the state laws regulating hours, prices, and other aspects of those businesses.

The south end of Manchester still has wooden water pipes in its streets - pipes laid there some 90 years ago by Cheney Mills, once the world's largest maker of silk velvet. The last Cheney died a long time ago, along with the last silk weaving machine. South Manchester was once totally owned by the Cheney family - the land, the homes, the police, the fire department, the utilities, the factories, and the major stores. And children died in those factories from inhaling lint.

The town of Collinsville is a national historic site now. The Collins family owned everything. I had an uncle working there who got the company retirement benefit - a free cemetery plot when he died of inhaling dust as he sharpened axes. Only about 70 years ago.

Societies can evolve if they are left alone. If business owners literally run the state, write the laws, and work to benefit only themselves, the managed societies stagnate and eventually fall into ruin. The established powers that be will inevitably act to protect themselves and will, in doing so, make it impossible for the infrastructures to change as the needs of the world change. Right to the end, Royal and Underwood still made mechanical typewriters in the same old way they always had. The famous typing sphere that IBM launched as the Selectric was invented at Royal in Hartford - but the old Swede who owned the company just didn't invest any money into product development. The factory literally remained the same until it burned down one night some years ago. Oddly, enough, the city of Hartford tried very hard to collect huge property taxes on that empty old factory building. The latest owner eventually moved out of Connecticut, leaving behind a huge tax bill owing to a city that only cared about taking money to dole out to the right political players. When the property was finally torn down and leveled, not one business offered to build on it. There was not even one supermarket selling food in Hartford at the time, so the city did some arm twisting just to get residents a place to buy food at.

So ended the great history of Hartford as a typewriter maker for the world. And as a gun maker for the world. And as ..... many other things. If Mark Twain's ghost roams through his old home in Hartford, what wonders must it mutter during the long dark nights of a city abandoned and decaying.

But I'm just an old man. What the heck do I know? When the largest owner of car dealerships in the state becomes Governor of the state and then returns to private life - and is given ownership of the entire public transportation system - we just laugh. Same old games. And in a society where things don't change, the rot sets in.

posted by JR 4:07 PM

Friday, August 05, 2005

 

SUMMARY OF A NEW BOOK: Top 10 Politically Correct Myths About Islam and the Crusades by Robert Spencer

(Available from Human Events)

PC MYTH: The Qur'an teaches believers to take up arms only in self-defense
POLITICALLY INCORRECT (PIC) TRUTH: if a country is perceived to be hindering the spread of Islam, Muslims are obliged to wage war against it. This would, of course, be a defensive conflict, since the hindrances came first. Here then is another illustration of how elastic and essentially meaningless the concept of fighting only in self-defense has become. (pp. 22-24)

PC MYTH: The Qur'an and the Bible are equally violent
PIC TRUTH: The Qur'an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction..The Old Testament, in contrast, records God's commands...to make war against particular people only..That's one reason why Jews and Christians haven't formed terror groups around the world that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilian non-combatants. (pp. 29-31)

Jesus: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"-Matthew 5:44
Muhammad: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."-Qur'an 8:60 (p. 12)

PC MYTH: Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists
PIC TRUTH: Sayyid Qutb, one of the twentieth century's foremost advocates of violent jihad.had a very specific kind of peace in mind."The peace which Islam desires is that the religion (i.e. the law of the society) be purified for God, that the obedience of all people be for God alone, and that some people should not be lords over others.".In other words, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state. And to establish that peace, Muslims must wage war. (pp. 41-42)


PC MYTH: Islam was once the foundation of a great cultural and scientific flowering
PIC TRUTH: In fact, Islam was not the foundation of much significant cultural or scientific development at all. It is undeniable that there was a great cultural and scientific flowering in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages, but there is no indication that any of this flowering actually came as a result of Islam itself..The architectural design of mosques, for example, a source of pride among Muslims, was copied from the shape and structure of Byzantine churches..The seventh-century Dome of the Rock, considered today to have been the first great mosque, was not only copied from Byzantine models, but was built by Byzantine craftsmen..After all, the seventh-century Muslim invaders of Persia were so uncivilized, relative to those they had conquered, that they exchanged gold (which they had never seen) for silver (which they had).But when they had taken what they could from Byzantium and Persia, and sufficient numbers of Jews and Christians had been converted to Islam or thoroughly subdued, Islam went into a period of intellectual stagnation from which it has not yet emerged. (pp. 89-92)

PC MYTH: Christianity and Islam spread in pretty much the same way
PIC TRUTH: For nearly the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity was outlawed.Not only was the religion not spread by violence, but the lists of Christian martyrs are filled with the names of people subjected to violence because they became Christians. In contrast, by the time of Muhammad's death, the Muslims faced no organized or sustained opposition, and yet continued to take up the sword for their faith. In the early days of Christianity, the Church sent missionaries to preach to non-believers and convince them of the truth of their faith. Today, many Muslims hotly deny that Islam spread by force, and point out that forced conversion is forbidden in Islam. That is absolutely true: What spread by force was the political and social hegemony of the Islamic system. (pp. 116-117)

PC MYTH: The Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world
PIC TRUTH: The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution..In reaction to this persecution of Christians, the Byzantines moved from a defensive policy toward the Muslims to the offensive position of trying to recapture some of their lost territories..In Islamic theology, if any land has ever belonged to the House of Islam, it belongs forever -- and Muslims must wage war to regain control over it. In 974, faced with a string of losses to the Byzantines, the Abbasid (Sunni) caliph in Baghdad declared jihad..Over the next ten years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives..The Christian empire of Byzantium, which before Islam's wars of conquest had ruled over a vast expanse..was reduced to little more than Greece...the new emperor Alexius I Comnenus (1081-1118), swallowed his pride and appealed for help. And that is how the First Crusade came about: It was a response to the Byzantine Emperor's call for help. (pp. 122-125)

PC MYTH: The Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force
PIC TRUTH: Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to convert Muslims. The pope's only preoccupation is to defend Christian pilgrims and recapture Christian lands..When the Crusaders were victorious and established kingdoms and principalities in the Middle East, they generally let the Muslims in their domains live in peace, practice their religion freely, build new mosques and schools, and maintain their own religious tribunals..This was the opposite of Muslim practice..What's more, the Spanish Muslim Ibn Jubayr (1145-1217),.on his way to Mecca in the early 1180s, found that Muslims had it better in the lands controlled by the Crusaders than they did in Islamic lands.so that even Muslims preferred to live in the Crusader realms. (pp. 130-131)

PC MYTH: Crusades were called against Jews in addition to Muslims
PIC TRUTH: Count Emicho of Leiningen and his followers advanced through the Rhineland, killing and plundering Jews in five German cities.Some of the bishops in those areas tried to prevent these massacres, and eventually Count Emicho and his followers met their end when he tried to extend his program into Hungary..Pope Urban's call for the First Crusade at the Council of Claremont says nothing about Jews, and churchmen were Emicho's most formidable opponents. In fact, Urban himself condemned Emicho's attacks. (pp. 142-143)

PC MYTH: The Crusades were bloodier than the Islamic jihads
PIC TRUTH: The Crusaders massacred in Jerusalem; Saladin and his Muslim troops didn't..Saladin only refrained from massacring the inhabitants of Jerusalem for pragmatic reasons, and Muslim conquerors easily matched and exceeded the cruelty of the Crusaders in Jerusalem on many occasions. The Muslim conquerors were not welcomed, but were tenaciously resisted and met resistance with extreme brutality. (pp. 144-145)

