Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Photography / Hobbyist Member Skargill25/Male/United Kingdom Groups :iconsocialist-anarchists: Socialist-Anarchists
Educate, Agitate, Organize
Recent Activity
Deviant for 2 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 354 Deviations 1,039 Comments 9,850 Pageviews

Newest Deviations



Communism appears to have a very serious and long standing problem despite having a very basic definition, -`A society without classes and states organised by Communes (hence the name Communism)`- and having adherents all over the world ensuring even the basics are translated into most languages, time and again most people including its alleged adherents don't seem to grasp what it actually is, leading to all sorts of strange conclusions and antics.

This is nothing new or unique mind, quite a few people describe themselves as Capitalist despite not owning any actual Capital.

But oddly enough the internet age which has made access to information much easier and quicker has made this strange phenomenon even worse. For example let's take a look at the comments for this deviation it appears to have stimulated quite a heated debate amongst some so called Comrades. One in particular stood out and no its not the bible quoting fellow -though he counts as an example- no deviant I'd like to have a look at here is Schrodinger-Excidium AKA Schroddie. Schroddie's the one with the grinning Horse avatar on the 2nd page.

Now before I continue a little disclaimer might be in order, this isn't a personal attack I'm merely using here publicly stated views as an example because they've done the impossible and covered nearly every subject and attitude that seems to plague this new generation of "Revolutionaries". I'm not interested in gossip or speculation about her in anyway, her profile says she's a 17 year old girl from Germany and I believe here (it actually explains a few things, but more on that later).

So here we go, oh and for context these comments were part of a discussion with another critical user. mclj10

1st comment:

"where I am living, communists beat gays and participates in torchlight processions against gays."

Now this is interesting in that I could find no verification, I've searched online, I've asked Schroddie for confirmation and she has yet to respond, I've even asked friends in Germany who are active in the Labour movement if anything like this has happened, and they haven't been able to find anything either. So either she's living somewhere else or making stuff up.

But leaving that aside its still quite clear that she's a homophobe an at least indifferent to violence against those she disapproves of.

2nd Comment:

`Homosexuality is bad. Homosexuality injures the fabric of society(1), especially children. Homosexuality is anti procreation(2).
Homophobia is good. Homosexuality does not offer the stability of a traditional family(3). My grandfather was a communist and from Ministry of State Security of the GDR "Stasi". His job has been arresting gays and criminals(4). Children need the stability of a traditional family. Communists should to have more children(5) - future warriors Red ArmyFlag Of Soviet Union.`

Where do I start?

1:If you're worried about "the fabric of society" then you can't be a Revolutionary since the whole point of Revolution is to, well tear up the fabric of society and build a new one in its place.
2:Funnily enough one of the major reasons homosexuals in most countries wish to obtain marital status is so they can be eligible for things like IVF, the idea that homosexual couples are a threat to the birth rate is a rather old idea that was quite popular in Imperial Germany though. So unless Schroddie subscribes to Ferdinand Lassalle's concept of the `Socialist Kaiser` its hard to see the Communist connection.
3:I guess Schroddie has never read Engels, I'm also curious what her views on orphans are.
4: A fun little fact since the DDR had decriminalised homosexuality, -making it one of the first nations to do so- Stasi harassment of homosexuals was mainly to build up a network of informants, or discredit party members. Another fun little fact is that this harassment often involved the use of a "Romeo" an attractive male Stasi agent who would come on to suspected gays.  
5: Again this is exactly the same argument that Conservative German Imperialists used with a reference to the colour Rot thrown in.  

3rd Comment:

`Homosexuality is Jewish invention(1). Jews invented homosexuality order to destroy white people and white communists(2).
>When leftists arrange torchlight processions is good.
>When nationalists arrange torchlight processions is bad.
>When arrange gay parade is bad.
In the north-eastern Germany, Dresden, Berlin and other cities and villages - young people, anti-nazi demonstrators, leftists and communists organize torchlight processions against the government, nationalists and other enemies. This is the new tradition leftists.(3)
Every year I take part in torchlight procession in the center of my city. It looks very beautiful ! You feel like you are in heaven there - the healing energy is sooo powerful! In your city leftists and communists organize  anti-nazi torchlight processions?`

