The Androgyny Agenda Reaches Star Trek


Meet “Michael Bernham” – the protagonist on a new Star Trek series

If the transgender narrative wasn’t already ground into your eyes and ears like so much visual and verbal glass by the mainstream media, here comes a new Star Trek series to serve as a vehicle to mainstream the androgyny agenda. It further confirms the long-running franchise will continue to boldly go off the rails, a process started by J.J. Abrams when he turned the esoteric enterprise into a big budget farce directed at low-IQ moviegoers.

A new CBS series entitled Star Trek: Discovery will be the first new television series in the franchise since the failed Enterprise left the airwaves a decade ago. Predictably, Hollyweird execs want to piss down the backs of longtime fans and into the face of the people who inhabit “flyover country” they hate so much.

The series will be led by the delicious Sonequa Martin-Green, but she will be playing a character named Michael Bernham. Rumors vary widely on why the execs chose the odd name for a female character. Some say Berhham will be – you guessed it – a transgender lead for the series. Another unofficial web site says the series is only trying to make names androgynous, and not the character himself…er…herself…er…itself.

The TrekMovie staff would like to point out that Michael is a female first name, and we have confirmed with CBS that Michael Burnham is, and always has been, the name of Martin-Green’s character.

Another web site called Fansided seemed excited at the prospect of gender ambiguity.

If the writers are indeed creating our first transgender Trek character, they need to do so with caution. Put too much light on her sexuality and it becomes a SJW issue; alienating your baby-boomer crowd. Not enough light will seem like they perhaps missed a chance for social commentary.

Either way, why can’t Martin-Green have a female’s name and the audience allowed to enjoy her in all her sexy, womanly glory without muddying the waters, you fucks?

But we all know the media and Hollyweird run on mainstreaming fringe elements of society, and what better way to further insult the 99.7% of the population that isn’t transgender than shoving such a character in their face.

PR flacks and marketing morons think they’re being “edgy” when they make decisions like this. But the further they push the boundaries, the more they lose normal people. There’s no limit to the depths of hell once the race to the bottom begins. But can the people who love this lifestyle just crater all by themselves and leave the rest of us out of their lust to desexualize human beings?

Of course, all it takes for this perversion to stop is for audiences to stop paying attention. This isn’t “progress” anymore unless one considers it progress towards the edge of a cliff. It’s just more sickly, Anglo American sexual ambiguity and Cultural Marxism packaged as something cutting edge. Don’t watch it. We just discussed getting messages from the media out of your home and out of your life earlier this week. Perhaps now, more than ever is the time to take action. If we all collectively stop paying attention, pushing perversion will cease to work as a business model for the industry of illusion.

One might previously have though the demise of Anglo America on the world stage was a bad omen. But with the nation now trying to cut penises off men and sew them onto women, some of us are beginning to think the end of this society in decline can’t come soon enough.

After all, the end game of Cultural Marxism is to eliminate all sex differences. Are you ready to embrace the Rachel Maddow future? Well, here’s one motherfucker who won’t go down without a fight.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.


  • “This isn’t “progress” anymore unless one considers it progress towards the edge of a cliff.”

    “Progress” is an IV drip of arsenic. It’s held out as natural, inevitable and unguided, like a social theory of evolution. It isn’t any of those things.

    This isn’t a decline, it’s a slow-motion assassination. Stop watching and paying attention, sure, but also be sure to vote with your dollars in favour of the people, movements and companies who are actively resisting, or are at least neutral.

    “Neutral” to me is workable because on an actual level playing field we win easily. The mouthpieces of “Progress” and their financial backers know this very well.


  • When CBS finally puts it out there, I’ll probably pirate a few episodes and give it a look. (And no, CBS, I’m not giving you ten dollars for it.) But I very much expect that, overall, it will turn out to be a committee-driven and micromanaged sop to the PC/SJW crowd. And like the Enterprise series – so many possibilities wasted or ignored there – towards the end it will pretty much be abandoned by the network. At that time – and again like with Enterprise – it’s safe to predict that the episodes will start to get good as the writers – finally – are allowed to do their job without interference.

    Just a thought.



  • The Angry Outernationalist

    The most inspiring part of Star Trek from my point of view is that despite humanity being burdened by an interplanetary social democratic technocratic state, humanity and its allies were able to prevent being invaded or assimilated by their enemies.

    Not only that, despite arrant foolishness coming from an absurdly energy-rich post-scarcity living environment in which people simply forgot how to solve certain kinds of problems, humanity was able to turn some of its former enemies into allies, although there were plenty who simply would never be turned.

    In fact, if you want a vision of Star Trek, think of it as a collection of possible worlds in which competence still managed to win over incompetence, no matter how well the incompetent have managed to take control of events.

    That’s one of the few redeeming factors in favour of Star Trek as it was.

    Whatever’s being done with the reboot sounds too much like it’s structural rather than cultural: the writers want the structure of Game of Thrones, with the structure of “a never-ending story” that’s serialised. The writers are rejecting the culture of exploration and visiting new places for the experience and knowledge, substituting the implied progressive programme of improvement through intense challenges with an ongoing story arc of actions and events.

    The social and cultural progressivism that was wrapped up in Roddenberry’s original comes out differently when made to serve structural ends: structural social democracy, structural technocracy, structural post-scarcity economics, and most revealingly, structural Marxism.

    What I expect are banal revelations combined with confusingly “shipped in” concepts from other Star Trek series.

    The deliberately confused identity of one of the main protagonists reveals the banality as potentially baked into the product.

    If the series manages to survive as Star Trek qua Star Trek, it’ll survive by abandoning the structural progressivism that will show up in the form of various characters with incredibly-hard-to-believe vitae.

    Naturally, I’m hoping that this “Number One” protagonist gets killed off in the first series.


  • Mental illness reaches the edge of the galaxy…and falls off.


  • Funksoulbrother

    To boldly go … to the edge of edgy and get warped … into oblivion. Count me out.


  • fuzziewuzziebear

    There is only one way to make this go away. Don’t feed it. Don’t support it commercially. Don’t watch it.


    • Escape from the Anglosphere

      I agree.

      “fter all, the end game of Cultural Marxism is to eliminate all sex differences. Are you ready to embrace the Rachel Maddow future? Well, here’s one motherfucker who won’t go down without a fight.”

      If the masses want to go Jim Jones, then let them drink the kool-aid, it’s a better idea to leave Jonestown.


      • Yep! Rabbit people are gonna rabbit. If we can’t get completely away from them we must maintain as maximum a distance as possible.


Join the Discussion | Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s