Science-Fiction Royalty

!!Reader Warning!! This post contains images which may not be appropriate for very sheltered children or people living in the state of Kansas. -MM

Royalty in Science-Fiction is a subject I have been asked about more than once but have been reluctant to address. For one thing, Sci-Fi fans tend to be a little on the dogmatic side and I really don’t know much about the genre. I liked “Quantum Leap”, “Battlestar Galactica”, “Dune” and the old “Star Trek” series (if there’s no Kirk, Spock or Scotty it ain’t Star Trek in my book) and I liked the old “Star Wars” films but that’s about it. So much of it always seemed too preachy, leftist, incomprehensible and, well, just silly for me to take seriously. However, in all fairness, I’ve also never been terribly fond of much of anything in the Fantasy genre which I know many monarchists absolutely love. I have heard many, many good things about “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Chronicles of Narnia” but I’ve just never had any interest in trying to get ‘into’ them. Lest any think I am being biased, most of the fantasy stuff I have liked (books or films) are ones that I either had to read back in my school days (z.b. “A Wrinkle in Time”, “The Neverending Story”) or watched with someone else when it was their choice. In fact, much of the same goes for Sci-Fi -I saw the “Star Wars” prequels but rest assured I did not pay a dime to see them, and I am thankful for that as I would have felt profoundly ripped off (my apologies to any fans).

Longtime readers will recall I have addressed monarchy in “Star Wars” before (here), so I will not be delving into that too deeply but will take a look at least at what Sci-Fi examples of dealing with monarchy that I am familiar with. Based on what little I have seen, I think there seems to be an assumption on the part of many monarchists that the Sci-Fi genre is more friendly towards monarchy than it actually is, perhaps because Sci-Fi is often lumped together with the Fantasy genre which, while I know even less about it, is probably more pro-monarchy than any other. It tends to be more ‘fairy tale’ in nature and fairy tales and monarchy absolutely go hand-in-hand. Sci-Fi, on the other hand, based on what I have seen, seems to be more hostile toward monarchy than not. In my experience, when dealing with royalty from outer space the norm seems to be that they are evil at worst, spoiled brats at best and, if they are female, very, very scantily clad. Even in the “Star Wars” spoof “Space Balls” the princess was portrayed as an immature, spoiled brat. This may be why those Sci-Fi selections I do like tend to have nothing to do with monarchy at all so say nothing negative or positive about it either way. One thing I do like is imagination and weirdness. That being so, there’s no better place to start than “Flash Gordon”.

Emperor Ming the Merciless

I can’t help it, when I think of Sci-Fi movies, I think of “Flash Gordon”. It took all the usual stuff I hate most about Sci-Fi and just went so extremely over-the-top with it I ended up actually liking it. I thought it was hilarious and a pretty fun movie. However, we do see the usual negative portrayal of monarchy on full display. I refer, of course, to one of the most famous fictional villains of all time; Emperor Ming the Merciless. In the big “Flash Gordon” movie he was played by the incomparable Max von Sydow and, according to George Lucas, we have Ming the Merciless to thank for inspiring his later monarchial and aristocratic villains The Emperor and Darth Vader in “Star Wars”. Yep, it all started with the vicious, sadistic and fashionably flamboyant Emperor Ming. I hate two things about the character of Ming the most: I hate that they made him a monarch of course and I hate that they went with the whole Fu Manchu, evil-Asian villain stereotype. As far as villains go, Ming the Merciless is about as villainous as they come. He’s really just pure evil. There’s no rhyme or reason for him, he’s just a sadistic jerk. He started pelting earth with death rays (and you can’t be a sci-fi villain without a death ray) just for kicks. He demands slavish obedience or death and those are the only options.

Princess Aura

We also get another anti-monarchy stereotype with “Flash Gordon” and that is in the person of Ming’s daughter Princess Aura. She’s evil, alluring and, from the look of her wardrobe, pretty chilly. Ming is just as merciless when it comes to his own daughter, his cruelty toward her only adding to his own villainy. Princess Aura, however, at least is not as pure evil as her father since she does sort of come around to being on the side of the good guys in the end. Though, that’s debatable, best as I recall it may have just been selfishness on her part but I do remember she ended up helping out the heroes and being severely punished for it. Not being an expert on all things Sci-Fi, I don’t know if she was the first space princess to wear a metal bikini as a costume, but I do know she wasn’t the last. That has become almost as standard as having a villainous emperor. So, there are Ming the Merciless and Princess Aura, two typical members of outer space royalty: evil, arbitrary and sadistic emperor and spoiled, barely clothed princess. Moving along then.

