Rommy Is The Mommy! She's Better Than Pastrami!

September has been my month to binge-view the not-terribly-old sci-fi series "Andromeda." This, in large part, because Lexa Doig, who played the Starship Andromeda's android avatar and holographic persona, is a majorly major celebrity crush for me. Really, come ON: Star Trek's Commander Data was allowed to experience love with human women, so why the entropy should Rommy not have been allowed to become Captain Hunt's permanent soulmate? SHE obviously loved HIM from the very core of her being, and in spite of her superior powers she genuinely revered him for his wisdom and bravery, so it would not have been a hopelessly lopsided relationship.

But no-o-o-o-o, the "Andromeda" writers had to keep Dylan Hunt unattached, even though they scarcely ever actually gave him a girlfriend anyway. And poor sweet nearly-indestructible Rommy, who DID have real emotions, was left emotionally unfulfilled, never even allowed (as far as I've seen) to SAY to Captain Hunt, "I love you."

As an indirect attempt to justify the celibacy imposed on the most appealing female in rhe series, they ran one episode showing that another High Guard captain HAD once entered a sexual relationship with his ship's female avatar. This had ended in tragedy because the High Guard's avatar androids carry top-secret information about the ships, information that must not be collected by enemies of the Commonwealth. This plot device was forced and unconvincing. Again, come ON: in an era millennia into the future, we're supposed to believe that there couldn't be a fail-safe allowing the military secrets inside Rommy's exquisitely beautiful head simply to be instantly DELETED, while Rommy's endearing PERSONALITY remained?

It could have been done easily. They chose not to do it. Fooey.

Insofar as Lexa Doig's character is concerned, I'm undecided whether to feel placated or insulted by the Dylan/Rommy scene at the end of the episode "Dance of the Mayflies." There, though STILL not permitted to pour out her cyber-heart to her beloved captain, she was permitted to come close to such a declaration. During the episode, the shortness of human life expectancy compared to sci-fi super-beings had been brought up; so, in the epilogue, Rommy could at least tell Dylan that she couldn't bear the prospect of outliving him and thus losing him. (Think Arwen and Aragorn.) Dylan, in response, went so far as to speak of love, but somewhat abstractly. This, in terms of what he and Rommy SHOULD have been to each other, was as unsatisfactory as the milktoasty peck on the cheek that he gave her in conclusion.

But apart from feeling sorry for "Andromeda's" android heroine, who is my favorite robotic-type character in all of science fiction ever, there is an aspect of the scene which I definitely LIKED, and was pleasantly surprised by: the fact that Dylan Hunt DID NOT limit himself to shallow phrases about him "living on" in Rommy's memory. Here is my approximate quote of his full speech to her about the perpetuity of love:

"You won't lose me, Rommy. Love never dies. Your body may be destroyed or your power may run out, but love goes on forever. When the universe ends and the last star burns out, the only thing LEFT will be love."

This -- I'll venture to call it a testimony -- delighted me insofar as its SPIRITUAL significance. No, Captain Hunt did not recite the whole Nicene Creed; but even his modest expression of faith flew head-on against the icy atheism that Gene Roddenberry wanted to promote. The hero's prediction of love going on forever COULD NOT POSSIBLY be right in a materialistic, mechanical universe.

And in my estimation, the value of Dylan Hunt's words IS NOT spoiled by their being addressed to an android. No one has yet invented any sort of robot that has REAL self-awareness with free will and genuine emotions; but if such a robot WERE built, my own expectation of enjoying Heaven would not be the least bit impaired by God regarding this robot as a living creature with a soul-- due to it being effectively an OFFSPRING of its human makers.

None of the science fiction *I* write will ever feature androids that really are alive and autonomous, because I don't believe there ever will be any. But if the fictitious free-willed android Rommy actually existed, I would not be denying God's Creatorship by desiring that Rommy should be considered a daughter of humans, capable of receiving the gift of saving faith. And I'm not saying this just because the actress Lexa Doig is as hot as a supernova.

When Trejo Is Tres Chic

A year or two  of years ago, cinema tough guy Danny Trejo, a Latino counterpart of Mickey Rourke, was photographed participating in a parade, carrying the flag of the United States --not inverted, and not placed beneath a Mexican flag.

Mister Trejo didn't have to do this. In the modern atmosphere of political correctness, he had nothing to gain career-wise by paying any respect to the United States. Far from it, siding absolutely with Latino supremacists of the Reconquista movement, while claiming that EVERY objection to Latino crime gangs was a racist lie, would have been the very thing to boost his popularity in all the fashionable hard-left circles. Therefore, I am inclined to cut Mister Trejo a lot of slack.

