Peter

What little bit I read of your work, you seem to me, to be starting in the middle of things, which is called in medias res in English literature. I prefer a beginning a middle and an end. And as a fan of Ayn Rand the people on this list may enjoy fantasy, but for me “hard science fiction’ is the genre I like: real science used as a literary tool to tell a story. Though only a few years old even Robert Tracinski’s article seems a bit dated. Peter September 12, 2016 FEATURE ARTICLE Futurism TV Nine Ways Star Trek Anticipated and Celebrated the Future by Robert Tracinski In the field of future technology, life has a tendency to imitate art. The creators of science fiction are often able to imagine something before science fact makes it possible. The real technology then catches up when somebody sees it in fiction and asks: how could we actually do that? This is true of Star Trek perhaps more than any other science fiction franchise. It's no coincidence, because the show's creators consulted with scientists and technology experts about what was possible or might be possible. They took the future seriously and wanted to know what things might look like when we got there. In a lot of ways, they got it right. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first episode of the original series, let's look at nine ways Star Trek anticipated the future, helping us to imagine the next wave of innovation and to think about how we will live with it. 1. The Gadgets Star Trek predicted or inspired a lot of the devices we have now, and the Internet is full of lists of them--even though this is just the start of my list. Of course, a lot of Star Trek technology still isn't here yet. No, your 3D printer is not just like a real-life replicator. We don't know how to "beam up" anyone or anything in a transporter. And no one has figured out warp drive yet. It's not just that we don't know the specifics of how to do these things. We don't even know if they're possible. So we still have something to aim for over the next century or two. But a lot of other Star Trek technology is ahead of schedule. The communicator has already been and gone, in the form of the good old late-1990s flip phone. Some compare the tricorder to certain new medical devices, but I don't think that gets to the essence of it. You have to cast yourself back into a 1960s mindset and realize that what was really radical about the tricorder is that it was a handheld computer--at a time when your average computer took up an entire room. Speaking of handheld computers, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" brought us what is clearly a touchscreen tablet computer--an iPad 15 years early. Star Trek's universal translator works a lot more smoothly than anything we have today, but you can still go on Google and get your text translated in seconds with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Throw in a few more decades of progress in artificial intelligence and language processing, and real life is on course to match fiction way ahead of schedule. And speaking of AI.... 2. Artificial Intelligence Yes, we'll get to Commander Data in a moment. But the closest thing in Star Trek to what we're doing with artificial intelligence right now is the Star Trek computer, which is capable of communicating in normal spoken English. It responds to commands, gives relevant answers to requests for information, and can even perform some fairly complex (in a few cases implausibly complex) analysis. It is well known that this is the inspiration and goal for Google: to be able to ask a question in normal English and give an accurate, relevant answer. We're still not there yet today, but we're headed in exactly the direction imagined by Star Trek. As for higher-level artificial intelligence--the kind that goes way beyond the advanced pattern-recognition we're experimenting with now and actually achieves sentience--"Star Trek: The Next Generation" gave us Commander Data, and it used him, in true Star Trek fashion, to explore some larger questions about what it means to be conscious, to be alive, to be human, and to be a person with rights. While the original series suggested that uploading a human consciousness into a robotic body would result in a loss of humanity--Ray Kurzweil take notice--Commander Data suggested that a sentient robot could become fully human, or if not actually human, it could be as interesting as a human. All of this came to a head in one memorable story arc in which Data's status is put on trial. What stands out most about this, two decades later, is that this is a benevolent, sympathetic portrayal of a sentient android. Yet sentient robots are featured today mostly as the monsters in our horror films--a dozen different variations on the Frankenstein myth in which the creation turns on its creator and seeks to kill him. Star Trek is famous for its optimism and for its humanism, so it is no surprise that it brought both to its portrayal of AI. It is a surprise, perhaps, that those characteristics are lacking from so much of our contemporary science fiction. Oddly, though, Star Trek did not show us the use of robotics. We got Commander Data, but the Star Trek universe doesn't really have anything below his level--simpler robots performing menial tasks. Except with maybe one exception. 