Capt. Piccard is a Pinko Fag (Capt. Kirk is Just a Pinko)

Gene Roddenberry once summed up his vision of 23rd century humanity, upon which he based Star Trek, simply as this:

"In the future, there will be no hunger, and no greed."

Gene Roddenberry was a blithering idiot. He did, however, have a great talent for writing science fiction.

I'll admit it: I'm a Trekkie. Have been ever since I can remember. I've seen every episode of the original series, and every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, at least twice. I don't speak Klingon, but I can name most of the major ones, right down to the two clans warring for the seat of Supreme High Chancellor (the house of Durass eventually lost out to Galron). I know that Mark Lenard, the actor who played Sarek (Cmdr. Spock's father), first played the original Romulan on the show (who died in his first appearence). I know every alien race in Star Trek mythology, as well as all the traits that make them morally inferior to humans.

It was in a discussion I had with a fellow Trekkie over this last point, that it finally dawned on me:

Holy SHIT! Star Trek is nothing but pure communist propaganda! The crew of the Enterprise are a bunch of fucking pinkos!

Let us examine this, and you'll see what I mean.

Humans
Humans are depicted in all five Star Trek series, particularly the first two, as being a benevolent, homogenous, selfless hodgepodge of all around goodness and intellectual enlightenment. Everybody agrees on practically everything. Divisions along the lines of color, origin, politics, and class are nonexistent.

Indeed, class in and of itself is nonexistent, as the notions of commerce and economics seem to have been thrown out the window entirely. In the 23rd century, no one gets paid. Nobody desires money, or possesions, or any other pursuit of individual self-interests. Everyone works together for the betterment of the human race as a whole. Everyone contributes equally and has the same interests and evenly shares the fruits of all labors in this futuristic, utopian fantasyland. Yawn.

I suppose this is in perfect keeping with Roddenberry's "no hunger/no greed" idea. Never mind that it flies in the face of some of the most basic and unalterable tennants of human nature. It's Roddenberry's feel-good vision of what we all should be.

Like I said, Roddenberry was a blithering idiot.

Klingons
Assholes, for the most part. A violent, warrior race. In the original series, they were the sworn enemies of the Federation. Later, they become allies and a few even serve as Starfleet officers, enduring the jeers and scorn of most of their peers.

Even more than a warrior race, the Kilngons are protrayed as a primitive race. They value things like honor, courage, valor and strength, and these values are often used to illustrate what an unenlightened bunch of savages and rubes they are (note the strange bloodletting rituals in TNG, or the near riotous crowd screaming for the death of Kirk and Bones reminiscent of the roman colusium in the sixth movie). They are also the only religious peoples in the story, idiotically awaiting the unlikely return of Kaeless, a sort of Klingon messiah. Compare this to the enlightened humans, who are secular and humanistic to a fault. I'm no mindreader, but if ol' Gene wasn't trying to say something there, he sure had a strange way of being neutral.

While they have great loyalty to their homeland, Klingons are definitely individualists. The Individual is the number one enemy of communism. The values that Klingons espouse are all a part of that.

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]

Religion is enemy number two. In communist propaganda, religionists are always portrayed as mindless rubes, bloodthirsty killers, or both (as in this case). The fact that Roddenberry speciffically chose to mirror tennents of Christianity is telling. No faith is as reviled by the godless as that which is placed in Jesus.

Ferengi
Nowhere is Star Trek's socialist bent better illustrated than in its depiction of the Ferengi. Not only are they the show's only capitalists, they're the only race that seems to have any kind of economy whatsoever. They're depicted as squatty, sleazy, small, grotesquely deformed little imps. The same sort of imagery has been applied to businessmen, successful ones in particular, since the invention of money.

While definitely a force to be reckoned with, the Ferengi pursuit of individual financial interest is used to depict them as cowardly misers and self centered backstabbers. This conduct is of course endlessly frowned upon by the oh-so-enlightened humans who of course only care about the good of society.

The Borg
Here we see the one and only race of creatures which are completely superior to humans. Why? Because these freaks follow Marxism right to it's logical conclusion. Individualism is not a problem. There are no individuals. Only the collective. Everyone does exactly as he is instructed. The party line is touted with no room given for question or retort. All who are not like them are to be conquered and made slaves of the collective.

Truly a dictatorship of the proletariet if there ever was one. Which, of course, there wasn't.

The Borg are unfailingly, ruthlessly efficient. Just as with the Soviet Union and Red China, they justify their conquests under the guise of "improving life for all species."

"But Whiskey, the Borg were bad guys! They were monsters and everyone was afraid of them!"

True. Perhaps even twits like Roddenberry can recognize the evils of a collectivist mentality. More likely, they're just to stupid to realize that that's what they really espouse.

Anyway, this essay is getting long and I've got to go. My DS9 and TNG reruns are coming on shortly, and I've still got to run out for beer.

Bastard City

From the Merriam-Webster online Dictionary:

Bastard

Main Entry: 1bas·tard
Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
1 : an illegitimate child

I read today, from Philadelphia writer John Baer, that the rate of illegitimate births in America's fifth largest city is now on the high side of 50%. 62%, to be more specific. Think about this: over the 15 years upon which Baer based his research, of every ten children born in Philly, more than six were born to unwed parents. I don't have stats in front of me as I write this, but based on what I have seen personally in cities all over America, I'd be surprised if the stats weren't very similar in every major city in this great land. I'd be very surprised if the rates of illegitimate births in Detroit, Baltimore, DC, Miami, Newark and New Orleans are not even higher.

Bastardy was once considered shameful. Then it was just unfortunate. Now, it's a common way of life. The effects of this have been felt for a long time now, and they ain't pretty. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

Now don't get me wrong: I fully understand that just because two people have a child or a family without first getting the go-ahead from some preacher or magistrate does not neccesarily make them bad parents. Nor does the mere obtaining of the church's blessing or the state's license make them good ones. All of us know people raising good, loving families despite not being joined by faith or law. But let's be realistic: that's not what we're dealing with in the inner cities. What we're talking about here are children who are growing up without the basic family unit, and its framework of support and instruction that is absolutley crucial in rearing boys and girls to become men and women.

Depending on who you talk to, this is the fault of feminism, or secularism, or Hollywood, or drugs, or welfare, or sluts. All of these are very real problems, and not to be ignored, but when it comes to rampant bastardy, it's been my experience that the biggest share of the blame lies, quite simply, with men.

In his basic role in society, a man is charged with many responsibilities. But his number one responsibility, above all others, is this: to teach his son how to be a man. It's a father's most important job. A woman can't do it, not even a boy's mother. Too many men now are failing to rise to this task. Worse, many of those failing, are doing so simply because they don't care. Particularly in the cities, far too many men are making babies without any concern for their offspring's well being. Their interest ends at the point of orgasm. After that, who cares?

The reasons for this are many and varied, but I for one reckon it all boils down to a simple lack of true manhood. Manhood is more than the simple possesion of a dick. In fact, the mere ability to insert that dick into anything that moves doesn't even figure into the equation. Animals rut with abandon. It doesn't make them men. In fact, it serves to illuminate the exact opposite condition. True manhood is a combination of strength, character, judgement and love which serves to guide men in all of their choices. Men who make babies they have no intention to care for, with women who are no more to them than orgasm donors, have none of these things.

I don't know quite when it happened, but somewhere along the line the masses got it into their heads that sex was somehow so damned important as to be above all expectations of judgement, restraint, and just plain simple common sense. In many circles, any suggestion that people should treat sex with a certain amount of reserved carefulness or- God forbid- forego having sex when one is unprepared to accept the consequences that might arise thereof, is greeted with a hissing denouncement resemblent of vampires watching the sunrise. Anyone who says sex is more than just a recreational activity and needs to be treated as such is labeled a prude, a theocrat, a right-wing zealot, and possibly a Baptist. I hate to tell you this, folks, but even a broken watch is right twice a day, and a Baptist can occasionally hit the mark too (not often, but it happens). Sex has a powerful biological function, and it does not care whether or not you want that function to operate. Tempt fate enough times, and it surely will. The result is babies. Small, fragile, helpless human beings with no capacity to care for themselves or sustain their own existence. They are entirely dependent on others for everything they need to survive and grow, and all they've got are their mom & dad.

In the cities now, we're seeing the fruits of several generations of children who have grown up without families. Most specifically, without fathers. The results have been tragic. Boys and girls growing into adulthood, having never been instilled with such basic things as common sense, a work ethic, and a moral compass. This is not surprising, since they were born to people who themselves had none to instill. The absence of fathers leaves an unmistakable and unfillable void. Boys become men having no idea how to be one, and girls become women with no idea what to look for in or expect from a man. Again, not surprising, since the man who was supposed to serve as the example for both was at best non-existant, at worst, degenerate.

And then we wonder why those boys grow up to be exactly the same way, do the same things, and the girls wind up popping out their babies, who are about to begin the whole cycle anew.

Sez me, this will only get worse until people learn to respect human sexuality for the powerful and priceless wonder that it is. Or at least to love their children more than they love orgasms.