1: Yes you read that correctly, a "communist" believes in a Jewish plot, this particular Jewish plot is (somehow) an attack on the "white race" whatever the hell she means by that. It's also curious how someone can be a "Communist" and not aware of the often spouted calumny that Communism, indeed all forms of revolutionary movement are a Jewish plot, e.g. Karl Marx, Trotsky, Emma Goldman, Alex Berkman etc.
2: You know strangely enough this idea also has a long history in Germany. In the 17th Century the German legalist Benedict Carpzow argued that same sex sexual relations and sex with Jews (by non Jews) should fall under the category of Sodomy-bestiality because he viewed Jews as animals. Much later on in the late 1800's the German homosexual reform movement was headed by a man called Magnus Hirschfield a Jewish homosexual. When the Nazi's arrived on the scene they were very keen to point out the connection. So first we had the Kaiser now we have Der Fuhrer, clearly the Revolution is in save hands.
3: Can't be a very effective tradition if they allow people with views like Schroddie to take part. But then that's always been the flaw in `Anti-Fascism` its such a broad term that it often includes groups it should be confronting.

Her last comment was just a bunch of video links to some demonstrations so it's not really worth looking at.

So we have an alleged Communist promoting family values, the preservation of the "white race" and decrying Jewish plots. Ah but its okay though because she likes marching through German cities with a torch.

After reading Schroddie's comments I checked out her profile I see she recently made a journal about leaving. It makes for interesting reading since it explains (sort of) her attraction to Communism.

`Unfortunately, I failed to become a «true» communist, probably because I never was a communist.`

Ah well problem solved right? Not quite here's how it continues.

`I liked communism because the Communists against the Muslims, gays, lesbians(1), capitalists, oligarchs and other subhumans(2). I have always had problems with Muslims. I hate them.`

1: No they're not they really aren't, the Communist opposition to religion is about the way Religious groups organise in society. Karl Marx's famous description of religion as "the Opiate of the masses" was a criticism of the church using the promise of a paradise in the next world to keep the downtrodden content. It applies to all religions equally. The only works by Communists that single out Islam that I know are by ex and practising Muslim Communists describing the society they live in.
2: Now there's a term you won't find in circulating in party bulletins.

But now here she's disavowed here supposed Communism, which is good, unfortunately it leaves open the very important question of just how such a person would come to identify with Communism when they have so much baggage. She even goes on to state a new found interest in Phrenology a scientific field discredit over a hundred years ago.

`I like to measure the head or skull of different people. And then speak: «…This man of the Nordic race, or this person Alpine race…».`

Clearly this embarrassment needs to be addressed.
There was a time not long ago, when we marched in line
To usher in the glorious new time,
When we strived to free every slave and serf
In every corner of this rotten earth,
It mattered not who called the shot
So long as they weren’t a dirty Trot.

But things are no longer sweet
We’ve drunk deep from the well of defeat,
Now there’s an awful rattle
And the redrawing of the lines of battle,
Once there was the workers and the Bourgeoisie
Now its Nationalists and Conspiracists and the damn Nazi.

Not everything’s changed though
Thousands worship Mao, Hoxha and even Uncle Joe,
Though I wonder how they can sleep
With the company they keep,
It seems that now that the Comrades are few
Some have started to blame the Jew.

It seems acquainting the Fascist with the pavement
Is a forgotten statement,
Others still hate the modern Boxwallah
They’ll gladly line up behind the Ayatollah,
Others yet so blinded in their hatred of the Yank
Will champion the Russian tank.
Still others have abandoned the dream of workers bliss
For the promise of legalised Cannabis
Others have chucked in female liberation
To champion female corporate exploitation
And some once happy to embrace the black militant
Will gladly line up to decry the immigrant

And still yet another tiny section
Is knee-deep in persecution
They dearly wish they could forever miss
The first time they witnessed a same sex kiss
And have forgotten Workers Unite!
To ally with the religious right

And our reinforcements! Like this child
Whose `socialism` is extremely mild,
Who thinks class war means acting out in school
And only signed up because they think Red Stars are cool,
Surely the Capitalists must tremble with fear
With the era of progressive taxation so very near.

Yes something indeed has gone awry
Surely we must soon bid goodbye
To the Marxist dream of Workers unity
Surely Something has Gone Awry?
A piece of criticism based on my observations of the modern day Communist movement. The second to last stanza is based heavily on a younger me, though I know my worst antics at the time are actually very common amongst teenage "Revolutionaries".