3. Autonomous vehicles. This is not emphasized much in the franchise, and we rarely even see anything like an automobile. Why drive when you can beam up? But by the "Next Generation" era, the shuttlecraft seem to be "piloted" exactly the way we would expect autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles to be piloted. There's no stick and rudder, no steering wheel. The operator sits at a console and gives the computer instructions, which it appears to execute in its own way. In the new "reboot" movies, we're starting to see more of this. Star Trek into Darkness features a fight scene on what appear to be flying autonomous garbage barges. But material from the reboots doesn't hold as much weight, from the futurist's perspective, because autonomous vehicles are almost upon us and don't really count as a "prediction" any more. There are other technologies from today, though, that have older roots in the franchise. 4. Virtual Reality It's fair to say that everything people are doing with virtual reality right now is just an attempt to recreate what "The Next Generation" did with the Holodeck. The Holodeck went beyond mere holographic projections--the stuff of most previous science-fiction speculations--and offered a fully immersive experience with what we're now calling "haptic" feedback: a sense of touch and solidity to virtual objects. It also included taste and smell, which is presumably the next step. What is most interesting about the Holodeck today is the rich and varied ways it is used. It is used for entertainment, for games, for exercise, as a set for plays, a place for a first date, and for bringing favorite works of fiction or historical settings to life in an interactive way. We're basically working on the same thing today. The biggest lesson for today is that Star Trek's most interesting uses of virtual reality are to create a shared experience. Today's VR headsets tend to be a closed-off, individual experience. It's kind of hard to have a first date with one of those visors on. But the Holodeck reminds us that virtual reality is going to have to expand to become something that people can enjoy together. The one thing Star Trek didn't really envision was the mixing of virtual reality with the real world, i.e., augmented reality. The only prominent science fiction franchise to present a really prescient vision on this was The Terminator--so much so that before the Pokemon Go popularized the term "augmented reality," it was generally known as "terminator vision." That's one thing that I think is going to end up looking dated, particularly when it comes to computer interfaces. In "The Next Generation," everyone is interacting with the starship's super-advanced electronic systems through the super-advanced technology of...touchscreens. And the displays are all in Okudagrams, which give Star Trek's visual displays a distinctive look but not a futuristic one, certainly not now. I'm afraid the "Next Generation" user interfaces are going to seem as dated as the clunky push-buttons of the original series. But not always. The closest they got to anticipating elements of virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence--and how they could all work together--was Geordi La Forge's holographic brainstorming session with an AI reconstruction of a starship engineer. 5. Technological Progress Star Trek doesn't just feature a lot of futuristic technology. It also takes for granted that technology is constantly changing and advancing. I don't want to get into the never-ending battle of the franchises between Star Trek and Star Wars, but this is a striking contrast between them. The story line of Star Wars now spans about 60 years, but the technology is all pretty much the same from start to finish. Sure, maybe this was a period of war, political chaos, and dictatorship that caused the Galactic Republic and the subsequent Empire to stagnate. But not much seems to have changed for a very long time. Star Trek was so founded on the idea of future progress, and the vast changes in technology from then to now, that when they made "The Next Generation," they decided to keep it going, giving the new crew more advanced technology and better gadgets with sleeker design. Just the way it works in the real world. But for all its optimism, Star Trek didn't actually celebrate all new technology. It made a few key exceptions. 6. Genetic Engineering This is an area the Star Trek franchise is notably reluctant to explore. The franchise created a major recurring villain--Khan--to stand for the evils of genetic engineering (eugenics in the original series). We're led to believe that the technology has been banned after a group of genetically engineered super humans tried to subjugate everyone else. This is explored a little bit more in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," but still mostly in a negative context. The Founders who rule the Dominion, the main Federation enemy in "Deep Space Nine," have genetically engineered whole subject races of administrators and warriors that they use as their minions. This is an interesting contrast to most of the future technology in Star Trek, which is either accepted as natural progress or at least regarded in a balanced, open-minded way, as something with advantages and disadvantages. It is perhaps a missed opportunity to explore the pros and cons of changing human nature itself. The same is true for another form of human enhancement. 