This is a play on “The Generation Gap.”

I don’t have one. When I was in the AA and NA recovery programs I had a line of people mostly young, asking me to sponsor them. That is proof that whatever I was offering was actually WANTED.

In old America, there was no “adolescence.” You were a boy or girl or you were part of the men of the house like anybody else. If you were fool you could get your family KILLED :

“Stupidity has ALWAYS been a capital offense.”

The media has used this adolescence” or Stages of Growth crap to show how YOUNG at heart they are by being leftist. Young people, they say, SHOULD be Idealistic, i.e., Marxist, in their Youth, so a leftist is just a person who has kept that Youthful Outlook.

I wasn’t and I see no more excuse for a young person being an idiot than for an old one to.

So I don’t have a Generation Gap. No respectable is going to say that a young moron is just a moron. I have the same problem with a fifteen-year old anti-white that I do with a sixty year old one:

They aren’t THINKING.

You know me well enough to realize I didn’t go for popularity in the program. A sponsor has a life and death business on his hands. If my people didn’t do BETTER in recovery, meaning in SURVIVAL, I would have stopped doing it.

A higher percentage of the young people who are serious addicts die than of the COMBAT MERCENARIES I knew. And THOSE were the young addicts who made it to recovery! In both combat and recovery, stupidity in officers or sponsors has always been capital offense for the people they are responsible for.

The fact is that in the old days you couldn’t afford adolescence. You did not go out hunting with a 14 year old who might shoot you in the back by stupidity.

I don’t have a Generation Gap. The Generation Gap was invented. Like all information, for a PURPOSE, and that purpose was to make anti-whites seem idealistic and youthful rather than what they are, which is stupid traitors.

What I face is a Thinking Gap, and I face that with EVERYBODY. It is true that young people are more ankle-deep in Mommy Professors than other people. But that is no worse than older people who think they are “adult” and therefore far less correctable. The one thing worse than ignorance is MILITANT ignorance.

It is a curious phenomenon that older people ask any young person, “How does your generation think?”

They would be most offended if someone asked THEM “How does your generation think?” That’s different. They are all over the place, of course. I have given this a lot of thought and have found several sources of this illusion.

First of all, there is the modern media’s use of The Youth Culture. They think that all “youth” thinks like them so they are The Wave of the Future. They have been looking for proofs of this and reporting it all my life.

I remember seeing opinion surveys in the mid-60s which showed that eighty percent of the so-called Hippie Generation, eighty percent, thought that longhair on males was effeminate! Such information did not make it to CBS Nightly News.

Another source of this “What Young People Think” is that older people do not realize that gestation ends at a very early age. We talk about the third month of pregnancy, the sixth month of pregnancy. Then we talk about the crisis when a kid learns to say “No!” at age two, the Terrible Twos.

To older people, children are at A Stage of Development. It seems that the older you get, the longer anyone younger than you is at a Stage of Development.

I was never an idiot, so I was never a socialist, but socialism is always looked upon as a Stage of Development, the Youthful Idealist. Old or young, you have to be feeble minded to think a bunch of bureaucrats, with Mommy Professor guiding them, can run the economy well.

True, a larger number of people who have just left their real mommies and are first exposed to Mommy Professor do take his pretenses seriously. But people who do that generally have parents who haven’t brownout it themselves.

Don’t wonder where the new generation is coming to before you think about where it is coming FROM.

Stage of gestation and the Youth Culture Thinking are two factors. There is another that is more general.

If someone asks you about your own city where you have lived for decades, it will very complex to your mind. You will know the figures personally, the history intimately You will know many occurrences, now solidified into Inevitable History, that could easily have gone either way.

But to you ANOTHER city’s characteristics are much simpler. That is one reason Jews are such Great Philosophers. Ask them about Jewish thought and they will give you a solid hour of detail and complexity. Ask them about the outside world and they will find it very simple.

Ask a Frenchman about Germans and he will tell you they are simply Bad or Uncultured. Ask a Jew about ANYBODY else and they will tell you they are Bad. SIMPLY bad. At best, they are trying to be better, but all gentiles are basically bad people who maybe trying to withhold their irrational hatred of Good Jews.

This is not a big secret or a Conspiracy. It is the theme of sermons every Saturday allover the world.

But the most relevant point here is that Jews think of Gentiles as good or bad SIMPLY by their attitude toward Jews or, in the absence of specifically anti-Semitic behavior, in terms of how they treat minorities Jews identify with, the other who are Suffering, the them that seems to be the only justification today for being a Jew.

Real Jews will often say that the Holocaust killed Judaism or Israel killed Judaism. What they mean is that all of the traditions and so forth are scarcely mentioned in public by Jews. You are Jewish or non-Jewish by your new faith of loving Israel or identifying with other who have Suffered.

When anyone says “I am Jewish and…” they are NEVER going to say anything about Jewish Tradition or anything of the sort. They are ALWAYS going to tell you about how they identify with other Suffering Minorities.