My inspiration comes from the Joe Glazer song "Something has gone awry" an similar criticism of the Communist movement of the 60's/70's.
Modern Habitual Disenchantment or MHD is a collection of poems by Joshua Deeds AKA DurtyDeeds93, it’s a collection of free verse, with at least one entry embrace qualifying as short prose.  It’s on Googleplay and priced at $1. The poems are broken down into three collections connected loosely by subject matter. Those collections are Pain, Disillusioned and Anger. There are common themes and language in all three but each has a different target and so offers some variety.


The poems collected under pain are appropriately painful to read, I mean that in a good way.  They share a narrative of a relationship breakdown -possibly more than one- from the point of view of one of the survivors, and it does feel like the character (possibly the author, the details and vivid language seem to be coming from a personal place) is surviving a traumatic episode. The tone is bitter and the language vulgar and angry.
I don’t usually care for this sort of poetry but the pace and the fact that Deeds manages to resist the temptation to use fancy `romantic` words and sticks to language a normal human being would use in this situation helped draw me in. Deeds also has a gift for creating images with his words, I was constantly picturing a dark mostly empty home covered in wrappers and used comic books with knocked over picture frames.

“Your morality is a cover for something deeper, darker and sinister.
Your generosity is tainted with emotional baggage, despair and hate.
Cracks are showing.”


Disillusioned is a shorter section and a bit different. It retains the bitterness but targets American society, or more accurately what American society is alleged to be. Attacks on Patriotism, war, politicians and the callous attitudes to the poor and downtrodden all feature prominently. Read together Disillusioned tells the story of a man learning his beliefs are myths and the reality is a lot uglier then he imagined.

“We have created something ugly
A War based Republic,
A 21st Century Weimar.”

A loss of innocence that leads us to


Subject wise anger is a mix of the previous too sections, though the title is appropriate. Individual poems expose a rage and frustration within that depending on the poem is either directed at elements of society or a person they were once very close too. And a reiteration of that characters determination to survive and get through these events and possible extract some payback. It’s a confused and disjointed section, but Anger is a confusing and disjointed emotion flicking through targets and responses as and when they present themselves.

“I have a fascination with the dangerous
Knives, Swords and Modern Cavalry.
I persist. I study, I become, I am.”

Overall I endured MHD I think most who give it a chance will too, some of the language in some of the poems may be a bit too crude and the imagery a bit too violent for some though. If you’re the type of person who believes poetry should be about beauty and warmth I’d advise looking elsewhere there’s not much warmth and beauty to be found here.
Modern Habitual Disenchantment: A Review
A review of a collection of poetry and my first Googleplay purchase. I suppose its only fair to mention that I and the author do get along quite well but since I still had to pay for this I don't think that qualifies as a conflict of interest.

Oh and if you find yourself curious but hesitant then why not checkout Deeds collection to see if you like his style?…

Link to the collection itself…
"I believe that the Captain feels that Star Fleet's mission has always been one of peace" Mr Spock

So as I'm sure everyone with an internet connection is aware Leonard Nimoy passed away recently. Naturally as a Star Trek fan I was saddened by the news and there were plenty of people sharing my grief.

Not everyone felt the same way of course and that's fan the man couldn't possibly have made the same impact on everyone's lives. One contrary response though seems to have struck quite a raw nerve with some was the blog post of Matthew Continetti the editor of the Washington Free Beacon. I've never heard of either before but the post was widely linked to amongst Trekkies, usually to universal derision.

And I can see why, Mr Continetti claims to be a fan of Star Trek and he can cite many episodes and films from Star Trek but like the guy who claimed Star Trek was Communist I don't believe Mr Continetti paid much attention.

Its not just that we interpret the character of Spock differently, he makes claims that are false and deliberately twists others to make a point.

Take this early paragraph as an example:

Not only do Spock’s peacenik inclinations routinely land the Enterprise and the Federation[1] into trouble, his “logic” and “level head” mask an arrogant emotional basket case. Unlike the superhuman android Data[2], a loyal officer whose deepest longing is to be human, Spock spends most of his life as a freelancing diplomat[3] eager to negotiate with the worst enemies of Starfleet. He’s the opposite of a role model: a cautionary tale.