7. Cyborgs The Next Generation" features a major character with a visor that allows him to perceive non-visible wavelengths of light and which connects to him through a brain-machine interface. So how come Geordi is the only one who gets this funky new technology? In the real world, everyone else on the crew would be looking at him and thinking: I want one of those. Instead, the franchise's main portrayal of the cyborg future is though their biggest, most reviled villain: the Borg. The Borg are a collection of cybernetically enhanced drones integrated into a kind of collective mind. And while I appreciate the use of the Borg as a metaphor for the evils of collectivism and its subjugation of individual identity, it is the integration of technology with biology that is portrayed as the main mechanism for stripping away individuality. In the real world, we're going to be cyborgs in our own small way. It's just a matter of time. We sure could use a more encouraging model to follow in figuring out how to do it without losing our humanity. Fortunately, Star Trek generally does a good job of that in other areas, and that leads us to one of its happier omissions. 8. No Media Frenzy There's no Twitter in the Star Trek universe and no Facebook. People aren't glued to their devices all the time waiting for the latest news updates or celebrity gossip--thank goodness. It is certainly true that there are whole parts of life Star Trek deliberately omits for dramatic reasons. For example, it's pretty clear that the Federation is not a dictatorship--but we never hear about elections, and the crew never debates politics. We get to see some of the internal political wrangling among the Federation's competitors, and the politics of the Klingon High Council intrude pretty frequently into "The Next Generation." But the Federation's own politics are opaque. Economics is also pretty much absent from the Star Trek universe. This is sometimes a bit embarrassing, as in the (fortunately infrequent) references to the idea that the Federation no longer uses money, which is definitely science fiction--with an emphasis on the "fiction"--from the standpoint of the science of economics. Both of those omissions are corrected a bit in the later spinoffs, especially in "Deep Space Nine," where Quark's bar is the thriving commercial hub of the space station, and Commander Sisko and his crew get swept up in Federation galactopolitics. But they're not a defining feature of the Star Trek universe. Which is probably just as well, because part of the point of tuning into Star Trek is to get away from politics. Yes, the franchise has always dabbled in political and social commentary--the Klingons vs. the Federation were an obvious analogy for the Cold War--but it generally did so allegorically. It distances us from the details of current controversies by projecting some deeper issue onto a weird alien species, which makes it feel more like the show is raising questions and less like it's taking sides. And there's one more reason to omit these things. If the future inhabitants of the Federation don't have their noses always stuck in some future equivalent of the smartphone, you could see that as a failure to project the impact of technology, or maybe as hope that we will outgrow our current ways of using it. Which leads us to the final way Star Trek anticipated the future. 9. Human Progress While Star Trek's futuristic technology draws a lot of attention, the biggest improvement isn't in our machines. It's in ourselves. No, I don't mean in our basic physical or mental capabilities--and maybe that's part of the reason Star Trek doesn't embrace genetic engineering and cyborgs. The franchise tends to be more interested in the progress of our minds and character. The future envisioned in Star Trek is a better place because we are better people. At root, Star Trek is a vision of the eventual triumph of humanistic values. This triumph is portrayed as hard-won, with humanity having suffered through a period of warfare and chaos, a kind of mini dark age. The beginning of this dark age keeps getting pushed back as we keep catching up to it in real life (though sometimes in this election cycle I've thought we might finally be getting there). But we have come through that and emerged into a very hopeful future. One of the things that was shocking and refreshing in the original series is how it showed all of mankind united and at peace, including a ship with black and white crew members and Americans and Russians working together. It was certainly a contrast to the real world circa 1968. This triumph of humanism is occasionally tied in with a certain degree of smug, conventional liberalism. But I can assure you that the show has plenty of fans on the right, too. After all, it would be the ultimate in smug liberalism to assume that only the left cares about a world without racism, poverty, war, and oppression. Star Trek is a little vague about the details of how we achieve this humanistic progress, but there is one aspect it repeatedly dramatizes: the importance of reason, science, and technology. The activities of scientific exploration and technological problem-solving are made into the central plotlines of whole episodes, and these are regarded as a Star Trek crew's most important activities. This is the root of the technological optimism of the series. Not that our machines were automatically going to make the future better, but that we are going to have to be better people--and clearer thinkers--in order to get to the point where we could build that amazing future. When it comes to technology, we're moving along toward the future anticipated by Star Trek at a pace that keeps us right on schedule. I hope we will be reminded to put the same degree of effort into the progress of our souls.