The Emperor

Enter the world of “Star Wars”, a movie which came out before “Flash Gordon” but which was a totally new franchise. “Flash Gordon” had been around since the 30’s and, in fact, George Lucas only came up with “Star Wars” because he was not allowed to do a “Flash Gordon” movie, which had been his first choice. In “Star Wars” we get all of the basic stereotypes but they take some time to come out. First, we once again have the villainous, arbitrary and sadistic emperor. In fact, in the original films, he didn’t even have a name, he was simply “The Emperor”. He is spoken of (with fear and trembling) in “Star Wars” but is not actually seen until “The Empire Strikes Back” and then only as a holographic image. I have heard they have since changed that image to that of the actor who later played the Emperor. If so, I would categorize that as George Lucas ruining something with his mindless tweaking. That first glimpse we get of the Emperor was very effective, very creepy. I am told it was made by superimposing the eyes of a chimpanzee on the face of a woman and then dubbing in a masculine voice. However they did it, I thought it worked great and if they changed that it’s only one more reason for me to skip the “re-mastered” versions.

How they bow & scrape on the death star

In “Return of the Jedi” we finally see the Emperor in person after already getting used to Darth Vader as the resident super-villain of the “Star Wars” universe. It says something about the Emperor that even the awesomely sadistic Darth Vader is considered to be a teddy bear compared to the Emperor. True, he lacks the sense of style of our friend Ming the Merciless, sticking to a simple black hooded robe, but he’s no less pure evil. Destroying whole planets just to set an example -done. Establishing a system of rule based purely on fear -done. Willing to sell-out your most devoted henchman in order to advance your cause -done. It was also in “Return of the Jedi” that we got another staple of sci-fi royalty: a space princess in a metallic bikini. Yes, to the eternal joy of frustrated nerds the world over, Princess Lea finally joins her objectified sisters of the golden bikini. Sure, it is only because she’s being held prisoner by a slug-like alien mobster but, hey, they had to work it into the story somehow right? Princess Lea generally fares better than most sci-fi princesses -but not by much. Our first introduction to her in “Star Wars” was, as usual, as a princess who, while certainly tough, determined and one of the good guys, was nonetheless spoiled, arrogant and just rather stuck-up, even going so far as to insult the men rescuing her for doing it improperly. Her image recovered in “The Empire Strikes Back” but it was also at that point that she stopped being so much a female heroine and more just the typical girl in a romance and by the next movie she’s in a metallic bikini with a dog collar chained to an alien mob boss. What a downward spiral.

Princess Lea

It is okay for Princess Lea to be a good guy because she’s fighting for the republic. Though, why there are princesses and lords and knights in a republic we are never really told. “Star Wars” is rather odd that way. Overall, the Empire comes off as being far more egalitarian than the Republic. We don’t see much of it but we are led to believe that there is the Emperor, Lord Vader and there the ‘upper class’ ends. Everyone else is simply military personnel and they advance on merit (you screw up, you die, someone who didn’t screw up gets your job -very meritocratic). On the other side we have a princess, of what we don’t know, as well as knights and eventually a queen. But, if I start getting into all the stuff there that makes no sense, we’ll be at this all day, so we’ll move on. I think I mentioned “Dune” at the beginning so why not toss that example in. Again, I’ve never read any of the books (I almost never read fiction, I have nothing against it, I just hardly ever do) but I liked the movie and I liked the more recent mini-series. However, there again we have the evil, dastardly Emperor and once again he also has a daughter who is spoiled, arrogant and so on but who does more or less come around to the side of the good guys. “Dune” may deserve a bit of a pass though because it is set in a purely monarchial, feudal sort of universe. There are no republics or republicans, there is an Emperor and then there are the aristocrats, some of whom are good (Duke Leto) and some of whom are bad (Baron Vladimir). I don’t think there was a princess in a metallic bikini, best as I recall, but there was certainly plenty of flesh being flashed in the mini-series lest anyone think “Dune” was above that sort of thing.

Finally we come to “Star Trek” and, as stated, I can only really speak to the actual, original show. The rest I’m not that familiar with. I’ve been told that the Klingons got an emperor in “Star Trek: The Next Generation” but, based on a little poking around I’ve done for this write-up, if that’s true no one seems to have noticed. Anyway, one thing you need to know about “Star Trek” and probably most pop-fiction these days is that anything called an “empire” is bad. If there are bad guys, they have an empire. So, in “Star Trek” the most frequently recurring bad guys were the Klingons and the Romulans. Neither have an “Emperor” but they are both referred to as empires. Why? Because they’re bad guys and that’s all there is to it. As best as I can recall, we only ever saw one monarch in “Star Trek” and that was in the last season episode “Elaan of Troyius”. In the context of just that last season of the show, I have to say it comes off as very anti-monarchy.

