Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Into Nonsense: 4 Ways The New Star Trek Shills for Surrender in the War on Terror

If J.J. Abrams and his screenwriters had their way Obama would not have even taken out Osama bin Laden...

by
John Boot

Bio

May 17, 2013 - 7:00 am
<- Prev  Page 4 of 4   View as Single Page

4) The Big Concluding Speech.

In case you missed any of the signals scattered throughout the movie, Abrams’ writers tell you exactly what to think about the War on Terror in the closing seconds. One of the leads argues in the end that there will always be those who will wish to do us harm — but that to stop them we risk awakening evil in ourselves. Sure, and Guantanamo must be closed immediately, right, fellas? Amusing as it is to realize that Hollywood is well to the left of even Barack Obama — and that this is just the beginning of the age of disguised cinematic attacks on The One from the left — the moral equivalence argument simply won’t wash in a country that welcomes and celebrates immigrants like the Tsarnaev brothers, only to be savagely attacked in return. Sorry, Hollywood, we’re not just like them. We’re better.

<- Prev  Page 4 of 4   View as Single Page
John Boot is the pen name of a conservative writer operating under deep cover in the liberal media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
You and I saw different movies. Just like in the original Star Trek television series, Kirk represents the true American spirit. Regardless of the voices of those around him, he makes the right decisions and, often times, the necessary sacrifices to do what is best. And, through it all, he is the hero because of that. Even if they are reluctant at first, those around him eventually cede his wisdom in leadership.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I rented the first movie and sent it back after watching young Kirk crash the car. I watched bits and pieces on TV later, and hated every second. They took Roddenberry's creation, stole the important names and threw away the rest. Nothing in there was close to "canon." I'm not even a Trekkie and that movie ticked me off.

Another major reason was it was a typical modern liberal movie: lots of CGI generated violent action interspersed with sex and loud, frat boy characters. Plot? What's that? Characterization? Huh? Well, I suppose they are characters of liberal archetypes: the brash psychopath (Kirk), the tormentable dupe (Spock), the sluts (various female characters), the corporate villain (actually a working class big bad since he was a heavy machinery operator), etc.

I have no plans to see this one. This incarnation is simply the degeneration of the series that followed "Next Generation" and culminated in "Enterprise," roughly tracking the take over of modern age staff and CGI use.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think what you're talking about has the same root cause as the people who protest about Christians today while uttering not a peep about Islam. They are, at their core, cowards. They love the idea of "speaking truth to power" as long as they feel confident that power won't actually do them any harm. So they direct their ire at people they know to be restrained by law, ethics or conscience while giving a wide berth to those who would actually, you know, cut their heads off.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (81)
All Comments   (81)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Dude sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a story is just a story.

1) You're putting words into the mouth of the screen writer here, you have only part of the argument. It was not some "foriegn battlefield" it's the home planet of another interstellar empire and as is argued blasting it with photon torpedos would start a war where lots of people would die. Sorry man, we conservatives may not shirk from war but we don't go looking for it when it can (and in this case should) be avoided.

2) The theme of the fanatic, "twisted patriot", or warmonger is nothing new in movies or TV. Apocalypse Now, Iron Man, The Hulk (Ed Norton), Thor, Wolverine, X-Men, etc. to name a few. Heck I think this also came up in several episodes of Star Trek TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. Neither is Government scandal as we all well know these days. The issue here was not having ships and tech able to fight in the case of war but rather the illegal methods used to obtain that technology, and the continuing illegal acts to cover their tracks.

3) Many people use that saying and most have no clue of its origins. It's often wrong anyway because the enemy of your enemy is most often just your enemy's enemy and not your friend. This is often where the US screw up in foriegn policy, the convergance of US objectives and those of our "friends" is often fleeting and is truly exemplified by Al-Queda, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Spock was not wrong, he was correct. Did you even see the movie? The fact that things "worked out in the end" takes you back to the early scene in Pike's office and that discussion.

4) The closing speech was IMO the most garbled part of the film. "Captian's Oath"? I never got that this was an oath of any kind. It's a mission statement. Star Trek (at least TNG forward) was always about standing by its beliefs, which tend to be peaceful despite the number phaser fights and ship battles. The original was a bit more rough and tumble as I recall it, but they were never a shoot first ask questions later group.