I remember Ted Turner the owner of CNN married Hanoi Jane Fonda so this may be karma. From American Insider: It appears that CNN has hit rock bottom as the network recorded the lowest weekend ratings in a key demographic in its entire history. Critics say this is “a real sign” of the collapse of the network. CNN has been criticized for becoming increasingly biased and promoting a radical far-left political agenda. Many of the network’s hosts and reporters openly express their vehement hatred of former President Donald Trump. CNN saw just 55,000 viewers from the important 25- to 54-year-old demographic during the past weekend. Only 43,000 watched its Sunday prime-time shows.

From American Insider: . . . A poll from the left-wing outlet Washington Post found Trump is leading Joe Biden by a whopping ten percentage points. Trump is predicted to win in a hypothetical match-up with 52 percent of the vote. Biden is receiving just 42 percent. Trump is also the 2024 Republican frontrunner with a massive lead against GOP rivals . . . Moreover, Biden is struggling in several key demographics. Among independents, the poll found that Trump is leading by 13%. Among Hispanics, Trump is ahead 6%. end quote Peace. Freedom from wars. Fiscal responsibility. A free country and culture, and a free market. Prosperity. I think the Trump ticket will resound among Independents and Republicans. And perhaps some democrats too, may not vote in the 2024 election as a protest or disinterest in Joe Biden. t’s looking good for free America.

Lindsey Graham said: “I am very pleased that President Biden took the time and effort to visit Ukraine, and meet with President Zelensky. This was the right signal to send at the right time. A presidential visit to Ukraine, along with the statements made by Vice President Harris at the Munich Security Conference that Russia is committing crimes against humanity in Ukraine, are a powerful combination. “However, for the visits and statements to matter to their fullest extent, decisive action must immediately follow. “First, we must designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law. That would also help ensure any lethal assistance to Russia, provided by China, is devastating to the Chinese economy. Second, we should stop the debate about advanced fighter aircraft for Ukraine. Instead, we should start immediately training Ukrainian pilots and maintainers, and provide them the advanced fighter jets to not only win this war, but deter future aggression. “We must be doing all we can to allow the victim of the crime against humanity, Ukraine, to defend itself from the war criminal, Putin. “Words are powerful, but they must be followed by powerful actions as well.” end quote During Senator Lindsey Graham’s recent trip to Ukraine he made a few other interesting points. Russia is the aggressor. America is not losing any of our troops to the war there. Ukraine is depleting Russia’s resourses to take over other countries. Ukraine has halved Russia’s ability to wage another war. So any countries Putin had his eyes on are safer. I think Ukraine will repel the Russian monster, and give the world a breathing space. I think we will monitor any countries that are trading with Russia and watch out for any Communist Chinese assistance. If China does butt in we will cease all trade with them. Humanity has come a long way towards universal peace and prosperity. But we the free world, must watch out for three international villains: North Korea, China and Russia.

I told a family member about my suspicion that Michelle is testing the waters but they think she is merely selling her book. MO has no political background. She has no understanding of the military or being commander in chief. I will wait for more evidence to be broadcast to be sure she is running. Of course there could be an argument made that she picked up "experience" through her husband's two terms . . .

Biden continues to have memory problems and in speeches he may tell a story, forgets he told the story, and then he tells it again. Ted Cruz suggested the Democrats may ditch Joe Biden for Michelle Obama before long. From TrendyMatter: . . . Cruz said, “Here’s the scenario that I think is perhaps the most likely and most dangerous. In August of 2024, the Democrat kingmakers jettison Joe Biden and parachute in Michelle Obama." From the web. The prevailing question on many people's minds centers around the possibility of the Democratic Party nominating former First Lady Michelle Obama as their presidential candidate in the upcoming 2024 election. Recent polls illustrate Michelle's significantly higher favorability and admiration among Democratic voters in comparison to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. end quotes But how good a candidate would she be? All I can say is, she does quite well on Talk Shows. I have no idea how she might do be campaigning against other democrats. And as far as having solid policies and arguing with Donald Trump? That is a big “what if.” As yet, I don’t think she needs her own site here on OL. But if she launches a site, that is when she will have more relevance. Peter

Nope. The last big "upheaval" was Trump nominations for the Supreme Court. The Court is now totally linked to the Constitution. IN our lifetimes.

About the upcoming Republican debate, on Wednesday from Axios: . . . What to watch: The debate, co-moderated by Fox News Media's Stuart Varney and Dana Perino and UNIVISION's Ilia Calderón, is scheduled for 9 p.m. ET on Sept. 27 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Trump's speech in Detroit that evening is scheduled in prime time as well, the New York Times first reported . . . .

The Powerball cash payout is $320,500,000. After taxes? You only get, on average minus federal taxes, state taxes, etc., 55 percent. Soooo . . . 320.5 x .55 = $176,275,000. Round it off to $176 million. I think it is getting high enough that I may buy two tickets for the Wednesday, September 20th drawing which I think is around 11pm. Four bucks is worth the fun.