"Her Glory" The Dolman of Elaas

I present as exhibit A the issue of the reception of the reigning monarch of Elaas. Just to fill in; the USS Enterprise was charged with escorting the ruler of Elaas, known as the Dolman (and here I was thinking that was a Hungarian cavalry jacket) to the planet Troyius to marry the local ruler and end the war between the two worlds. When the Dolman is beamed aboard the only special consideration is that Kirk and company drop to one knee, and even that is only at the prompting of some surly bodyguards. Compare this to another episode in the same season (and probably the worst ever in my book) called “The Savage Curtain”. In that one, they beam up Abraham Lincoln (no joke) and even though Kirk himself says he doesn’t believe it can possibly be the real Abe Lincoln, he orders “presidential honors” be given which include a security detachment, a musical recording of salutary drums, a boatswain whistle to pipe the guest aboard and everyone in full dress uniforms. Now, compare that to when the ruling monarch of a sovereign planet beams up and the only special attention is a reluctant drop to one knee and some annoyed expressions.

Sadly, it gets no better from there. The Dolman of Elaas (played by France Nguyen) is basically a combination of the stereotypical sci-fi evil emperor and scantily-clad princess put together. Her preference seems to be to wear as little as possible, she is violent, spoiled, rude, petulant, vindictive and, well, rather dumb. She nearly kills the ambassador of her husband-to-be and tries to seduce Kirk into marrying her and using his starship to annihilate her enemies. Yeah, she’s a real peach. In the course of the episode we find out the Klingons are trying to thwart the mission by sabotaging the Enterprise and then showing up to blast it to bits after disabling the engines. The Dolman, totally unintentionally, helps to get the engines working again, allowing Kirk to smack the Klingons hard enough to convince them to give it up and go home. The Enterprise goes on and we are to assume the Dolman marries the ruler of Troyius and presumably everything works out thanks to Kirk teaching her that she has to treat people with courtesy if she doesn’t want everyone to hate her. As “Star Trek” goes, I thought it was one of the better episodes but it still manages to cram in every typical sci-fi prejudice against monarchy in under an hour.

Others may know some more positive examples to point out. As I said at the beginning, I like this or that but am no expert on the genre. I wouldn’t know Dr. What from Stuff I Lost in Space or Babylon Nine from Deep Space Five. The only sci-fi TV shows I ever watched had nothing to do with royalty or monarchy. The closest thing probably would have been Imperious Leader on “Battlestar: Galactica” and even that was just a robot in a lizard costume so I hardly think that counts. Based on what I have seen, the image is a very negative one and full of constantly repeated stereotypical characters. For all you sci-fi fans out there, feel free to make use of the comments box to let me know if there are better examples out there. From what I’ve seen, the genre has not been kind.

Atlas Shrugged

Yesterday the movie “Atlas Shrugged” (Part I) opened in select theatres nation-wide. As most probably know it is based on the best-selling novel by objectivist Ayn Rand and deals with what would happen if the most productive segment of our society suddenly decided to call it quits, withdraw and let things go to Hell without them. I would encourage everyone who can to go and see this movie. I’m sure Rand fans, objectivists, libertarians and so on will go see it in any event, for others I think it will at least be informative, a cause for thought and discussion and I would also encourage it just because good returns on a film like “Atlas Shrugged” is mud in the eye to the whole liberal, socialist, Marxist, UN, EU etc crowd that I despise. I have talked before (readers will remember) about libertarianism and monarchy, making frequent reference to Ayn Rand who has become something of a “patron saint” to the libertarian movement. However, do not misunderstand my endorsement of seeing this movie; it is certainly not about monarchy and has nothing to do with monarchy. I’m sure Ayn Rand herself would be rather discomforted to know that a monarchist was pointing people in the direction of her work were she alive to see it.

To be sure, in many, many ways, someone like myself is as far apart from Ayn Rand as the east is from the west. For me, the primary difference is not even monarchy though we certainly part company there. A native of Mother Russia, Ayn Rand had nothing but utter loathing for her homeland and made it clear that such attitude applied to Tsarist Russia as well as Soviet Russia. I’m sure everyone knows that Tsarist Russia is near and dear to my heart. The biggest gulf between us would be on religion. Ayn Rand was a strident atheist, and perhaps the most genuinely atheist figure I have ever heard of, who viewed religious belief as a psychological weakness. I, on the other hand, view religion as the fundamental underpinning of all history, humanity and civilization. The only reason I can even entertain the ideas of Ayn Rand was that, despite being an ardent atheist and having nothing good at all to say about any religion, she was equally adamant that she opposed any restrictions of any kind being placed on religion or religious belief. She would think me mad for believing in religion but she would never do anything to force me to give it up.