They will never SAY that consider all white gentiles to be basically evil, but there is no other way to interpret it. And anti-Semites’ view of Jews is equally simple.

So the older you get, the more “young people” constitute a group which, unlike the complex views of your peers, can be explained in a few words.

Dave keeps pointing out that race determines economics. True. I will discuss that more later. But right-on it is a good point of departure to show another example of the fact that, like futurology and history, economics is an institution, and just as futurology has nothing to do with the future and history has only a nodding acquaintance with what actually happened, economics is not produced to reflect reality.

When I was a professional economist I saw studies that studied correlations between economic growth and everything. You would think that economic growth and investment would be perfectly linked. Like all correlations this one was not perfect either.

Why was this information produced? Why did economists try to find these correlations? Obviously for prescriptive purposes. If investment corresponds to growth, one could begin to say that in order to get growth one only needed to increase investment.

What was not discussed was the single clear correlation: wealth and skin color. I brought this up in the big weekly seminar at the University of Virginia to which all professors and grad students went once a week. Even in 1964 they refused to discuss it, not because it wasn’t obvious, but because it WAS obvious.

Back then, economic GROWTH was everything in economics. Liberals insisted that the “centrally planned economies, the Reds, were growing at astronomic rates. This demonstrated that socialism was the way the third world, the “developing economies,” would catch up with the West.

A quarter of a century later, both the developing economies and the centrally planned economies were at least as far behind as they had been in 1964.

In fact, the only well-known writer who predicted the economics of the coming forty years was George Orwell in his novel 1984, which came out in the late 1940s. In the society he described, everyone was destitute, but every year it was announced that the Plan had been fulfilled, growth was phenomenal, and “spontaneous” demonstrations broke out in the streets.

And every year even the Party members got poorer and poorer, the “proles” got even more abject. That was what happened in the “centrally planned” economies for the forty years after the book was published. On paper Outer Mongolia and Bulgaria double their output every few years..

If you don’t have a market economy your economy can double monthly on paper. Why would that information be produced in such countries? Because if you DIDN’T overfill every Plan on paper, you lost your job.

Or more.

In the “developing” world, anybody handling paper who didn’t show huge growth could simply disappear. So the necessary information was produced.

You cannot understand economics by looking for The Truth or some kind of Conspiracy or some kind of Bias. People look at economics as reality with a bias. In fact, the “bias” you are talking about is the real reason the field is studied in the first place.

If they had started with that, forty years of complete nonsense data produced by two-thirds of the world would have been seen for what it was and we could have had an “economics” that was useful.

I keep pointing out that futurology has nothing to do with the future and history has little to do with what actually happened in the past. This is VERY important to BUGS because history and the future it leads to are critical to us.

As usual, this all goes back to basic BUGS thinking. Futurology and history are now INSTITUTIONS. They have no more to do with real history or futurology than the Puritans’ offspring have to do with Christ.

I don’t think you can use any information without knowing this basic reality.

The question is NOT “Are they biased?” EVERY piece of information is PRODUCED. It is not produced “except for biases.” It is not produced to be objective, it is produced for grants and for sale. You have to start there.

Think about it: If you had written a perfectly accurate prediction of the future in the 1950’s no one would have published it.

The Soviet Empire would simply collapse because socialist economics is SILLY? No respectable conservative cold get hold of THAT one. Socialism was wrong or oppressive, but just plain SILLY?

Civil rights would lead to a campaign for intermarriage and the complete collapse of America’s borders?

The same is true in technology futurology. You cannot imagine how ridiculous a prediction that the MACH 2.2 Supersonic Transport would just go away would have been half a century ago. All history showed that each generation traveled FASTER. That was a fundamental GIVEN.

And the end of the manned space program? Asimov did think it possible that we would use robots instead of men in many cases, but he didn’t THINK about it. No one would have read anything that said we could send a machine to find things out.

One of the funnier things that tell you about the fifties was Dick Tracey’s two-way wrist radio. I remember debates about whether such a thing would ever be possible. Now it would sell for five bucks.

The point is that it didn’t matter in the least whether futurology was ACCURATE. No one would publish your accurate articles THEN.

No Sovietologist ever missed a meal because not one of them had any idea that the USSR was about to collapse. They got published THEN and they are experts NOW. They get paid to tell us the future of Russia, and they would have been ruined if they had been accurate.

“The USSR is just going to go POOF because it’s SILLY.” You would have ruined saying that in 1980 and nobody in the institution of Futurology would rehabilitate you when it turned out you were right.

We know that, but we never THINK about it.

You might try it sometime. When someone cites research, you might want to ask them WHY that was produced. I don’t mean PC stuff, I mean stuff no one would THINK about. Why did they do research on that instead of something else? I don’t know what you will get back.

Do the Mantra first, but I am just curious about what would happen.

It’s called “the literature.” Someone researches something because someone else researched something. There is nothing wrong with that, but it gives you a view of reality that people simply do not THINK about.