The 2020 election fraud is getting old Marcia. beat a dead horse idiom chiefly US, informal 1 : to keep talking about a subject that has already been discussed or decided I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I still don't understand what happened. 2 : to waste time and effort trying to do something that is impossible Is it just beating a dead horse to ask for another recount of the votes? From The Wall Street Journal” Trudeau Says 'Credible' Allegations Link India to Killing of Canadian Sikh Leader. Canadians, what’s the story about that? Alas. Roger Whittaker, British Folk Singer Known for 'Durham Town,' Dies at 87. I have one of his albums. Good bye Roger.

Another message blocked by Microsoft Edge. A box comes up when I try to see the message.

Saudi Arabia cut production, and of course Biden stopped construction of the Keystone Pipeline his first day in office. Biden-omics wants America to "go electric" but I have heard stories about people with electric cars having a rough time recharging if they travel. I will stick with gas powered engines for now. Let others "experiment" with electric.

That is an extraordinary entry in Wikipedia tmj. Thanks. In a sense we have never changed our military outlook on the world . . . and that is mostly a good thing for us and our allies and for neutrals. We have saved the world a lot of heart ache. But the expense has been enormous for America. Maintaining 600 military facilities around the globe must cost billions. My first hand experience has been to live with my military parents and siblings in Norfolk, Virginia, San Diego, Quonset Point Rhode Island, fourteen other bases in California, and Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, and Sasebo, in Japan. And in the active military I was in South Korea. I can't say I have the experience of General Butler but I have some sense of the evil in the world from my experiences that match some of his. And I too, wonder about how extended does America want to become, protecting the world while we lose billions in tax dollars and go deeper into debt?

Imprimis, a Publication of Hillsdale College, had an article that said The United States has 600 military facilities around the globe. I haven’t read it all yet but I saw at the beginning the author was discussing the meaning of the word Imperialism. I know we are spread all over for our own interests but we are also protecting other countries and people. And I saw on the news that actor Sean Penn had made a documentary about the war in Ukraine. He has made seven visits there, offering his support for Ukraine. Ukraine‘s President. Zelenskyy and Penn hit it off because of their ties to comedy and acting. Peter From Wikipedia: Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy[a] (also romanized as Zelensky or Zelenskiy;[b] born 25 January 1978) is a Ukrainian politician who has been serving as the sixth president of Ukraine since 2019. He was formerly a comedian and actor. Born to a Ukrainian Jewish family, Zelenskyy grew up as a native Russian speaker in Kryvyi Rih, a major city of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in central Ukraine. Prior to his acting career, he obtained a degree in law from the Kyiv National Economic University. He then pursued a career in comedy and created the production company Kvartal 95, which produced films, cartoons, and TV shows including the TV series Servant of the People, in which Zelenskyy played a fictional Ukrainian president. The series aired from 2015 to 2019 and was immensely popular. A political party with the same name as the TV show was created in March 2018 by employees of Kvartal 95.

Interesting. I think President Trump is gliding into a second term. Thanks, Marcia.

From Newsweek: . . . Trump is edging out Biden in seven key states according to a Reuters / lpsos conducted online from September 8 through September 14. In the poll, which gathered responses from 4,413 American adults, Trump led with 41 percent to Biden's 35 percent in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada and Michigan . . . . From Rasmussen: Friday, September 15, 2023. The prosecution of former President Donald Trump by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is unfair, according to a majority of Georgia voters, most of whom have concerns about the integrity of elections in their state. A new telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports . . . finds that 56% of Likely Georgia voters believe it is likely Trump is being unfairly prosecuted by Willis, including 39% who say it’s Very Likely. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t think it’s likely Willis is unfairly prosecuting Trump, including 28% who say an unfair prosecution is Very Unlikely.

As a sign of former president Donald Trump’s skyrocketing popularity, the crowd erupted when he showed up at the Iowa State football game. A Fox News/AP poll found that 39% of Americans view Trump favorably. The 77-year-old caused a ruckus in Iowa as the crowd erupted into “USA” chants. Among Republicans, Fox News/AP found that 70% of Americans view Trump favorably. In Iowa, Trump also paid at a tailgate with fans. Trump was even seen flipping some hamburgers at the tailgate. The crowd also erupted into chants that said “four more years.” end quote. 39 percent? BS!

New York City which calls itself a sanctuary city, may need to cut twenty percent from their budget to care for migrants. New Yorkers are finally getting angry.

