Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism, & Atheism

  1. #1

    Question The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism, & Atheism

    An original post on Trekweb:

    Is Earth ruled under a dictatorship? It sure as hell seems that way

    Yes, Earth is apparently ruled by a benevolent dictatorship, probably due to the wars that ravaged the planet. United by force most likely, but to a kinder and gentler result. Don't forget, all throughout STAR TREK's other series and films, there has been suspicion and hostility toward the Starfleet brass. Kirk doesn't trust Starfleet completely, and neither does Archer. I don't think there are any more politics on Earth on STAR TREK. It's utopia by decree. Nobody voted for it, TPTB have decided that this is how it should be, right alongside with an end to the need for money and such. Starfleet is not to be trusted. The rulership of Earth is the ultimate police state expanded to worldwide proportions. Without any of the ills that plague us today, it simply doesn't seem as bad, but make no mistake, it's still a dictatorship, there's no question about that.
    See also this article by K.L.Ross " The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism and Atheism":

    The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism, & Atheism

    One and only one person can give steering and engine orders at any one time....The commanding officer may take over the deck or the conn...In taking the conn from the officer of the deck, the captain should do so in such a manner that all personnel of the bridge watch will be notified of the fact.

    Watch Officer's Guide, A Handbook for all Deck Watch Officers, Revised by K.C. Jacobsen, Commander, U.S. Navy, 11th Edition [Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1981, pp. 68-69]

    I have always liked Star Trek. I watched the original show in the 60's, waited eagerly for the first movie in the 70's, and then later in the 80's got hooked all over again on Star Trek: The Next Generation. It has been good television, good science fiction, and occasionally even good film. Some things, nevertheless, have driven me crazy: (1) Picard and Riker both giving commands, in tandem, on the bridge is absurd. One person has the conn or has the deck on a ship, and it is dangerous to have any confusion about that (see quote above). As Executive Officer, Riker wouldn't even be on the bridge in ordinary circumstances. (2) There doesn't seem to be anything like a regular watch on the bridge. In one show a big point is made that only a full commander can have bridge command, but nothing is more common on the show than to have scenes where all the senior officers of the ship are in some conference or other, leaving who knows who directing the ship on the bridge--unless there are full commanders who aren't part of the regular cast. The writers don't seem to know what naval lieutenants are for--to be the officers of the deck. And (3) Star Trek has never known what admirals are for. The first Star Trek movie has a farcical conflict over whether Admiral Kirk or the newly assigned captain will assume command of the Enterprise. One wonders what Horatio Nelson and Captain Hardy were both doing on the HMS Victory. Later, Star Trek: The Next Generation refers to the Enterprise as the "flag ship" of Star Fleet, without apparently realizing that a flag ship is a ship with a "flag," i.e. a flag officer, an admiral. A Star Trek admiral seems to be some kind of shore officer.

    These absurdities, however, can be easily forgiven. Less easily forgiven or forgotten are the more troubling messages about the nature of the future, the nature of society, and even the nature of reality. Star Trek typically reflects certain political, social, and metaphysical views, and on close examination they are not worthy of the kind of tribute that is often paid to Star Trek as representing an edifying vision of things.

    In a 1996 newspaper column, James P. Pinkerton, discussing the new Star Trek movie (the eighth), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), quotes Captain Picard saying how things have changed in his day, "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force; we work to better humanity." Perhaps Picard never stopped to reflect that greater wealth means greater material well being, which is to the betterment of humanity much more than any empty rhetoric. But this is typical of Star Trek. A first season Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "The Neutral Zone," has Picard getting up on his high horse with a three hundred year old businessman who is revived from suspended animation: The businessman, naturally, wants to get in touch with his agents to find out what has happened to his investments. Picard loftily informs him that such things don't exist anymore. Indeed, poverty and want have been abolished, but how this was accomplished is never explained. All we know is, that however it is that people make a living, it isn't through capitalism as we know it. Stocks, corporations, banking, bonds, letters of credit--all these things seem to have disappeared. We never see Picard, or anyone else, reviewing his investment portfolio. And those who still have a lowly interest in buying and selling, like the Ferengi, are not only essentially thieves, but ultimately only accept payment in precious commodities. In the bold new future of cosmic civilization, galactic trade is carried on in little better than a Phoenician style of barter, despite the possibilities of pan-galactic banking and super-light speed money transfers made possible by "sub-space" communications.