But it's hard to shrug off his 2010 blood-and-guts movie, "Machete." It's the kind of movie that Arnold Schwarzenegger would have made.... if Schwarzenegger had been a Mexican chauvinist whose entire concept of goodness began and ended with "whatever is to the advantage of Mexicans." Even an immigration agent played by Jessica Alba ends up shouting to a crowd that there cannot be any such thing as justice or law UNLESS Hispanics get to have everything their own way without reservations or questions.

Mister Trejo plays a Mexican Federale officer who is threatened by white supremacists on top of being entrapped by a Mexican drug cartel which has bought off most of the Federales. The hero must accordingly lead an army of low-riders to defeat the white supremacists chiefly, and secondarily the drug cartel's leader. At least the script has the cheap honesty to admit that the buying of police is endemic in Mexico; but as far as this film lets us know, the drug trade-- operating with Gringo collaborators-- is THE ONLY organized crime flowing from Latin America to the United States. There's no such thing as the Mara Salvatrucha gang, and there's no such thing as Democrat mayors of "sanctuary cities" buying Hispanic votes by aiding and abetting illegals who commit murders, robberies and rapes-- including murders, robberies and rapes in which THE VICTIMS ARE ALSO HISPANIC, go figure.

No moral ambiguity troubles the writers of "Machete." Absolutely all illegal border crossers out of Mexico are adorable dreamers who can deserve unlimited sympathy; and you'll never learn from this movie how many hospitals in the southwestern United States have been driven to bankruptcy by illegals exhausting their patient-care capacity without ever paying a cent. Anyone and everyone who has even the slightest misgivings about illegal immigration is either a monstrously violent white supremacist, or a monstrously wicked schemer who can profit somehow by oppressing poor innocent Latinos, or both.

Something else you'll never learn from this movie is the fact that the Texas Revolution did not happen because white supremacists were being imperialistic; it happened because the dictator Santa Ana denied representative government to people under his rule. That's why there were MEXICANS fighting on the TEXAN side in this revolution. It is also a fact that the later Mexican War was begun BY SANTA ANA, who was a sore loser despite the Texans having spared his life before. Santa Ana came out zero for two, and his whole country lay prostrate before the Gringo victors. But not only did the United States not attempt to occupy and possess all of Mexico, but it paid Mexico for the portion of land it did take.

However, modern Mexican administrations, particularly that of Presidente Vicente Fox, have found it wonderfully convenient to whip up anti-Gringo resentment, as a way to divert Mexican citizens from resenting their own government's failure to promote their well-being. These politicians love it when their agitators in the United States chant the misleading slogan: "We Didn't Cross The Border, The Border Crossed Us!"

The border might never have moved south if a 19th-century Mexican ruler had extended citizen rights to his subjects; and to this day there are Latino CITIZENS of the United States who DON'T WANT the United States to change into Mexico 2.0, because these loyal United States citizens understand just which society has enabled them to advance themselves by their own efforts.

All this leaves me scratching my head over why Danny Trejo would star in a movie like "Machete" --apart from the money, plus the sweet perk of being kissed onscreen by Jessica Alba and other beautiful women-- and then turn around a few years later and parade the United States flag as if he LOVED the same United States which "Machete" depicts as the embodiment of all evil. But it may be that Mister Trejo appreciates freedom of expression; appreciates this country for allowing itself to be defamed and vilified so extravagantly. His movie's own credits reveal that the state government of Texas-- a state which, if you listen to Democrats, is crowded with xenophobic racists who would regard George Wallace as being too lenient-- actually facilitated the production of "Machete."

To anyone reading my words: please tell me if you know of any motion picture produced within the borders of Mexico, BY a Mexican film studio, that portrays Mexico as overflowing with evil, sadistic bigots, while saying that GRINGOS (apart from some gangsters and crooked cops) are all adorable dreamers who can do no wrong. Or for that matter, name a major AMERICAN movie company that would have hired Mister Trejo to star in a movie which portrayed present-day Mexico-sobre-todo activists as being in the wrong....

I didn't think so.   ago, cinema tough guy Danny Trejo, a Latino counterpart of Mickey Rourke, was photographed participating in a parade, carrying the flag of the United States --not inverted, and not placed beneath a Mexican flag.

Mister Trejo didn't have to do this. In the modern atmosphere of political correctness, he had nothing to gain career-wise by paying any respect to the United States. Far from it, siding absolutely with Latino supremacists of the Reconquista movement, while claiming that EVERY objection to Latino crime gangs was a racist lie, would have been the very thing to boost his popularity in all the fashionable hard-left circles. Therefore, I am inclined to cut Mister Trejo a lot of slack.