I do think monarchists can, with some thought, relate to “Atlas Shrugged” but we have to go back in time in our minds to more traditional monarchies in order to do so. Nowadays, most monarchies (certainly in the western world) have become wards of the state. They are allowed no power but are allowed to remain on their thrones by the state with a pension provided by the state so long as they do as the state says and follow very strict rules and give up the vast majority of their rights and freedoms to the state. The recent case of HRH Prince Laurent of Belgium shows what uproar will result when a royal does not abide by the wishes of the all-powerful state. In the past, it is true, some monarchs supported the rise of the total state but, as I have mentioned before, in the end, most who did so were consumed by that total state and such is why we have the world of monarchy we all know today. For most monarchies, where they remain, the state has the royals right where they want them; reduced to the status of the lilies of the field who toil not neither do they spin, but they are pretty to look at.

For monarchists to relate to “Atlas Shrugged” we have to, I think, go back to when monarchs actually had some power and ultimately had that before because they were self-sufficient, possessing the lands and the income from those lands to make them significant. It is also significant that this tended to coincide with a very strong aristocracy. Many libertarians and objectivists would tend to lump all royals and aristocrats into the category of shiftless masses on the take from the government. However, we must remember that most royals and aristocrats, if you go back to the beginning, earned their position. In the case of the first Capetian King of France, he was actually elected. The aristocracy of England, as an another example, as it traditionally was (before the advent of those ludicrous “life peers”) began when William the Conqueror rewarded with lands and titles his most faithful and *effective* lieutenants. In that regard, you could say, they “earned” what they were given and had every right to pass it on to their heirs and successors, be it a lord passing down wealth, lands and a title or the King himself passing on a Crown and a country.

“Atlas Shrugged” hearkens back to a time when private property was viewed as sacred and inviolable and that I unashamedly admire. It is also why I have always had a libertarian antennae go up when I read the testimony of King Charles I of Britain at his “treason” trial. Far from fighting for royal tyranny, the King was fighting for nothing more than that which was legally and legitimately his own. In doing so, as he stated, he was also fighting for the right of every man to that which was his own and for the sanctity of the law over simple brute force. That always seemed to have a very libertarian tone to me. Likewise, much of the same wickedness denounced in “Atlas Shrugged” can also be used to describe what brought down much of the aristocracy in monarchies, such as Great Britain, where government regulations and over-taxation forced the break-up of the great estates, the selling of manor houses and the reduction of many lords and ladies to “ordinary” people with meaningless titles. In general though (again, aside from annoying the people I dislike the most) I think “Atlas Shrugged” can be appreciated by monarchists simply for striking a compelling blow against the ideas of class warfare, class envy and hatred of success that has brought down a number of monarchies around the world.

Mad Rant: Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?

No, not just a song, but a legitimate question. Where have all the cowboys gone? Not my fellow cattlemen of course, but the good guy heroes of our culture? Where is Gary Cooper, wearing a white hat, defending the innocent and taking down the town bully? Where is John Wayne and the US Cavalry riding to the rescue of embattled settlers? For a more Old World example, where is the lone knight defending the honor of his beloved lady? Where is the God fearing hero with the strong arm and loyal heart ready to charge into the barbarian hordes for his king and country? We are told over and over again that the modern masses are too sophisticated for such figures, who (we are reassured) never really existed anyway. However, it seems to me, particularly in that dominant media of modern pop culture -cinema- the public still loves its traditional, good guy heroes.

For example, “Braveheart” was a hugely successful film and I will submit that, to a large extent, this was because it was an historical epic with really bad history. William Wallace was a good guy, about as close to a traditional hero as modern film seems capable of producing, struggling against King Edward I who was portrayed, in a simplistic and historically inaccurate way, as the blackest of Hollywood villains. And it worked, it was stirring, it was moving and people loved it. Contrast this with other historical films like “Kingdom of Heaven” or “The Alamo” (the latest version) in which traditional heroes are cut down and everyone on every side, be they ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys’ are portrayed as having positive and negative aspects and so on. Unlike “Braveheart” both of these movies were major box office bombs. Surprisingly, people want heroes and villains in movies and they do not like to see traditional heroes denigrated no matter the justification.