I was more bothered by what I see as the vilification of the white male. Every movie the head bad guy is a white male. All the Iron Man films has the bad guy as a white male. The Madarin was transformed from a Chinese male to a white male. Khan was transformed from a hispanic male (the original Khan & crew were ethnically diverse) to a white male. All the Die Hards, white male bad guy. Bond, white male. Either Hollyweird believes that any other gender or ethnicity combination is too inferior and thus incapable of Super Villianhood or they are trying to vilify the white male. They do this even when the original story/version does not support a white male as the bad guy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Personally, I rather like that Chris Pine is a lousy actor because it brings back the authenticity of the original Star Trek with that other lousy actor, William Shatner.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The formal dress uniform of the Star Fleet matches well with the Nazi Renaissance look from Starship Troopers, did it not? And the hat for formal dress looked like they were trolley conductors in Bulgaria.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I didn't see the movie, but if that is Carol Marcus, she isn't a new character.

PS - It would be hard to get more left-wing than Gen "I hate Israel" Roddenberry.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Lefty-liberal gibberish in a Star Trek movie . . . I'm shocked!

Ok I'm not, but Uhuru and Spock! I thought her and Kirk had it going on?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This column is 10 pounds of bulls(^t. Star Trek is Star Trek! So what J.J. Abrams is left of center?! SO WHAT?! eneecie has a point! This film is dedicated to post-9/11 veterans! And I'm very looking forward to the return of Star Wars in 2015. It's inevitable to find some subtle leftist message in any big Hollywood movie! Get a life! I'm going to see this film! And Star Wars Episode VII too!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'll see it if I have time this weekend, if necessary.

Might also see Star Wars Episode VII as well. As long as they don't do any take thats against America and Christianity, or try to promote our enemies like Episode VI did via the whole Ewoks = Viet Cong thing, I'll handle it. I'm not trusting of agendas, especially seeing how several of my classes did push agendas that I disagreed with.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Okay, this is where conservatives loose credibility when talking about the culture. I am a firm believer that art is about the communication of ideas and that you cannot judge a piece of art in a vacuum. Art doesn't mean what you think it means, it means what the creator thinks it means. Which means you have to look at what the people who wrote and directed it meant, not the stupid bubble headed actors they got to play the parts say it meant.

Did anyone stay for the credits? Did you miss the big dedication at the end of the film?

THIS FILM IS DEDICATED TO OUR POST-9/11 VETERANS
WITH GRATITUDE FOR THEIR INSPIRED SERVICE ABROAD
AND CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AT HOME.

Are you aware there were four military vets who did a cameo in the film?

It does not matter what the actors think--look at the writers, producers, and directors say or what they have done in the past. The writers seem to very apolitical and bubble gum entertainment types. In fact, one of the writer/producers is the child of a Cuban refugee. J.J. Abrams is a democrat but none of his films have any overt political themes. He has also colloborated with Jerry Bruckheimer who is an outspoken libertarian.



Yes, you can find liberal cliches in the movie, but as Breitbart used to say liberalism is the default setting for the nonthinking person.

Believe me I am very much for seeing the hidden agendas of those making movies, but I don't want to people to stop listening to me and other conservatives because we are seeing boogiemen where there are none.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It means what they think it menas.

It does NOT mean what they say it means.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It seems to me like the "big dedication" is just the same old liberal game of qualifying their position with a meaningless "hate the war but love the troops" statement tacked on as an afterthought. If anything, the presence of the "dedication" serves to prove the point.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Did it occur to you that the dedication was an empty gesture, basically a lie? If Charles Manson starts saying he did nothing wrong do we have no choice to believe he didn't order his followers to murder innocent people if he wears an American flag on his prison uniform? How easily some people are led, I guess that's why liberalism is so pervasive, it requires no intelligence, just obedience. "Oliver Stone says Cuba is great, not sure why he doesn't move there or why Cubans risk their lives on homemade rafts to get to Florida, and it doesn't occur to me that Castro showed Stone a model hospital, and not a typical one, and since Cuba has a history of imprisoning desitents there is no reason not to believe all the smiling faces. Yup, Stone sure is perceptive and not a useful idiot."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, he is going to a lot of trouble for an empty lie. He is using the film to promote the Mission Continues organization for veterans: http://missioncontinues.org/news/latest-news/news-detail/2013/05/15/star-trek-partnership-rallies-support-for-post-9-11-veterans

