Listen, snowflake. Star Trek has always leaned hard to port

There’s a new Star Trek series premiering tonight on CBS. Already Twitter is awash1 with critics complaining that Star Trek is no longer Star Trek, that it has turned into a propaganda vehicle for the «social justice warriors» who are pushing an anti-American, pro-globalist, diversity-loving agenda. See the IMDB reviews, too.

One has to wonder what Star Trek these people are referring to. Star Trek always pushed a social agenda of diversity and unity. Gene Roddenberry was an outspoken socialist, and fought to produce a show with a crew made up of peoples from nations around the world. The bridge crew of the original Enterprise included a Russian in the depths of the cold war.

The Federation of Planets included peoples of many different planets. It wasn’t just globalist, the vision was universalist. The first officer of the Enterprise wasn’t even from Earth. Not only that, he was mixed-race.

Do these buffoons not remember the episode Let That Be Your Last Battlefield where the people with black on the left side of their faces and the people wth white on the left side of their faces destroyed their entire civilization because they couldn’t get along? Lokai calls Kirk an «idealistic dreamer» before going back to a planet of corpses.

Or City on the Edge of Forever where Kirk falls in love with socialist peace activist Edith Keeler?

Or the episodes where Starfleet values came to loggerheads with the entrepreneurial ventures of Harry Mudd?

I could go on, but theres not much point.

I might not like the social agenda of Star Trek Discovery. I don’t know; I haven’t watched the first episode yet. There could be any number of reasons that I, as a lifelong Star Trek fan, might dislike this new series. But if I find it to be too activist, that won’t make it any less Star Trek. That will make it exactly Star Trek.