    Too much of Star Trek has always reflected trendy leftist political sentiments. It was appropriate that John Lennon's "Imagine" should have been sung at the 30th Anniversary television special: Capitalism and religion get little more respect from Star Trek than they do from Lennon. Profit simply cannot be mentioned without a sneer. The champions of profit, the Ferengi, not only perceive no difference between honest business, piracy, and swindle, but their very name, the Hindi word for "European" (from Persian Farangi), seems to be a covert rebuke to European civilization. At the same time, one can find little in the way of acknowledgement of the role of religion in life that, whether in India or in Europe, would be essential. Although exotic extraterrestrials, like the Klingons and Bajorans, have quaint religious beliefs and practices, absolutely nothing seems to be left of the historic religions of Earth: There are no Jews, no Christians, no Moslems, no Buddhists, no Hindus, no Jains, no Confucians, and no Sikhs, or anything else, on any starship or settlement in the Federation. (Star Trek is, not to put too fine a point on it, what the Nazis called "Judenfrei," free of Jews [note], a condition that Marx also anticipated with the death of Capitalism--though Leonard Nimoy did introduce, subversively, the hand sign of the Hebrew letter "shin" to signify the Trek benediction, "Live long and prosper.") With no practitioners, there are no chaplains for the crew--no ministers, no priests, no rabbis, no mullas, no brahmins, no monks, no nuns. The closest thing to religious advice is the tedious psycho-babble of counselor Troi.

    Why there is this conspicuous absence of religion is made plain in a third season Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "Who Watches the Watchers?" It concerns a planet of people who are still at only a pre-industrial level of development but who are related to the Vulcans and, presumably because of this, are so intellectually advanced that they long ago ceased to believe in anything so absurd as a God (so some races are just smarter than others?(!?)--sounds like some kind of racism). Because a Federation observing post and its advanced technology is inadvertently revealed, one of the natives mistakenly takes Captain Picard to himself be the God of ancient belief. He spreads the word among his people. The rest of the episode is then taken up with how this folly can be undone without otherwise distorting the natural development of the natives. In the end, they realize that Picard is not God, and they continue on their previous path of atheistic wisdom.

    Such a story is so blatantly hostile to theistic religion, that it is astonishing that it provoked neither comment nor protest. Perhaps the messages contained in science fiction television are simply not noticed. Movies have a somewhat higher profile and, indeed, the futile quest for God in the fifth Star Trek movie, The Final Frontier, provoked the comment from Michael Medved, a political conservative and devout Jew, that it was the same old "secular humanism." Even the aforementioned religious beliefs and practices of the Klingons and Bajorans seem to consist of little more than ritual and mythology, and one is left with the impression that respect for such things is motivated more by cultural relativism than by a sense that they might contain religious truths of interest to others. The Star Trek universe is one without religious truths--where the occasional disembodied spirit can be explained away with talk about "energy" or "subspace."

    If daily life is not concerned with familiar economic activities and the whole of life is not informed with religious purposes, then what is life all about in Star Trek? Well, the story is about a military establishment, Star Fleet, and one ship in particular in the fleet, the Enterprise. One might not expect this to provide much of a picture of ordinary civilian life; and it doesn't. One never sees much on Earth apart from the Star Fleet Academy and Picard's family farm in France--unless of course we include Earth's past, where the Enterprise spends much more time than on the contemporaneous Earth. Since economic life as we know it is presumed not to exist in the future, it would certainly pose a challenge to try and represent how life is conducted and how, for instance, artifacts like the Enterprise get ordered, financed, and constructed. And if it is to be represented that things like "finance" don't exist, one wonders if any of the Trek writers or producers know little details about Earth history like when Lenin wanted to get along without money and accounting and discovered that Russia's economy was collapsing on him. Marx's prescription for an economy without the cash nexus was quickly abandoned and never revived. Nevertheless, Marx's dream and Lenin's disastrous experiment is presented as the noble and glorious future in Star Trek: First Contact, where Jean Luc Picard actually says, "Money doesn't exist in the Twenty-Fourth Century."