Would a movie about George Washington that was exactly accurate really be a big success? Do Americans want to see their revered founder marrying money, driving slaves, cussing out his own soldiers after their constant defeats, blaming his men for lack of success or whining endlessly about how unappreciated he is? Of course not! The fact that it is all perfectly true makes no difference, that is not what people want to hear even if they know it to be true. Now, if a movie did this, it still could work (at least in some countries) if this was contrasted to a heroic portrayal of King George III, but we all know that is not going to happen. A movie might be made that tore down George Washington but it would invariably tear down King George as well. It would not be inspiring, it would not motivate anyone to see it and would basically leave those who did feeling rather down. Another example covered here was the St Joan of Arc film “The Messenger” which certainly did not make the English look good but made the French look just as bad and portrayed Joan as a lunatic. Audiences want someone to root for and more often than not these days they are not getting it.

I tend to be of the opinion, whether with movies or some other such media, that history should be taught with a point behind it. Naturally, I do not mean to change or revise the facts of what have happened, but in the telling of any story we always emphasize some things over others. However, there should be a moral to a story and some benefit to the telling of it. Once upon a time history was viewed as learning from the past so as to avoid mistakes in the future. A noble enough goal. However, if we are to follow the current trend of ‘everyone was bad and no one was better than anyone else’ I have to ask what lesson can we possibly learn from that? Call it what you like, moral relativism seeping into pop culture or simply bad filmmaking but it makes for some pretty mad “entertainment” and a very … Mad Monarchist.

Does Hollywood Have It In Them?

It is hard to believe today's Hollywood would make an updated version of the 1985 classic RED DAWN but that's the word.

The Birth of MTV - God Help Us

It was on this day in 1981 that MTV first began broadcasting. Their very first video was rather appropriate:

I Hate Reality TV

I can hardly express the extent to which I *hate* reality TV or at least the vast majority of it. Even the most benign I find bafflingly pointless. What is so entertaining about watching people living their “normal” lives just because the people are morons, have 30 kids or are 2 ft tall? For one thing, it is simply lazy television; it is something quick and lucrative networks can slap together on the cheap because (we are told) they don’t have to hire any writers or actors (after all, both groups have unions and are thus rather pricey). However, I believe that the worst examples of reality TV are far worse than being just pointless or far from entertainment. I object to them mostly because they are a betrayal of the divine spark in humanity.

As most know I am an avid fan and supporter of the ancient sport of traditional Spanish bullfighting. A lot of people want to see it banned for being “barbaric” (and the day it is banned in Mexico will be the last day I ever visit that country). Naturally, I disagree. I know it is certainly not for everyone but in my opinion it is a glorious, beautiful tradition of skill, grace and the struggle between a man and his courage. It is pure, it is natural, it is poetry in motion. I have been to some rather “gruesome” bullfights but even in the worst cases I find reality TV far, far more barbaric. In fact, I will go a step further and say that I find most of reality TV more detrimental to western civilization than gladiatorial combat in the Roman Colosseum.

For a thousand years the games in the Vespasian Amphitheatre in which gladiators, men and beasts, fought to the death, have been held up as the image of ancient Roman barbarity and we have long smugly patted ourselves on the back that we are so much more “evolved” than those bloodthirsty Romans signaling with their thumbs the fate of a defeated slave. However, I submit to you that we are actually no better than they were and in fact, in some ways, even worse. Why? Because, like the toro bravo in the bull ring, the gladiator at least had a fighting chance, however slim, and he went down heroically, bravely, with dignity and honor. All of which are absolutely lacking in the so-called “entertainment” of reality TV today.

What we have seen instead in the last few years is a race to the bottom in numerous shows revolving around people degrading themselves, disgracing themselves, humiliating themselves and their families all for money or the chance at 15 minutes of fame. They pass as entertainment people eating disgusting things, exaggerating ignorant stereotypes, showing off how shallow and stupid they are or displaying how over-the-top immoral they are by some woman who has to drag in half the trailer park for paternity tests to find out who the father of her child is. It is disgraceful in every sense of the word. A common working girl walking the streets has as much dignity (if not more) than most of the cretins that appear on these displays of the breakdown of high civilization. If the ancient Romans could see such displays as the modern masses devour I think they would shake their heads in embarrassment that people descended from their civilization would hold their lives so precious but sell their honor and dignity so cheap.

Royalty by Andy Warhol

(thanks to blog member Salvatore for putting me on to this series of work)