1: Spock's "Peacenik" inclinations are reflective of Federation society, Kirk and McCoy and every other member of the Federation who isn't shown to be crazy or under alien control behaves in much the same way. Spock's peaceful overtures are often dictated by the rules of the Federation. If Continetti claimed to not like Star Trek at all this would be fine but he praises many other characters who behave the same.
2: Case in point Data, unless Mr Continnetti got confused with Data's evil brother Lore it is simply a gross inconsistency to criticise Spock but praise Data.
3: This is simply false Spock spent most of his life in Star Fleet before becoming a diplomat for the Federation, he broke off official ties with the Federation late in life (more on this from both of us later).

He also seems to have written his piece purely as platform to bash Obama which seems a rather odd thing to do. From the opening

“I loved Spock,” said President Obama, reacting to the death of actor Leonard Nimoy. Why? Because Spock reminds him of himself. The galaxy’s most famous Vulcan, the president wrote, was “Cool, logical, big-eared, and level headed, the center of Star Trek’s optimistic, inclusive vision of humanity’s future.” Just like you know whom.

It continues on like this till the end.

Spock cares only for himself. He returns to the Enterprise in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) only because he believes the superior intelligence of V’ger might help him finally purge all human elements from his soul. True, he sacrifices himself for the good of the ship in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982)[1], but Spock’s renunciation of self is not as total as we are led to believe. He knows he has a fallback position[2]. He knocks out McCoy and—without the doctor’s consent—transfers part of his consciousness to his old friend.

1: He cares only about himself, except for the time he didn't.
2: Actually no he doesn't, this `fallback` relies on something he couldn't possibly have known about at the time. What Spock was actually trying to do was fulfil a Vulcan burial ritual.

It also conveniently leaves out important plot details and context in order make the case against Spock more damming. Though curiously many of the things brought up don't actually involve Spock at all and are about the actions of other characters in relation to Spock.

The crew then spends the following two movies breaking countless regulations to bring Spock back to life. They steal the Enterprise, illegally pilot it out of Space Dock, trespass on the Genesis planet, blow up the Enterprise, hijack a bird-of-prey and kill its entire crew[1], take the stolen Klingon vessel to Vulcan, and return to Earth despite a travel ban imposed by the president of the Federation at the beginning of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986). Illustrating the absurdly liberal future envisioned by Gene Rodenberry, where there is no money or human want or, apparently, rule of law, despite all of these crimes Kirk and Spock and company are rewarded with a brand new ship at the end of the fourth film[2].

1: Said Klingons were planning on harnessing a device that could destroy all life on planets, they also attacked the Enterprise, destroyed a scientific vessel and murdered Kirk's son, and they attacked the Enterprise first. Also isn't hypocritical to criticise something for being peace loving, and then two paragraphs later condemn them for fighting back?
2: Again misleading, the charges against the crew were dropped because they had saved earth from destruction.

Spock is the reason Sybok captures this just-off-the-assembly-line Enterprise in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) and comes very close to delivering it to an insane, frightening god entity that sounds like Orson Welles[1]. Most damning to his reputation, however, has got to be the mess Spock creates in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)[2]. Unbeknownst to his best friend, Spock has taken up secret negotiations with the Federation’s mortal enemy, the Klingon Empire[3], to dismantle the neutral zone and end the military dimension of Starfleet. Then Spock decides the best person to accompany the Klingon high chancellor to a galactic peace conference is Kirk, whom the Klingon’s despise (in the words of the great John Schuck: “There shall be no peace as long as Kirk lives!”) and who hates them in return. What a brilliant idea[4].

1: Not quite Sybok already gotten aboard with his followers, Spock refused to shoot an unarmed man (whose his half-brother). Spock also redeems himself by vanquishing the evil God entity.
2: Funny considering that in Star Trek this is said to be his greatest achievement.
3: Indeed, he did so as special envoy to the Federation Council, given the sensitive nature of the talks it was kept secret as are all high level negotiations. And why would he or why should he tell Kirk about his work when there was no reason too?
4: Er, yeah it actually was a brilliant idea, since it worked. This sort of thing happens all the time in the real world too, they even directly referenced Nixon's overtures to Mao Ze Dong, "Only Nixon could go to China" as an example.

To quote Tuvok "Spock's suggestion, so controversial at first, proved to be the cornerstone of peace."

