Issue #29 (January 1984)
Your December issue contained a history of World War III written by a supposed time-traveler from the future, Lottie Fish-Bate. You have been sadly deceived. I am personally acquainted with the writer and can tell you just what she is doing. I am giving you forewarning that subsequent installments will revive the old Nazi bogey, will defame Mensa as anti-Christian, and will glamorize the society and politics of the Union of South Africa. The world will be cast out to dependence upon the John Birch Society world view. I know all this because Lottie has been bought and brought here as an agent of the South African government and thus will serve its interests and those of its Israeli and Right-wing U. S. allies.
The history of World War III or any subsequent world wars, re-population of the Earth from Antarctica, secret redoubts of conspiratorial forces, etc. - all these are spurious. The projection of these events into the future is all a fraud.
The facts of which your readers must be warned are these. Lottie is really a hack with no talent for anything but plagiarism. December's article was simply lifted from Part Four of the Lord of the Rings series. Your custom in Anglo-American culture allows only the trilogy form, so the fourth in the series remained unpublished. Tolkien in translating the chronicles miscalculated the size of each part, and could not get the publisher to extend the deadline. So he just pretended there was no fourth part. How do I know there was a fourth part? Simply that I am a time-traveler from the Fourth Age (Gondor) and have read the complete text in the original languages, all of which I spoke during one or another of my various lives.
Lottie knew that the ancient history of Middle Earth would not serve her propaganda purposes, so she hoked them up as if they were future, not past.
As to my knowledge of Lottie's character, no one could know better. I am her sister.
[line width="40%"]Dear Editor:
Ed Rehmus [in Issue #28] seems to feel that he is entitled to freedom of choice when it comes to making or taking a living - one which we taxpayers are not entitled to when it comes to choosing what we may do with the money we've earned. In the past I have chosen to freelance and work as a contractor, both without benefit of health insurance, which I could not afford. I chose to pay my own medical bills. Had I incurred a medical bill which I was unable to pay out of pocket, I would have borrowed the money. And repaid it. I do not believe the world owes me a living in any way and I think that those who believe this have a childlike attitude toward life that should not be encouraged beyond the age of 17. What would happen if those who are footing the bill for this attitude (i.e. the taxpayers) decided to stop doing so and join the rest of the folks with their hands out? Then who would pay the bills? Or does Ed Rehmus believe we should not have the freedom of choice to do that either.
Nancy L. Prael
Menlo Park, CA
Menlo Park, CA