But it's hard to shrug off his 2010 blood-and-guts movie, "Machete." It's the kind of movie that Arnold Schwarzenegger would have made.... if Schwarzenegger had been a Mexican chauvinist whose entire concept of goodness began and ended with "whatever is to the advantage of Mexicans." Even an immigration agent played by Jessica Alba ends up shouting to a crowd that there cannot be any such thing as justice or law UNLESS Hispanics get to have everything their own way without reservations or questions.

Mister Trejo plays a Mexican Federale officer who is threatened by white supremacists on top of being entrapped by a Mexican drug cartel which has bought off most of the Federales. The hero must accordingly lead an army of low-riders to defeat the white supremacists chiefly, and secondarily the drug cartel's leader. At least the script has the cheap honesty to admit that the buying of police is endemic in Mexico; but as far as this film lets us know, the drug trade-- operating with Gringo collaborators-- is THE ONLY organized crime flowing from Latin America to the United States. There's no such thing as the Mara Salvatrucha gang, and there's no such thing as Democrat mayors of "sanctuary cities" buying Hispanic votes by aiding and abetting illegals who commit murders, robberies and rapes-- including murders, robberies and rapes in which THE VICTIMS ARE ALSO HISPANIC, go figure.

No moral ambiguity troubles the writers of "Machete." Absolutely all illegal border crossers out of Mexico are adorable dreamers who can deserve unlimited sympathy; and you'll never learn from this movie how many hospitals in the southwestern United States have been driven to bankruptcy by illegals exhausting their patient-care capacity without ever paying a cent. Anyone and everyone who has even the slightest misgivings about illegal immigration is either a monstrously violent white supremacist, or a monstrously wicked schemer who can profit somehow by oppressing poor innocent Latinos, or both.

Something else you'll never learn from this movie is the fact that the Texas Revolution did not happen because white supremacists were being imperialistic; it happened because the dictator Santa Ana denied representative government to people under his rule. That's why there were MEXICANS fighting on the TEXAN side in this revolution. It is also a fact that the later Mexican War was begun BY SANTA ANA, who was a sore loser despite the Texans having spared his life before. Santa Ana came out zero for two, and his whole country lay prostrate before the Gringo victors. But not only did the United States not attempt to occupy and possess all of Mexico, but it paid Mexico for the portion of land it did take.

However, modern Mexican administrations, particularly that of Presidente Vicente Fox, have found it wonderfully convenient to whip up anti-Gringo resentment, as a way to divert Mexican citizens from resenting their own government's failure to promote their well-being. These politicians love it when their agitators in the United States chant the misleading slogan: "We Didn't Cross The Border, The Border Crossed Us!"

The border might never have moved south if a 19th-century Mexican ruler had extended citizen rights to his subjects; and to this day there are Latino CITIZENS of the United States who DON'T WANT the United States to change into Mexico 2.0, because these loyal United States citizens understand just which society has enabled them to advance themselves by their own efforts.

All this leaves me scratching my head over why Danny Trejo would star in a movie like "Machete" --apart from the money, plus the sweet perk of being kissed onscreen by Jessica Alba and other beautiful women-- and then turn around a few years later and parade the United States flag as if he LOVED the same United States which "Machete" depicts as the embodiment of all evil. But it may be that Mister Trejo appreciates freedom of expression; appreciates this country for allowing itself to be defamed and vilified so extravagantly. His movie's own credits reveal that the state government of Texas-- a state which, if you listen to Democrats, is crowded with xenophobic racists who would regard George Wallace as being too lenient-- actually facilitated the production of "Machete."

To anyone reading my words: please tell me if you know of any motion picture produced within the borders of Mexico, BY a Mexican film studio, that portrays Mexico as overflowing with evil, sadistic bigots, while saying that GRINGOS (apart from some gangsters and crooked cops) are all adorable dreamers who can do no wrong. Or for that matter, name a major AMERICAN movie company that would have hired Mister Trejo to star in a movie which portrayed present-day Mexico-sobre-todo activists as being in the wrong....

I didn't think so.

Exploding Another Pagan Book

During all of this calendar century so far, hardcore feminists have been trying to have it both ways at once: women are omnipotent goddesses, AND women are poor helpless victims of male oppression. Most recently, being goddesses has been pulling ahead in popularity.

But back in 1987, the contemporary dogma that any randomly-selected twelve-year-old girl can crush a 300-pound man was not yet fully entrenched in the popular culture; so the big emphasis for feminism still was women's victimhood and women's martyr-like moral superiority. This was the year when Riane Eisler, a neo-pagan author, first released a Herstory book titled "The Chalice and the Blade." Eisler's premise, naturally, was that the worship of a male deity automatically promotes violence and cruelty, while goddess-worship guarantees love and peace and idyllic equality, because women are the exclusive keepers of both justice and mercy.    