Furthermore, Spock volunteers Kirk for the job without the captain’s permission[1]. His decision thoughtlessly plays into the hands of the interstellar conspiracy to foment war between the Federation and the Klingons[2], because the plot’s leaders see Kirk as the perfect fall guy for the assassination of Chancellor Gorkon[3].

1: Kirk is in Star Fleet, AKA the space Navy, being volunteered for things without giving your conent first is how the military works.
2: ???? How could he think about something he didn't know about. You might as well say JFK thoughtlessly played into Lee Harvey Oswald's hands when he picked Dallas to go on tour.
3: So? The plot was going to go ahead anyway, the plotters didn't make it look like Kirk personally murdered the Chancellor they made it look like the Enterprise fired on the Klingon ship, and had two plotters beam aboard and kill him. They clearly had the capability to do both no matter which ship was assigned to the job.

Spock’s ethnocentrism, combined with “illogical” romantic attraction, leads him to promote one of the conspirators, Lieutenant Valeris, to a bridge position wherefrom she manipulates the investigation into Gorkon’s death, conceals evidence, and murders two co-conspirators. Some judge of character, that Spock.[1]

1: ??? The whole point of a conspiracy is that its hidden, and so you can't have one if the conspirators themselves can't hide there agenda. You can't have a conspiracy plot if the characters aren't fooled at least in the beginning. Notice how Continetti doesn't cite an example of behaviour of Valeris that should have tipped Spock off to this plot he knows nothing about. How would you possibly pick up on a co-workers plot to murder someone anyway? This is just gratuitous.

Then, when Kirk surrenders himself to General Chang, Spock plants a ridiculously conspicuous Viridian Patch on Kirk’s shoulder so he can trace the captain’s whereabouts. But he has no need to track Kirk because the captain’s trial is broadcast across the quadrant and the Klingon judge says specifically where Kirk and McCoy will be imprisoned[1].

1: And Spock would know of this ahead of time how? Seems like a complaint about a precaution that wasn't necessary.

A routine planetary scan of Rura Penthe would have alerted the Enterprise the moment Kirk emerged from the energy shield[1]. Was Spock hoping the Klingons would see the patch and murder him and McCoy for attempting to escape? We’ll never know[2].

1: Would it? Entire episodes have revolved around atmospheric interference preventing accurate scanning.
2: ??? Okay I hope this was a joke, I don't think it is because the tone is so similar to every other point made. Why would Spock want Kirk dead? This accusation isn't even consistent with the naive peacenik Spock is constantly depicted as. And how would planting a tracker on Kirk's back lead to Klingons murdering him anyway? Wouldn't they just remove the tracker?

If you haven't seen Star Trek Six: The Undiscovered Country, then here's how it ends, the plotters are all exposed and defeated. This means the peace treaty is signed by the Klingons and the Federation, the treaty lasts for many years and we see in the Next Generation that the Klingons have moved from implacable foes of the Federation to an occasional ally. Relations between the two powers have grown so much that they have officer exchange programs. Relations were so close that a third power the Romulans felt they had to break the two apart and on several occasions tried to engineer a coup, once leading to a civil war within the Klingon Empire.

Kirk eventually figures out the murder mystery and once again saves civilization[1]. But Spock’s colossal blunder[2] does not stop him from disappearing from the Federation decades later and turning up on Romulus[3], where he begins unauthorized negotiations with yet another illiberal adversary of the Federation[4]. This time he has befriended Romulan Senator Pardek, with whom he hopes to arrange for the unification of the Vulcan and Romulan peoples.
   But of course Pardek is playing Spock for a fool[5]. Reunification is a guise for an audacious Romulan invasion of Vulcan that draws inspiration from the Soviet taking of Iceland in Red Storm Rising (1986)[6]. It is only because the Enterprise-D has been sent to the neutral zone, and Captain Picard and Lieutenant Commander Data have been dispatched to Romulus to locate and secure Spock, that the plot against the Federation is revealed before it’s too late[7].