Yes, I agree that people are easily led. But liberals are the only ones who are mindless, obviously. Just because someone is a democrat doesn't mean they are anti-American. I'm sure they are tired of so-called conservatives looking for subversive themes in their movies, just as conservatives are tired of liberals trying to turn everything they say into something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Try applying logic and reason to how you watch films, read literature, and interpret the news. Trying to figure out what a person is trying to communicate should be more akin to detective work or what used to be called journalism, rather than a Rorschach test where you project your own feelings onto something and declare that to be the true meaning.

I don't think J. J. Abrams is a closet conservative. He is obviously a Hollywood democrat. But that doesn't mean he and the other writers and producers are flaming fascist liberals like Oliver Stone.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Maybe there is genuine paranoia regarding subversive leftist aspects in films, but considering how stuff like the Matrix trilogy managed to influence kids into applying marxist ideology, and how teachers are taking kids to marxist propaganda trash that's known as the film adaptation of V for Vendetta, can you really blame us for having borderline paranoid thoughts about leftist indoctrination, blatant or subtle, in these films today? Stalin himself specifically targeted Hollywood for conqueration not through arms, but through plants since he saw it as useful. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Matrix Trilogy" had already ruined my capacity to be loyal to God in any way except total terror of him, and the latter franchise was actually advertized by even Christian groups as being pro-Christian with the first entry, at least. I'm also feeling very paranoid about being brainwashed by education, because I've sat through several brainwashing lectures on anti-Christian, even anti-American rhetoric, whether subtle or extremely blatant. Don't believe me? Just look up Thomas Anderson, Matthew Dolloff, Heather Lucas, Waylon Smith, Richard Palmer, Andrew Sullivan, etc., etc. Aside from Sullivan (which was high school) I have tapes on all my teachers since Fall 2010, and I'm not afraid to upload them if needs be. The brainwashing was so great that I thought that by being sovereign, God was evil, because they referred to Queen Elizabeth and King Henry the Eighth as sovereign and she did evil acts. Heck, Goebbels even intended to do subtle propaganda against Jews with one of his films, yet Hitler ruined it by making sure the anti-Jew propaganda was blatant with rats being used, causing the German people to become disgusted. Heck, Occupy Wall Street in part was the result of both the brainwashing in our institutions and entertainment. Sorry, but in order for me to not be paranoid, I would have to let myself be brainwashed, which is something I have no intention of doing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Of course there is leftist propaganda in films. And that's exactly why I am frustrated that conservatives are unable to see it and/or effectively argue against it.

The person who wrote this article obviously went into the movie expecting to see anti-American themes and as a result he really didn't pay attention to the movie. He saw what he wanted to see. This makes it very easy for someone to say, as they have in the comments, that he must have seen a different movie than they did and stop listening to anything else he has to say. If you do that with your friends, the next time you try to talk about the obvious liberal bullying in a movie such as The Muppets, they will just laugh at you and move on. You need to clearly point out the reasons for your argument, based not just on the movie, but either statements by the writers or directors or by a pattern of the films they make. (I mean, you don't need to find a quote from Oliver Stone to prove where he is coming from—his IMDb page tells the story all by itself).

In order to reach the heart and soul of our country we all need to have a clear understanding of what we believe and why we believe it. We need to make the moral case for conservatism. We also need to look for truth in everything, even a silly movie like Star Trek. If you want to see something positive about this film, look how they changed the ultimate sacrifice made at the end of the film. It changed from the collectivist view of “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one,” to the individualistic view of sacrificing one’s life to save those he loves.

