Update and scripts!

I am hard at work on the new video. It's the first in what I hope will be a new format/aesthetic for Renegade Cut. It should debut before the end of the month.

For now, here are some scripts from previous episodes. Trying to get these out more regularly.

RADICAL HOPE

Star Trek is the story of humanity. Who we are, where we are going, and what we can do to get there. It's the story of Earth – centuries in the future – in which most social and economic hierarchies have been abolished through a combination of legal mandates and a cultural revolution that created cultural evolution. Social hierarchies such as racial supremacy, patriarchy, and pervasive heteronormativity are largely relics of the past. Economic hierarchies such as capitalism and class itself have been abandoned in a favor of a more horizontal distribution of power, divorcing labor from reward in such a way that effectively eliminates poverty. If money as we know it effectively does not exist, then housing, healthcare and food are essentially free through a science fiction version of mutual aid or anarcho-syndicalist labor vouchers called Federation credits. Even if a portion of the human population chooses not to work and opts to take advantage of the system, a combination of automation and the significant portion of the population that does choose to work more than makes up for that. Few people really want to do nothing their entire lives. A permanent vacation can be paradoxically exhausting – not to mention unfulfilling. With the removal of economic consequences to their lives, humans are free to pursue whatever path they wish without much concern of failure. Aristotle famously said “Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.”

Without poverty, social unrest and crime barely exist outside of the crimes we commit against one another for personal reasons. Due to this marginalization of crime, the modern centralized police as we know them today effectively do not exist, the implication being that they were abolished. Law enforcement and security is conducted through highly specific organizations with highly specific training. For example, the Department of Temporal Investigations is a bureau of the United Federation of Planets that conducts inquiries related to time travel law. [“I guess you boys from Temporal Investigations are always right on time.”] Starfleet security conducts inquiries related to Starfleet officers, crimes on Starfleet installations like ships and space stations, and threats to Federation security, such as hostile powers. They are only mobilized on Earth under extreme circumstances, and even then, with a great deal of controversy. Anything resembling a police officer is rare, and usually only exists in an alternate timeline. Incarceration still exists in the 24thcentury, but prisons as we know them have been abolished with actual rehabilitation centers devoid of cruelty. Sentences do not seem particularly long either. Capital punishment has been abolished as well. Students receive free education and study advanced topics at an early age – preparing them for adulthood as well as keeping them out of trouble.

Crime on Earth is not resolved by increasing law enforcement but by decriminalization, education, and solving societal problems that lead to crime – criminogenic conditions. The state still exists, but with nearly all other social and economic hierarchies abolished, the state's control is severely limited and far less egregious than it is in the real world 21stcentury. So much, in fact, that it might be challenging to compare it to what we presently consider “the state” today. There are inconsistencies with this structure due to how many episodes and series of Star Trek there are, nobody needs to point that out, but these are the basics. So, how did any of this even happen? Well, here's where things get weird. [Music] In 2026, World War III happened, nuclear weapons annihilated much of the population, and even after it ended in 2053, the world was post-apocalyptic for another decade. In 2063, a scientist named Zephram Cochrane invented the warp drive and made a ship out of an old nuclear missile. The warp attracted the attention of a Vulcan ship. The ship landed, Vulcans and humans shook hands, and the future was set into motion. The Vulcans helped guide humanity toward making better decisions, and after some time, they didn't really need the Vulcans calling the shots, and they were being real mean to Jonathan Archer's dad anyway. Humanity stumbled forward, you know, like a baby gazelle or something, I dunno. Watching Star Trek isn't simply escapist entertainment, although it is definitely that, too. Star Trek episodes are often fables – and much like more traditional fables, Star Trek is not subtle. It has a specific thing to say.

Star Trek is a vision of a hopeful future with lessons about how we might behave in our time in order to achieve something resembling this future. Watching Star Trek often means believing in the idea of this future. Executive producer Rick Berman famously did not believe that something resembling the Star Trek future is possible. “I don’t believe the 24th Century is going to be like Gene Roddenberry believed it to be, that people will be free from poverty and greed.” He also remarked that writing Star Trek simply means buying into it that idea anyway, because you have to write that world – but those who watch Star Trek often do “buy into” that idea. The optimistic future. The lessons in Star Trek genuinely have shaped the values of a great many people. This sounds preposterous, because in reductive terms, Star Trek is simply a product. A successful product worth billions of dollars – earned through advertising, movie tickets and merchandise. Star Trek is such a popular product that it alone can be enough to keep an entire streaming platform afloat. What was previously called CBS All Access and now Paramount Plus had little original programming to speak of when it launched, but the promise of new Star Trek convinced a sizable portion of the viewing audience to subscribe and stay subscribed as more and more Star Trek was developed. Almost every other series that debuted in the first year or two of the streaming platform has been canceled.