If you count the electoral college numbers, Florida and Texas are two possible states to pick a VP from. New York, and California are too iffy, because they lean towards the democrats. From that line of thinking I would suggest Governor Abbott from Texas, and Governor Ron DeSantis from Florida. What about being smart and politically astute? And could a woman add to the total? Sure. From WorldAtlas: California and Texas have the most electoral college votes, with 55 and 38 votes respectively. Florida and New York are tied for 3rd place, with 29 electoral college votes each. There are 7 states, along with DC, that have 3 electoral votes, which is the minimum. The Electoral College is a body of electors formed under the authority of the United States Constitution. The body is formed every four years during a national election for the purpose of electing the two highest leadership positions in the US, the president, and vice president. The body is made up of 538 members, which means a candidate needs at least 270 votes to win. These members are sourced from each of the 50 US states, and the number of electors from a state is determined by the number of members it has in both the House of Representatives and Senate. Presently, the two houses have 535 members, with 435 coming from the House of Representatives and 100 from the Senate. The additional three come from the District of Colombia, as stipulated by the Twenty-Third Amendment.

Michael wrote, "What was the reality? Jimbo Wales was a stooge for the CIA and intelligence community. He is an authoritarian wolf in sheep's garb." Jimbo Wales just asked me for a donation to Wikipedia . . . so he seems to still be on the up and up with them. He was a fair moderator of the old forum Atlantis too. As far as spying for the CIA, don't most web sites volunteer info about crazies or terrorists who inhabit their domain? I would. I may send some denero their way. Thanks for the info about Marc too. I will take a deep breath next time.

You lying piece of shit / I don't believe you, and why after all this time you would bring that Up?

I never insinuated that or said it. You are full of shit.

Crypto quiz from Remind Magazine: What do you call the government department that deals with spying? The Department of the Treachery.

I follow the truth. If you follow "the truth" you believe in, You are not an objectivist. Get it? There are so many sites who support your view, AND many who are against your view, . . . yadda yadda yadda. Stop following your slant and look at the truth. Objectively.

Michael wrote: If Trump supporters were trying to overthrow the government with a violent revolution, say take over government buildings and hold the politicians hostage, they must be the stupidest people in history. They showed up without guns. How does one do a violent revolution without weapons? end quote I certainly agree that the riot / violence / invasion of the Capitol was spontaneous for the most part. But I was also thinking about the term “true believer.” I don’t push ideas without evidence. Nor would I want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. I was thinking about the Trump troubles in Georgia. Wouldn’t this be the perfect time for him, and all those supporters being charged, to come forward with some massive evidence of election fraud?” Where is it? In the Wikipedia quote below, it only addresses “left wing” believers. Peter Notes from Wikipedia on Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers”: Hoffer argues that mass movements such as Fascism and Communism spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and Communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century, to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either. From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Choosing One's Own Beliefs Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 04:11:59 GMT Ellen Moore wrote: "Your present thinking and actions will reduce to the sum integration of your choices since birth." Jens Hube wrote questioning Ellen Moore's statement: "Where did the free will go?" Though Jens was asking a direct question of Ellen, he was writing to Atlantis and not offlist, and because Kate has already responded, I will throw in a few thoughts too. By this statement, Ellen is not inferring that past thinking CAN be changed, or that present thinking is NOT amendable to volitional choice, or that future thinking, for any human is determined. She would not pose and post a syllogism such as this, divorced from reality. She is speaking about the total CONTEXT of a person's psycho-epistemology. As Kate responded, "She's talking about the causality that follows from free choices: choices constrain one's future context similarly to deterministic influences . . . ." A person's ability to think straight in the present, will be affected by such past thinking habits as shown in these questions: Are a person's basic premises correct? Is the knowledge (or assumptions) a person has gained, true or false? Has a person's subconscious been programmed to respond with the correct automatized actions, and correct emotional responses for rational living? So, at the point at which Ellen is speaking (the present) a person can have as a part of their total mental package, the logical faculties, and the volition to do the right thing. Does this mean that a person cannot overcome past bad thinking? No. Even a person with mixed rationality can still prevail. It will just require more effort, and the desire to "snap out of it!" Peter Taylor From Objectivism and Rage by Barbara Branden delivered in 2006 at The Atlas Society summer conference: . . . I have seen so many instances in which newcomers to Objectivism become rigid, fearful true believers in order to escape censure—or else they are driven away to lick their wounds in hurt and bewilderment. And sadly, often the victims in their turn become victimizers—spewing the poison that sickened them onto the next young Objectivist they encounter, having learned to treat even the most polite and reasoned disagreements with contempt and insult and morally-outraged fury . . . .