As lovers of liberty, be we conservatives or libertarians, we need to use Spock’s reason and logic tempered by Captain Kirk’s gut instincts to fight in the arena of ideas. Collectivism in all its forms is evil, but is it also very seductive. We need to expose the ugly truth about the left, but you can’t do it by chasing phantoms.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Maybe that is the case, but whether John Boot was just projecting or not, comments made by some of the staff certainly don't help matters much either. And I did try to speak out against the brainwashing in my film class a few times, he shut me up and spouted falsehoods (for instance, when he claimed that the Domino Theory was false, I tried to mention that it was actually true because after we were withdrawn from Vietnam and the country reunited, they also tried to conquer Laos and Cambodia, among other places, he told me that we conquered those places as well, and implied we did it for Tin and other natural resources. I have the tapes).

Either way, I'm doubtful individualism is completely good and collectivism is completely bad. For instance, Anarchism is quite individualistic (probably the most extreme form out there), yet it was still very much left wing and extremely evil. I mean, the Joker from The Dark Knight was obviously an anarchist, yet you can also tell at the exact same that he was more left-wing in his ideologies. Heck, the French Revolution was quite anarchistic and trying to desecrate all laws and any authority, yet they still tried to exterminate Christians, all because they tried to follow through with Rousseau's claim that humanity was "in chains" regarding Catholicism/Christianity's moral ethic, and doing absolute freedom, and heck, was pretty much the progenitor of the left.

Besides, when I think of individualism or free will, I usually think of "every man for himself" and narcissism, and a world where everyone butchers each other because they are different from each individual self until at best only one person survives. The same type of thing used by the Days of Rage (that disgusting riot in Chicago, which also advocated killing parents so you could "bring the Revolution home"), the whole horrifying talks of "revolution" during the 1960s, Joker's actions in The Dark Knight, and all of that.

God himself sought collectivism anyways, having us be subject to his rule alone. He wouldn't have supplied us with laws if he didn't want that. If he truly wanted us to be genuinely free, he would have ensured we lived lawlessly and in anarchistic chaos, a nightmarish existence if you think about it. I also don't trust freedom. The French Revolution also preached freedom, and you can pretty much guess what resulted from that freedom bloodbath.

I'm conservative, for christianity, and willing to ensure a world completely dominated by God himself, to the extent that people's free wills are exterminated and we are all robots under God's command. At least it's better than the type of "Freedom" that was preached in Reloaded (like that whole orgy scene, and the heroes butchering billions of lives). I suspect now that the Matrix Trilogy and the Wachowskis were marxist, and I found one article about it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1408419/posts Funny how they originated from Poland, you'd think that they'd at least be aware of the atrocities that occurred in the country under Marxism, both under Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I meant to say, "liberals are NOT the only ones who are mindless."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Hmm, good point.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, that message does give me some hope for it being pro-Bush and pro-War on Terror. Maybe there's some hope about Star Wars being given pro-American messages now, genuine pro-American messages, not anti-American messages disguised as pro-American messages like what George Lucas frequently did in the Original Trilogy. Hope they post a copy of the script soon so I can review it and determine whether Pegg and Cumberpatch were honest or lying about the script being filled with anti-Bush statements.

Then again, George Lucas also led us to believe that the Star Wars films initially were anti-Communist, yet he then claimed he was inspired to base the Ewoks on the Viet Cong and the Empire as America in Return of the Jedi, so its hard for me to trust people's messages.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm not saying that there are pro-Bush or pro-war on terror messages in Star Trek. I'm just saying that I do not think there were any real political messages in this film and certainly not anti-Bush messages. It would be easier to say that this was a movie bashing Obama's drone policy than an anti-conservative message. I don't put much stock in the remarks of Cumberpatch and Pegg. These two British actors who are just British subjects (i.e. surfs) who only know the world through their state controlled media and they like to say stupid stuff because they think makes them seem more important than they really are.

As for what George Lucas has said about the hidden messages in his movies--I don't believe a word that man says. He claims he had the whole story of Darth Vader worked out before the first movie. Yeah, right. From what I understand, when they initially finished principle filming of the orginal Star Wars, it was a complete bunch of garbage. They refilmed a couple of scenes but mainly it was Lucas' ex-wife and the other editors who were able to pull off a miracle and put together the wonderful film we all love. Since Lucas hasn't really been able to repeat that magic, I am really begining to think that he really wasn't that responsible he was for the first film. He just put together a good team and then took all the credit.