1: He saves civilisation by getting both sides to agree to the peace treaty.
2: A blunder so massive it leads to a lasting peace between two embittered enemies.
3: Apart from the presence of Spock and a power hostile to the Federation the two aren't really equivalent.
4: Actually he doesn't, he goes to Romulus to teach dissidents about the Vulcan way of life, he hopes these teachings will help bridge the divide between the Romulans and the Vulcans and lead to a more peaceful galaxy. He doesn't directly negotiate with the Romulan government, Senator Pardek is posing as a reformer and works with Spock. Its Pardek whom pushes Spock to talk to other Romulan officials.
5: It's almost as if spies are sneaky and two faced. Also Spock sees through Pardek eventually just not in time to prevent his capture.
6: I'm afraid I couldn't verify this, I'd be interested to know if there is information that this book was an inspiration. Claiming peaceful intent to cover an invasion is hardly unique though.
7: Indeed how dare Spock a man who lives in a cave conversing with Romulan students not know that the Tal Shiar a secretive organisation of spies and assassins were using him to further a plot he had no contact with until the final act of the episode?

To further underscore the pettiness of the complaint that Spock can't see through a Romulan plot I bring up an earlier Next Generation episode that's very similar. Series 3's The a href="…">Defector, which is about well a defector. This defector turns out to be a senior Romulan Admiral. The Admiral defects to the Federation because he learns of a plan to launch an invasion of the Federation, the Admiral believes the conflict would devastate Romulas, hence his defection to prevent the war from starting. However it turns out to have been a sort of loyalty test, the invasion plans were fake and the Admiral was supposed to come across them. So if a Romulan Admiral with many years of experience with Romlan intelligence and deceit couldn't see through a scheme cooked up by his fellow officers is it really surprising that Spock was also fooled when he mostly interacted with Romulan youths?

I also find it noteworthy that Commander Sela and Proconsul Neral believe there is a chance that Spock will actively cooperate with their plan[1]—evidence that the ambassador’s loyalties aren’t clear even to the Romulans[2]. What’s more, despite inadvertently starting yet another war,[3] Spock insists he remain on the home world of the most aggressive and conniving galactic power.[4] In a massive (but unusual) lapse in judgment[sic], Picard agrees.

1: I've re watched both part one and two of reunification, I believe the scene mentioned takes place at 33:55 of part two. I have to say that scene reads more like they think Spock may cooperate due to his captivity aka Coercion, rather then divided loyalties. They also threaten to kill him after he says no the first time. He continues to refuse afterwards.
2: The fact they've already prepared an elaborate back up suggests they actually were sure that he'd refuse.
3: This simply isn't true, there is no war as a result of the events of Unification.
4: We seem to have yet another contradiction, if the Romulan Empire is such a threat then surely Spock remaining behind to promote a subversive movement whose goal is peaceful coexistence and reconciliation is a good thing. Either the movement will spread and triumph bringing about peace and stability, or it won't in which case the Romulan military and intelligence service still have to devote considerable energy and resources to combating it, both outcomes would result in a diminished threat. During the Cold War both the USSR and USA invested considerable resources in supporting dissident movements in the opposing sides nations for that reason.

I feel its worth recapping the episode in some detail as Mr Continetti yet again leaves out some very important details. Yes Spock does disappear from the Federation and turns up on Romulas, yes he is working closely with a Romulan Senator called Pardek, and yes Pardek is revealed to have been part of a plot to use the reunification movement to aide the conquest and annexation of Vulcan. But one very important thing to keep in mind is that the reunification movement itself is real, it exists and has supporters across Romulas. Another key thing to remember is that Spock doesn't naively go along with Pardek's schemes. On the contrary he's incredibly cautious, the reason he continues to go along with Pardek is in his own words an attempt to discover the Romulan governments ulterior motives."If the Romulans do have an ulterior motive it is in the best interests of all concerned that we determine what it is, so I will play the role that they would have me play." The charge that Spock starts a war is simply facetious, after the plot has been exposed a Romulan Warbird destroys the invasion force (over 2,000 lives) and then withdraws. That isn't a war, its a cover up. Furthermore his decision to remain behind is proven to be correct, either Mr Continetti is being dishonest or he stopped watching the show afterwards. The dissident movement continues to grow in the later episode Face of the Enemy we find that it has succeeded in infiltrating the military and the government.  

What follows is a couple of paragraphs about the new Star Trek movies with Spock played by Zach Quinto, I'm ignoring these since the argument boils down to Spock being unable to see into the future, though his criticism does include stating that Zoe Saldana is out of Quinto's league, and that Spock relieves himself of command in a crisis because he's emotionally distraught, which seems to me like a pretty good thing to do, but there you go.