    So what one is left with in Star Trek is military life. Trying to soften this by including families and recreation on the Enterprise in fact makes the impression worse, since to the extent that such a life is ordinary and permanent for its members, it is all the easier to imagine that all life in the Federation is of this sort. Not just a military, but a militarism. In the show, this actually didn't work out very well. In the beginning, Star Trek: The Next Generation wanted to remind us of the daily life, children in school, etc. on board; and more than once the "battle hull" of the ship was separated from the "saucer" so that the civilian component of the crew would be safe from hostile action. This cumbersome expedient, however, was soon enough forgotten; and we later forget, as the Enterprise finds itself in desperate exchanges with hostile forces, that small children are undergoing the same battle damage that we see inflicted on the bridge--unless of course it is brought to our attention because there is a story with a special focus on a child, as with Lieutenant Worf's son. In Star Trek: First Contact, crew members are being captured and turned into Borg. Does that include the children? We never see any. Do Picard's orders to shoot any Borg include Borg who were human children? This disturbing situation is completely ignored by the movie. Star Trek, therefore, cannot maintain its fiction that military life on a major warship will be friendly to families and children.

    In the 20th Century there has been a conspicuous political ideology that combines militarism, the subordination of private economic activity to collective social purposes, and often the disparagement of traditional religious beliefs and scruples: Fascism, and not the conservative Fascism of Mussolini and Franco, who made their peace with the Church and drew some limits about some things (Franco even helped Jews escape from occupied France), but the unlimited "revolutionary," Nihilistic Fascism of Hitler, which recoiled from no crime and recognized no demands of conscience or God above the gods of the Führer and the Volk. Certainly the participants in all the forms of Star Trek, writers, staff, producers, actors, fans, etc., would be horrified, insulted, and outraged to be associated with a murderous and discredited ideology like Fascism; but I have already noted in these pages how naive philosophers and critics have thoughtlessly adopted the philosophical foundations of Fascism from people like Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger to what they think are "progressive" causes in the present day.

    This danger has come with the corruption of the idea of "progress" away from individualism, the rule of law, private property, and voluntary exchanges--in short the characteristics of capitalism and the free market--into collectivist, politicized, and ultimately totalitarian directions. Star Trek well illustrates the confusion, ignorance, and self-deception that are inherent in this process. Dreams of Utopia have turned to horror in this century so often, but the same dreams continue to be promoted just because they continue to sound good to the uninformed. As Thomas Sowell recent wrote about the determination of many to find Alger Hiss innocent of espionage, regardless of the evidence:

    Hiss is dead but the lies surrounding his case linger on. So do the attitudes that seek a cheap sense of superiority by denigrating this country and picturing some foreign hell hole as a Utopia.

    Star Trek has a Utopia to picture, or at least a world free of many of the ills perceived in the present, but it doesn't have to deal with anything so inconvenient as the experience of history. Star Trek is free to disparage business and profit without the need to explain what would replace them. Star Trek is free to disparage religious belief and ignore traditional religions without the need to address the existential mysteries and tragedies of real life in ways that have actually meant something to the vast majority of human beings. And it is particularly interesting that Star Trek is free to do all this with the convenience of assimilating everything to the forms of military life, where collective purpose and authority are taken for granted. Captain Picard does indeed end up rather like God, come to think of it.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Ravenrune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2020 @ 04:47 AM
    Irish, English, Scottish, German, French, Mi'kmaq
    Canada Canada
    Zodiac Sign
    Single adult
    maker of things
    non-corruption for the people
    Pantheism / Norse pagan / Taoism
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    337 Posts
    (a post from so long ago...but I just found it)

    Quickly , I'll just remark that at least one main reason that material wealth in Star Trek has lost importance is because of "replicator technology" being freely available. If this technology truly replicates copies of things then you can merely order the machine to create a real kg bar of gold and there it would be! Instant manipulation of "matter" at the subatomic level (I'm assuming this is how it is supposed to work) to create real gold. Because of this, no substance or object could not be created. Raw material like garbage or asteroids could be created into whatever substance you wanted. So our normal idea of wealth would be useless with such a technology. Unless this replicator technology was strictly controlled, anyone could create anything, anytime.


    The article had some ok points in there but of course when it comes to World War II and Hitler , the same old knee-jerk propaganda just appears without question (and of course, it is Hitler and National Socialism which are ultimately implied as History's biggest baddies ... not the Bolshevik Communist Stalin.)

    not the conservative Fascism of Mussolini and Franco, who made their peace with the Church and drew some limits about some things (Franco even helped Jews escape from occupied France), but the unlimited "revolutionary," Nihilistic Fascism of Hitler, which recoiled from no crime and recognized no demands of conscience or God above the gods of the Führer and the Volk.