Now, there are some liberal filmmakers who are clever enough to get their leftist messages in without people noticing, but most, especially those doing sci-fi or action movies, are too dumb to do it with any subtlety. They hit you over the head with it like Avatar or Ironman 2.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yeah, I agree with that, though I still wish that they at least had the decency to state it was their own opinions, or at least not word it in such a way that indicated that it was stated explicitly in the script. If I were to place my faith in any Briton regarding true intelligence, Emma Watson (Hermoine Granger) seems to have my vote. At least she tries to do her research on events she has to portray when doing a role, plus she seemed interested in getting a College Education after being finished with the Harry Potter films (Brown University, I heard, or was it Princeton, not sure right now). The only instance of stupidity that I'm familiar with that she might have done was the Earth Day incident (let's just say she decided to have her body relive her zeroth birthday in a sense)

And yeah, Lucas was pretty much a bonehead. I remember him acting as though Greedo actually shot first from the start, but the fans were kidding themselves regarding Solo (nice going biting the hands of the people who gave you your cash, Lucas!), and this was DESPITE some of the earlier rough drafts of the script indicating that Han did indeed shoot first. I only like Jar-Jar slightly better than the Ewoks, and that's only because AFAIK, Jar-Jar at least wasn't (officially, at least) created to beatify an evil group of people. Other than possibly his past as a San Franciscan in the 1960s (if this is how literally everyone in that area actually behaved during his time, may God put us all out of our misery), I cannot imagine the reason why George Lucas would have felt the Viet Cong were good guys, or that we were the Galactic Empire. Just despicable and stupid. And yeah, he was most likely a fraud as well. And, honestly, moral absolutism is the way of the Sith? Great Lucas, Anakin was right, it IS the Jedi who are evil (Moral relativism is a really evil ideology often perpetrated by nihilistic people, including the Soviets and other groups. It's only resulted in constant death and despair). I'm also not too keen on his pushing democracy. Democracy was also the ideal in the French Revolution, and look at the debauchery and horror unleashed from that.

And I'm definitely aware about Avatar, but I wasn't sure about left-wing politics in Ironman 2. I can probably see it in Ironman 3, though (especially the climax. Sigh, Disney, why didn't you just try to do the film like the Avengers and not make sucker punches?). Well, I'll see about seeing Into Darkness, although that will probably have to be a weekend expenditure if I do go. I've got classes from 6:00-8:30 all summer during the weekdays (have to if I'm going to graduate with an American Studies Major by May 2014 to get out of there ASAP. Would have gone with a STEM, but the previous times I attempted to do Science and Math courses, it usually resulted in me barely passing due to not understanding the teacher. I mean, once I get the material, I'm extremely good at the subject, but I don't want to take a gamble at trying to get a teacher who explains things in a way I understand, as I think its going to be a minimal chance of finding one).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bad news, guys: We now have Simon Pegg (the current "Scotty") joining Cumberpatch in claiming the film was taking pot-shots on President Bush and his policies. I remember that the British had a means of discerning whether an event was true or not if there were two or more eyewitnesses giving the same account. This doesn't sound very good, as this likely means it is actually Bush bashing if we go by that method of defining truth.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Who cares what Cumberpatch says? He didn't write the script. He may be very good at pretending to be a smart guy, but really he's not a real genius, he just plays one on TV.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
He may not have written the script, but from the way he was talking it seemed as though it actually was in the script. SNL aside (which even that is getting closer to being scripted), most actors are required to read from a script at least to some degree. I still feel that if it was only his own interpretation, devoid of the script, he would have made it clear that it was his own interpretation WITHOUT claiming it was in the script. And besides, its not just Cumberpatch, its also Pegg.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You and I saw different movies. Just like in the original Star Trek television series, Kirk represents the true American spirit. Regardless of the voices of those around him, he makes the right decisions and, often times, the necessary sacrifices to do what is best. And, through it all, he is the hero because of that. Even if they are reluctant at first, those around him eventually cede his wisdom in leadership.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You mean there are still no tribbles?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All