It was necessary for Mizzzzzz Eisler to be selective with her source material, in order to be sure of arriving at her predetermined conclusion. By dwelling on European and Mediterranean antiquity, she was able to report truthfully, or should we say HALF-truthfully, that peaceful agrarian cultures which worshiped fertility goddesses were indeed invaded and conquered by warlike tribes which worshiped male deities. She devoted many pages to the ancient "Kurgan invasion," and I have no cause to think that she falsified any part of this information, since it already supported her agenda. But she avoided consideration of Japan, which had the female deity Amaterasu at the top of its pre-Buddhist pantheon, and nonetheless generated plenty of bloodshed. She also avoided consideration of the Thuggees of India, who were motivated to commit ritual murders by their worship of the female deity Kali. AND she avoided consideration of all the Native American nations in which, by THEIR OWN admission, many tribeswomen delighted in horribly torturing defenseless captives.

Above all, Mizzzzzz Eisler had to rule out, a priori, any possibility that the God of the Bible ACTUALLY EXISTS. Men who believed in such a God were obviously terribly warped to have MADE UP such a nasty Supreme Being, whereas women show their superiority by-- not exactly making up, Eisler would contend, but giving a name to the presupposed female principle which "really" runs the universe.

Following this divine female principle, according to the author, will move humanity forward on the path of evolution, which of course (although Eisler herself is heterosexual) will entail complete acceptance of homosexuality.

The presumed closeness to the Goddess that is allegedly enjoyed by women, just because they ARE women, surely explains why millions of latest-version feminists have built on Eisler's premise, claiming quite literally to BE goddesses for no reason other than being female. Never in my life, not even once, have I met or heard of any man or boy who claimed that MERELY BEING MALE gave him a literal status of godhood for which women could have no equivalent.

This last fact is one which I've mentioned online before. At least one feminist has tried to deflect my real point by angrily retorting, "You're saying men are never arrogant!" No, I wasn't saying that; I was only saying that ONE SPECIFIC STYLE of arrogance, an arrogance which claims ACTUAL deity rank for one's own sex BECAUSE OF being that sex, while denying it to the other sex, has in my own anecdotal experience only ever been practiced by females.

But in 1987, Mizzzzzz Eisler was not yet pushing for New-Agey boasts of mortal women literally being goddesses. She was settling for their presumed across-the-board moral and spiritual superiority. Thus, near the end of "The Chalice and the Blade," she very justifiably complains against such abuses of women by men as when husbands throw away the family savings on drinking binges. Behaviors like this ARE evil and inexcusable, and Hell probably will be full of lost male souls who for all eternity have to suffer the same terrible pangs of starvation that they knowingly inflicted on their own wives and children. But Eisler chooses to believe that the very idea of a male-headed household INEVITABLY MUST produce these evils.

Okay, if any fans of Mizzzzzz Eisler see my words, I invite you goddess-worshipers to identify for me exactly what Bible verses declare that it's okay for a husband to starve his family so he can get drunk. I'll wait.

Note to everybody else: they won't be able to find any such verse. Mizzzzzz Eisler wants Christianity to be thought of as discredited because men who DON'T follow Jesus behave in ways CONTRARY to the Bible.

Eisler's fans, unable to find a Bible verse approving of men who starve their children for the sake of booze, will resort to the usual ploy: pointing at the Mosaic Law which, MANY CENTURIES BEFORE Jesus came, imposed some admittedly harsh penalties on women. But whatever was the reason for this ancient approach, Jesus changed it forever on the day when He rescued the adulterous woman from death.

And Jesus did not need Mizzzzzz Eisler, or any other goddess-worshiper, to introduce Him to the idea of mercy.

For a reprinting which occurred after the Soviet Union collapsed, Eisler appended an epilogue in which, like numerous feminists, she tried to discredit free enterprise right along with discrediting the Bible. Referring to the oligarchs who grabbed control of the Russian economy in the Yeltsin era, she pretends that their crookedness was representative of capitalism. What it REALLY represented was men who had already been powerful IN THE SOVIET SYSTEM, simply retaining their advantages in a new format. Their piracy WASN'T free enterprise, but Eisler expects us to believe that it proves the wrongness of free enterprise. You know, just like the way drunken husbands who AREN'T obeying the Bible, somehow prove that Biblical ways are all wrong.

At the end of this epilogue, there's an irony: Eisler happily relates how her work has found acceptance in Germany. You know, Germany, the country where, three decades after "The Chalice and the Blade" was first released, Angela Merkel has been showing her divine female wisdom..... by pampering Islamist invaders, who treat women in the very way that Riane Eisler condemns.