    Does anyone even stop to ponder that perhaps everything they have been told about WWII and Hitler has been told them by the winners? (of course they don't because they fear being associated with politically-incorrectness and to be honest, they are too lazy and uninterested in challenging the mind-controlling propaganda that they have been spoon-fed all their lives). The problem is that WWII and Hitler have been portrayed during and after WWII as the complete villain (propaganda during war and then propaganda all the way to this time to keep the status quo ideas in place). So it's actually very difficult to find different information for most people and if they do, it's difficult to overcome this idea that has been fed to you endlessly for decades (in comics, in novels, in news, in school history, in History Channel, in countless Hollywood movies, in many many video games ...etc...etc - it all stems from the same biased point source "projected image" - the simplistic image of what "Nazi Germany" was and this is never questioned in the same way that when you are promoted a religion to believe, it's a sin to question it).

    Of course early Star Trek did have a couple "Nazi" episodes so just like tons of other media from before then until now, the message has always been that the "Nazis" are the big baddies of history .... the scapegoat so us "good guys" never have to look at all the terrible things our sides did in history (including mistreatment of Germany after WWI ... imagine Britain being on the losing side of WWI and the winners taking all of Britain's colonies and Scotland, Northern Ireland away and demanding huge reparations while the British economy went into hyperinflation .... heck they started a minor war over the Falkland Islands in the 80's, imagine if they gained power back after a hypothetical loss after WWI .... they'd want everything that was taken from them by force back!)

    Look at the history of Great Britain or even the United States since their army's attacks on the natives of North America up to the lie-based Spanish/American war and further into the last century (massively bombing numerous nations from the air being a specialty of the United States) and into this one with 18 years of continuous wars since the big "New Pearl Harbor" of 9/11. It's like a big gorilla attacking a bunch of kittens and everyone being told it's a fair fight and the kittens were a threat to the gorilla LOL.

    But no, we see people waving the US flag and singing anthems and having stickers on their car "support our troops". Support them as they go across the world to bomb, invade and attempt to control (but really just causing chaos and destabilization of places they don't understand well) some little nation most Americans can't even find on a globe?

    Maybe the author of this article should rethink his concepts of history and what is happening in the world now. As he and so many others can go to the newest Hollywood movie and live in relative ease, their own nation is bombing more little middle-east countries back into the stone age.

    Oddly , that was written in 2004 and the western powers (and of course with the unstated but ever-present interest and influence of Israel) are still on the warpath from even before then right up until today!


    The problem with Star Trek is the same problem with our western "democracies" . We have blinders on! We see everyone else doing terrible things and don't see what we do as terrible but as "benevolent" (bring them "peace, freedom and democracy" by bombing it to them). So-called "Patriots" will be vastly offended if you tell them the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya, Syria (etc) were based on lies (and ended up creating worse situations ... unless of course, destabilization and chaos was the original hidden agenda). They are so blinded by their own nation's propaganda that their minds get angry at the opposite idea!.

    In Star Trek, the Federation goes around with a Prime Directive of not interfering in various worlds but they always end up meddling anyway. LOL, I suppose as a show, it would be boring otherwise ... but why this Prime Directive idea if you'll just visit and meddle anyway : It's the same exact kind of "blinders" our "democratic" nations have now. They say they have a Prime Directive of non-intervention and non-influence of "lesser civilizations" but in reality, they always ended up meddling. It makes them feel good to have a "Prime Directive" and when they meddle and cause change , they convince themselves it was unavoidable or a special case which just needed to be done (sweep it under the carpet).

    So as authors such as this continually and endlessly bring up the Meme of Hitler for everything, the US and other western powers have bombed, invaded, controlled, assassinated leaders of and financially attacked a large number of nations before then and since then. It is because the winners have the power and ability to write the history and create "what is true" (in all branches of media and schooling) to tell the masses, that they can be seen as great and wonderful and the double-crushed Germany (especially the Hitler era ) can be continuously pointed at as the scapegoat and the "Greatest Evil of History" (tm) so as the western so-called democracies we continue our blind aggression across the world, we can always just continue to say : "well, we're the good guys ... the Nazis were the Bad Guys!".

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Ravenrune For This Useful Post:

Similar Threads

  1. Who Is the Best Star Trek Captain?
    By Constantinus in forum Film, TV, & Performing Arts
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Thursday, January 10th, 2019, 07:02 PM
  2. Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism
    By Aeternitas in forum Agnosticism, Atheism, & Irreligion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 15th, 2011, 02:36 PM
  3. Star Trek XI scheduled for 2008 release
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Film, TV, & Performing Arts
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 01:18 AM
  4. Finns share model for Star Trek spoof success
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Film, TV, & Performing Arts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 10th, 2006, 12:11 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts