Fantasy outlook and destinations

The following is a personal commentary piece of The Jacksonian Party.

The Progressive movement is embodied in one futuristic television show that gained a wide, deep and enthusiastic following for the better part of two decades after the show's demise.  And it was not the darker program of The Prisoner that I go over in this piece.  No the program I am thinking about cast itself to looking at the farther future, beyond all the wars and problems of its era and at one where mankind would finally unite and truly see Martin Luther King's dream where it was the content of one's character that you are judged by, not the color of your skin.  It projected a world in which peace is finally established for all mankind.  The program was

Star Trek and it projected a form of Kennedy forward-looking Progressivism that was not an instant hit, but gained a fanatical following and created one of the first of the fan-based systems of support for its followers.  You remember them:

You remember those folks, right?  Steadfast crew able to represent the very highest of values in the galaxy, namely the Federation's, and actually willing to fight and die for basic liberties and freedom as concepts.  And not just verbal sparring, fighting and dying on one's own argument, either.  But the real thing.

This Captain epitomized the spirit of adventure, going into the unknown, of being the youngest Captain in the Fleet, and tended not to let his good sense get over-ruled by bureaucratic dictates like the Prime Directive.  Rules were made to be broken, after all... but still it was upheld as the very meaning of a non-interventionist policy even if it only applied to thriving, growing societies, and not like the people caught under the spell of Vaal.

And to think we have had people complain about the primitiveness of the Command Line Interface for computers!  Just try to reprogram that one with that interface!  Lots of luck, I tellya.

The series also had going for it stand-ins for our Cold War adversaries: Klingons for the USSR and Romulans for the Chinese, plus assorted other races filling out the roster of places we really didn't want to think about in our real world.  Like how Ehrlich was saying overpopulation was a dire problem and that we would all end up shoulder to shoulder in the non-revolutionary way just like...

... the Gideonites.  They not only have a longer life span but, apparently, abolished all communicable diseases.

Probably by government edict.

This was a Star Trek that you could actually sink your teeth into during the Cold War: it had a bright futuristic outlook, gleaming modernity, peace and happiness on Earth that we never get to see, tradesmen plying their ways on private space craft, miners, alien races that were not all just bumpy forehead people, and actual conflict.  Plus credits just the same as cash and the common cold.  With that we could understand how that universe worked.

Jump ahead to Next Gen.

By the 1980's Gene Roddenberry had 'matured' in his Progressive outlooks and the show reflected that:

This Enterprise, the latest and greatest of starships, would have so much space on board that there would be entire families to risk in exploring the unknown.  Yes, exploring the dangerous unknown is so safe that entire families volunteer for it!

The Captain had a First Officer that would NOT take a promotion to further his career as he had a nice, safe job along with all the families and didn't want something hazardous like, say, being the captain of a Destroyer or Light Cruiser.

And in this extension of the previous universe, when the Klingon Empire faces collapse due to its main dilithium source planet blowing up, the entire Federation steps in to save this thriving culture that should be left to its own devices as stated by the Prime Directive!  You no longer need a mere captain for that as the entire Federation is willing to give up the Prime Directive for Political Expediency.  Lovely, no?

You can see from the images that while the Federation has, more or less, conquered the common cold, male pattern baldness still remains.  This captain is unable to tell the navigator where to head to and says, most royally, that he should 'Make it so'.  From captain of a mighty starship with firm direction to some minor aristocrat delegating where the ship should actually set course to winding up with a junior officer.  Hey!  I'm all for pushing responsibility downwards and such, but the actual direction of a starship really should come from something more than 'Make it so', no?

Actually fighting and dying for your beliefs and way of doing things?  That was banished until after the death of Gene Roddenberry.  Even then the guiding team behind Star Trek really didn't have a clue as to what made their universe run and Majel Barrett Roddenberry really didn't help much in that regard.  Scripts that actually required conflict on an on-going basis were doled out to non-premier programs like DS-9 and Voyager.  The disconnect between ST:TOS and ST:TNG was hard and went far beyond the fact the first three seasons were, basically, reprises of ST:TOS but with a prettier ship.

So families in exploratory vessels, captains who can't captain, first officers not looking for promotion, minor expediency as judged by military officers being replaced by political expediency of government... yeah there were a lot of changes in ST:TNG that make little to no sense whatsoever.  And all done in a single generation of the Fleet (with Sulu and Chekov representing the youngest of the previous generation with some overlap with Picard as the youngest of the Next Gen) which does not speak well to keeping tradition in a military organization as that is one of the greatest strengths of a military organization is understanding past conflicts, learning from those who came before you and upholding their traditions of service and loyalty.  We had some minor sense of that in ST:TOS and in the first movie with the historical timeline of ships named Enterprise... but that feeling is gone by Next Gen.

Plus in a single generation they went from people who actually made money, or credits...

... like that rascal... and a crew that knew what a credit was worth as you could purchase...

... goods of great value.  That has degenerated to...

... poker played with chips that represented... nothing.

This universe had gotten clean, antiseptic and represented the highest of Progressive values by doing away with money, conflict, danger and, generally, anything that could drive a plot.  In Star Trek all of this has been abolished, and you don't want to offend your enemies and, in fact, need to save them when disaster befalls them.  Like the Klingons.  So you have to invent newer and nastier foes that you can't really deal with to get any 'drama'.

For all their dark attire and nasty implants are these...

... centrally ruled drones who have their wishes over-ridden by their leader really so different than what the Federation Council did to over-ride the Prime Directive to help sustain an oppressive, repressive and totalitarian Empire?  That is being unwilling to see change happen, to try and sustain an order that can't continue, to perpetuate an eternal stasis and precedence of order that can no longer even be held in fiction.  Star Fleet gets so over-extended that when it has to actually fight the Cardassians/Dominion it has to ask for help from the Romulans and Klingons.  From Empires.  Would they really help out a Federation that actually stuck to its credos, laws and methods, and thusly remained in opposition to them?  Or is this the case of fellow totalitarians helping out their brother Empire so as to preserve their own domains from threat of change to their status quo and, perhaps, get a leg up on this competitor?

So what do you get when you don't oppose thugs or totalitarian regimes, can't abide by the rule of law at the highest of all levels, and reduce your people to having no ability to gain from their work and put them into a position of barter when they meet up with anyone 'less advanced'?  Does that get you to a nice, gleaming, everybody is happy future?  Applied NOW does that allow you to uphold the law in all circumstances, or to let it decay?

Does it get you pretty, gleaming, anti-septic starships?

Or does it get you something like this...

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

... or this...

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

Or this?

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

... or this...

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

Or this?

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

... or this...

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Or course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

Or this?

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.

... a world without civilization, without laws, where the Main Force Patrol is the only thing left from prior times where the law was upheld?

A world largely reduced to barter, without cash or any monetary system to uphold.

A world in which all are equal as everyone is potential prey.

A world in which a law abiding family man is pushed in the extreme to avenge the murder of his family, and to take up war on his own, as expediency is now the only value worth having.

Do you really get this...

... or this...

... as they both have loyal and unthinking minions to take over their prey?  Both use technology to mask themselves and enhance their ability to rule over others.

And both appear when law begins to break down at the large scale and civilization begins to corrode from the inside.

The Lord Humungus of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior uses the sweet words of 'reason' to try and get his way and even gets a gang crier, his precursor to Locutus, to serve in that role.

The Toadie

Why did the Borg Queen choose Captain Picard?  Why did Humungus choose Toadie?  Beyond serving as mouthpieces for their rule, the two men are, apparently, educated and have some technical skills that make them semi-valuable, at least on the ego-inflating side of things.  Like Locutus, The Toadie is, in the end, expendable and of little value for who he is as a person.  Thus the decision was to take someone on who would not be able to fight the desire to be a part of that larger group and would be easy to integrate into their gangs... which doesn't speak well of the Federation or Star Fleet at all.

Unfortunately there is no Max Rockatansky in Star Trek, and Star Fleet even in winning an interstellar conflict, now has to account for its losses and the outcome of that conflict which will be disorder.  Of course the Federation Council is willing to bend the rules, not obey its own laws and 'do what is necessary' to 'restore order'.  That could be done by upholding the laws and the values that went into making them, although that often leads conflict with those unwilling to uphold those values, that points out that the values, themselves, must be defended.

We have now had over a year of pandering to tyrants, dictators, despots and authoritarian regimes, and the world is not becoming a safer place: this is not seen as reason but as weakness.

Our own laws now take on the air of expediency, so as to force people to buy services because 'its good for you' and government really knows better than you how you should lead your life.

We give our allies a cold, cold shoulder and put in jeopardy the ties between us that have sustained our cultures, together, over decades, through war and peace alike.

Does that make our future vehicle more likely to look like this:

Or this?

Both come from a world where everyone is equal and your skin color doesn't matter.

Where expediency is the only law left.

Where being absorbed into a repressive gang and forced to survive in that realm is an option.

Where the rules have replaced the laws, and the rules can't cover all of life.

Progressives always want that former vehicle.

Somehow one suspects that the latter is far more appropriate.