Mr Continetti moves from galactic intrigues to discuss Spock's family life, but again his argument is mired with the same poor techniques.

Spock is rude to his father.[1] “I never knew what Spock was doing,” Sarek (Mark Lenard) tells Picard in “Unification 1.” “When he was a boy, he would disappear for days into the mountains. I would ask him where he had gone, what he had done; he’d refuse to tell me. I forbade him to go; he ignored me.” Spock and Sarek fight constantly throughout the Trek continuity, despite Sarek’s offering his son countless diplomatic opportunities that Spock invariably messes up[2]. Then Spock ignores his father for years as Sarek suffers from Bendai Syndrome and dies[3].

1: This is pretty accurate though again Mr Continetti paints a one sided picture, Sarek and Spock both share blame for their strained relationship. For example Sarek disapproved of Spock joining Star Fleet instead of the Vulcan Science Academy, and this lead to a rift between the two in their early years. Sarek was also a proponent of a purely logical philosophy and disapproved of Spocks (who contrary to common perceptions had grown beyond it) inclusion of other influences.
2: I'm not aware of Sarek offering Spock any diplomatic opportunities, or how Spock squandered them. Spock went into Star Fleet for most of his life and then when he did go into diplomacy its clear from remarks both characters make that they were often on opposing sides. In Unification its revealed that the cause of the rift between the two towards the end of Sareks life was caused due to disagreement of negotiations with the Cardassians.
3: Sarek didn't try to reconnect either from what I could gather.

Here's the thing about Spock and Sarek, its made abundantly clear that the relationship between the two was frayed and that the attitudes of both weren't exactly helpful. Spock event laments in unification that the only interactions they had were argumentative. Sarek is shown to be unyielding and demanding of his son, so unless Spock was willing to bend completely to his fathers will there doesn't seem to be anyway for the two to have healed their rift. In Journey to Babel Sarek's introduction involves publicly snubbing Spock showing he wasn't above rudeness and being petty.

And Obama likes this selfish jerk? The coolness the president so appreciates in Spock is a thin veneer over a remarkably arrogant and off-putting detachment from human suffering[1]. Dr. McCoy, played by the charming DeForest Kelley, bitingly exposed this truth about Spock’s nature again and again. Discussing the Genesis Project in Wrath of Khan, for example, Spock lectures McCoy, “Really, Dr. McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing. Logic suggests—”
   But McCoy won’t hear it—and he’s right. “Logic? My God, the man’s talking about logic; we’re taking about universal Armageddon!”[2]

1: Remembering Spock once killed himself to save his mostly human crew.
2: I confess, this doesn't make much sense to me, McCoy exclaiming that Spock is talking about logic when Spock said he was talking about logic doesn't seem very compelling. And how is it a bad thing to think logically about something as powerful as the Genesis project? How does this expose an arrogant and off putting detachment to human suffering? This discussion takes place after they learn of the device being used to terraform lifeless planets. The only human suffering at this point is at the hands of Khan and his minions, whom Spock works very hard to defeat. Again later in this very film Spock will sacrifice himself to save the crew of the Enterprise. Even if you accept Mr Continetti's assertion that Spock had a way out he still irradiated himself to save the crew. Surely if he were so callous he'd run to an escape pod?

All Spock can do is pretentiously raise his famous eyebrow.
   Spock is ashamed of his humanity. He flees it. In Star Trek VI Kirk tells Spock, “Everyone’s human.” Spock says he finds that sentiment offensive[1].

1: ??? Star Trek takes place in space, that space is populated by thousands of intelligent species, so yes assuming all those species are like humans is offensive, its the galactic equivalent of assuming everyone is like an American, or a Brit. Pointing out the inherent offensiveness of this statement does not automatically infer shame.

My favorite scene in “Unification 2”: Spock and Data are alone, collaborating on a technical project. Spock muses on the Vulcan aspects of Captain Picard, which Data finds curious because Picard has been a model for his emulation of humanity. Spock can’t understand why Data would want to be more human[1]. “You have an efficient intellect, superior physical skills, no emotional impediments,” he says. “There are Vulcans who aspire all their lives to achieve what you’ve been given by design[2].”
   “You are half human?” Data asks.
   “Yes,” Spock says.
   “Yet you have chosen a Vulcan way of life?”
   “I have,” Spock says.
   “In effect,” says Data, “you have abandoned what I have sought all my life.”
   The two look at each other in silence.

1: Curiosity does not equal incomprehension.
2: Spock is not one of those Vulcans, in another scene with Picard he explains he has moved beyond a purely logic based view.

It’s in this scene where Data’s superiority to Spock is most apparent. Data not only has the mental and physical edge over practically everyone[1], he is curious and earnest and humane, while Spock is moody, flip, detached, and self-consciously superior[2]. Data wants to fit in, while Spock displaces his anxieties over his bicultural heritage onto his family and work relationships. Data’s words and actions are the result of blind unerring computation[3], while Spock is a creature of inner conflict and envies his famous and high achieving father[4]. I’d pick Data over Spock for my first officer any day[5].

1: Funnily enough this scene where Data supposedly proves his superiority is the result of Data needing Spocks assistance to crack Romulan computer codes.
2: Depending on the episode this could be a pretty accurate description of Spock but not in Unification. In Unification he apologises, concedes points and praises others, in this very scene he compliments Picard and shows fascination with Data.
3: Can you be both curious and earnest  and blindly adherent to computation?
4: Is he? Where's the evidence of that?
5: So would I, but I don't have to trash one to validate the other.

The piece ends on a conclusion much more interested on bashing Obama then Data so I won't bother with it. Except for one point, in the list of reasons why Obama (and presumably Spock) is a bad President Mr Continetti lists not directly intervening in Syria"like Spock, has derided the notion of helping to end the slaughter of the Syrian Civil War as illogical" which is a very curious line for Mr Continetti to take. Not just because I can't think of a single occasion where Spock derided intervening in a civil war, but also because when I was looking up Mr Continetti's other articles I noticed this one
which argues against Obama intervening in Syria. Going so far as to label it a trap. Now its clear from a brief glance at that text that Mr Continetti thinks "Obama's War" doesn't go far enough but concedes the use of military force, which would mean that the USA is intervening in the Syrian Civil War, just not to the degree that Mr Continetti would like. And makes the Spock connection even more spurious, unless Mr Continetti was referring to an episode were Spock endorses photon torpedoing a planet but resist sending security teams to the surface.

Either way It would seem that Mr Continetti's uses the same bag of tricks (disregard for context, twisting of meanings, outright fabrication, inconsistent criticism) in other areas.
Most Illogical: A Response to Matthew Continetti
A mini essay responding to what I feel is some gross miss-characterisation of a pretty solid but certainly not perfect character.


Skargill has started a donation pool!
40 / 1,000
A donation pool to raise points for competition prizes for

You must be logged in to donate.
Been quite a while actually, sorry about that. I took a break to focus on a short story for a competition, finished it but really didn't like it after proof reading, still it was good practice. After that I kinda started drawing blanks so haven't written much, though I have been visited by some local wildlife so I was able to keep up my photography so it wasn't a complete rot.

Oh I was going to give that NaNoWriMo a go this year since I had a few ideas started but got side tracked, maybe next year. I'm currently busy transcribing one of my favourite books online, Conquered City by Victor Serge, I'm about half way (though someone else did the first four chapters) page wise. If you like historical novels I recommend checking it out.…

Been practising my German and Esperanto too, I've just about started translating German texts, or rather bits of German texts. I hope to be back to writing again soonish.


Skargill's Profile Picture

Artist | Hobbyist | Photography
United Kingdom
Hello there, how are you? I'm a part time writer of both factual articles and the odd social commentary, and the rest of my time is divided up between Boxing and tinkering with some amateur fiction.

AdCast - Ads from the Community

Journal History


Add a Comment:
genouvalium Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2015
Thank you for the fav!:D (Big Grin)
Pfefferschwarz Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2015
Thanks for watching my gallery! Huggle! 
autogestion Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
thanks for the support :headbang:
weekendhunters Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Hey, happy birthday.
Skargill Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
Thank you, I've been doing night shifts for a while so I've been absent (again) for quite awhile.
HendrikHermans Featured By Owner Sep 12, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks for faving 
Skargill Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
Your welcome it was a very good picture.
Justawaykitty Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2014
Thank you so much for the fav! I really appreciate it*Free Icon/Emote* Pusheen (So exciting!)
Skargill Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
Your welcome you have some amazing cosplays in your gallery.
amipal Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
Thanks for the :+fav:! Much appreciated! :)
Add a Comment: