B. U. G. S.

A commenter reminded me that there is such a thing as historical revisionism.

So let me remind you of three rules:

1) The past is never what the historians says it was;

2) The present is never what the official commenters say it is; and

3) The future is never what the paid futurologists say it will be.

So, the commenter asks, how can we review a history that is so often wrong? He is loooking

at point 1)

The truth of the matter lies in point 2)

All history and all futurology is based on the present, and on NOTHING else. Everything a

professional historian writers or puts on a documentary is cleared with those who have power

in the present. Just as all roads led to Rome, all history leads to the present.

To put this in plain English, the purpose of history is to show the influences that led to

the year 2006 as described on the newscasts. Today, interracial marriage is what every

decent person in history aspired to, but the production of a chuman by breeding humans with

chimpanzees, on which both Japanese and Russians began work, is an abomination.

That is how it is, os htat is the way everyone in hitory looked at it. If they didn’t, you

excuse them and show how they went wrong.

When the movie Soylent Green was made in the 1970s, every campus rang with the cry “Zero

Population Growth!” Every official historian and demographer showed how all decent opinion

had always led tot his conclusion.

Japan is a GREAT copier, like all Oriental countries. When we took up the ZPG cry. they

took it up better.

Every advanced country’s population is now aging. The biggest argument for open borders

today is how in the 1970s America, by some odd coincidence, did not produce enough young

people, so the third world, which was not listening to the ZPG crap, has to pour its

surpluses in here.

The connection is never made, of course. No historian or commenters could keep his job if

he made it. So the futurologists who predicted Soylent Green are now a little older and a

lot better paid, with all that experience and seniority behind them.

This is not a contradiction. They ARE more experienced. You have to understand what they

are experienced AT. We all knew thirty years ago that the only reason you would look at

what a demographer or a futurologist wrote thirty years before would be to get a good horse

laugh. But we still made a good try at destroying ourselves on their say-so.

Japan, as a the ultimate Oriental copier nation, is actually dying out because, along with

all that technology they superadopted in the 1970s, they also superadopted the West’s ZPG

craze as Eternal Truth.

So if futurologists are always wrong, what are they Experienced Experts AT?

They are experts at producing the kind of prediction that gets grants and gets published.

You do not tell those in power today that they will be out of power tomorrow. You do not

tell today’s ruling intellectual elite that people will be laughing at their present

fashiones — like ZPG — so hard they will be busing a gut.

It is true that futurologists are always predicting things that has the next generation

laughing so hard it busts a gut. That is what they do for a living, and they are good at

it.

You see, a historian, a contemporary commentator, and a futurology is EXACTLY like a

respectable conservative. He knows how to produce history or predictions or criticisms of

Political Corectness, respectively, which are just radical enough to look like a serious

challenge to modern thought, but never attacks anything BASIC.

Anyone who is worried about the information he receives should first think carefully over

the fundamental question: How is that information PRODUCED?

You wouldn’t buy a computer mouse without considering this question, but when policy determinations are made, it is totally forgotten.