PC MYTH: The Crusades accomplished nothing
PIC TRUTH: It is significant that the level of Islamic adventurism in Europe dropped off dramatically during the era of the Crusades..So what did the Crusades accomplish? They bought Europe time.they also brought together armies that would not have existed otherwise. Pope Urban's call united men around a cause; had that cause not existed or been publicized throughout Europe, many of these men would not have been warriors at all..It is from Christian Europe, after all, no matter how reluctant the PC establishment is to acknowledge it, that most philosophical and scientific exploration, as well as technological advancement, have sprung..Christians believed in a coherent and consistent universe governed by a good God; Muslims believed in a universe governed by a God whose will was so absolute as to preclude coherence and consistency. (pp. 159-161)

posted by JR 11:18 PM

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

 

SOME NEW THOUGHTS ABOUT CATS

New to me anyway. The following email is from "Dr. GoodCat":

I am a practising veterinarian in Australia, and regrettably wish to remain anonymous - my profession manages dissenting views poorly. This is the situation:

I have viewed thoroughly analysed and robust statistics which declare, very plainly, that people own fewer and fewer cats every year in Australia. The science also tells us that the number of surgically sterilised pet cats in Australia is high enough to cause negative population growth (nearly 95%). But the left wing animal welfare organisations in this country have ignored these facts, and continue to preach from the moral high ground. They want laws to make every cat sterile - except for small numbers of elite special breeding animals - too small to maintain population levels. They continue to call it cat 'overpopulation' when the numbers have been falling for 15 years.

They will not acknowledge the facts - and will dismiss them when asked. (sound familiar?). They campaign on false information. They do this because they get publicity (and donations) from bad news: killing thousands of cats and dogs each year is a great money earner for animal welfare. In addition, they have hitched their wagon to the green anti-cat movement to support their cause. Hypocritical for animal welfare?

But this left wing view also spells doom for the family pet cat: Temperament in cats has been shown to be highly heritable - but welfare organisations are applying considerable negative selection pressure on Australia's most popular cat - the moggy (about 85% of cat population) by insisting that they are sterilised.

If welfare organisations had their wishes, there would be two types of cat available to the prospective pet owners: the elite pedigree cat from a small gene pool (currently contributing less about 15% to the cat population), and the terrible semi-wild alley cat that has never had a home and continues to breed and fill welfare shelters with stray kitttens (at least half of which are also semi-wild and unsuited to becoming a pet). Why does the alley cat continue to breed? Because he has no owner. There will be no 'middle order' well socialised and healthy moggy cat, the most popular cat in Australia.

By selectively sterilising those pet cats that have been producing the best temperament (ie owned cats), we leave the un-owned alley cat as the source of all new moggy kittens. These poor wretches are born into a world where vital human socialisation is almost non-existent, where nutrition is poor and preventative health regimens do not exist. These are the kittens that will continue to fill shelters and be farmed out (usually with guilt tactics) to unsuspecting new owners. This genetic selection means that over the years we will see more cats abandoned as their temperament becomes more incompatible with being a pet. And the shelters will say that there are still too many cats.

And yet what are they doing to target the vagrant alley cat? Nothing. Why? Because it is harder to generate charity dollars when they can't splash pictures of cute kittens on death row in the paper every few weeks. Because they haven't the intellectual capacity to deal with complex problems. Because they enjoy the elitist "we know what's best for your cat" position they have adopted. Because it doesn't suit their interests to acknowledge the facts: surgical sterilisation is already reducing the population and has been doing it for 15 years. Because they believe thay have the moral high ground, and they're obviously correct! No-one will challenge them.

I have met animal welfare activists who believe that no-one else cares as much about cats as they do - in fact no-one else deserves to have a cat except them and their close circle of radicals. Another example of Leftist elitism?

My interest in this: 1. I am frustrated by the ignorance of such a powerful lobby groups, which continue to mislead the public. 2. I like moggies (as do most cat owners), and we will see their demise in my lifetime in this country because of inadvertent genetic selection pressure.

posted by JR 10:42 PM