But Star Trek, well, Star Trek gets spinoffs. A lot of them. Even Star Trek who don't like the new Star Trek shows keep watching the new Star Trek shows. This is because even though Star Trek is a product, it is not only a product. Star Trek is something that people believe in.  In fairness, nobody knows what the future actually will be, but if we don't imagine what a better future could be, then that future becomes unimaginable. Those who do not believe in the idea of Star Trek often cite “human nature” as the reason why a better future for humanity is not possible – that our allegedly selfish nature will prevent us from saving ourselves – you know, like a scorpion and a frog's back or something, I dunno. First, if the behavior of humans were exclusively predetermined by a fixed, universal “human nature” then our social values would be largely identical to that of early homo sapiens. Remains of primitive homo sapiens date back as far as 300,000 years ago, followed by anatomically modern homo sapiens 200,000 years ago, and homo sapiens with the modern brain shape 100,000 years ago.

Even judging humans by, say, the past three thousand years, change has been enormous, and it did not have anything to do with a changing “nature.” Because the biology of homo sapiens has not changed significantly in this comparatively short amount of time. In other words, if so-called “human nature” has not changed in the past three thousand years, but social values have changed enormously, then much of these changes must be attributed to culture. In fact, even if there is a human nature that impedes progress, it clearly can be overcome given enough time. The social values of humans as well as the structure of society, and technology of humans have changed so much that life three thousand years ago would be unrecognizable to us were we to time travel back there, and life today would be unrecognizable if some hypothetical time traveler from that period were to appear in our time. If the culture of humanity has changed so drastically, then the culture of humanity can change even further. Not all change is good, but it would be naive to claim that humanity is unchangeable. Second, if the behavior of humans were exclusively predetermined by a fixed, universal “human nature” then our social values would be nearly identical from culture to culture even in the modern era. All social values in, say, India, would be identical to social values in the United States. All social values in Ireland would be the same as South Korea. All social values among differing people within a nation would also be nearly identical.

Because these values can be remarkably different, they must be shaped, in part, by culture and not biology. In short, there is clearly a tremendous amount of variation of what we believe and how we structure our societies. The claim that there is simply no way to overcome a social or economic hierarchy because of some inherent selfishness contained in “human nature” is not backed up by anthropologists, historians, sociologists or biologists. In terms of anthropology and history, capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years whereas primitive communism spanned much of the history and culture of homo sapiens. In terms of sociology and biology, endless studies show the positive effects of altruism on the human body and mind. Society simply could not exist if homo sapiens were naturally selfish or incapable of overcoming selfishness. This is not some amateur opinion. It is the contention of every field that studies humanity. As Peter Kropotkin once said “Competition is the law of the jungle, but cooperation is the law of society.” Combined with the technological achievements of today and the future, there is no real reason to believe humanity is incapable of achieving something resembling the Star Trek future.

Believing that humanity has the capacity to overcome our current predicaments and create a much grander and more compassionate world is often called “radical hope.” Philosopher Jonathan Lear defined it as the denial and refusal of cultural vulnerability. This should not be confused with “escapist hope” – the assumption that everything will inevitably be resolved. The Vulcans are not coming to save us. Radical hope is about adaptation, the willingness to see the loss of the current culture as a positive if it brings about a better culture. Radical hope is not escapist because it demands action in building and re-building the culture. This was said in a previous video, but to reiterate, if you want to change things, find a cause you believe in, find an organization that focuses on that cause, join that organization. The solution is to organize – either in pre-existing anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-fascist organizations, parties and unions, or by developing our own. We cannot simply elect a completely different way of life into office and therefore must develop and popularize a political counter-balance. I, too, succumb to ennui about the world, but the answer is not apathy. The answer is hope, and doing something withthat hope. A real world future as optimistic as Star Trek might be challenging to imagine, but remember the hypothetical time traveler? Think about how much the world has changed in only, say, three hundred years instead of three thousand. In fact, think about how different the world is compared to only onehundred years ago. Change is happening at a rapid pace. Whether that change will lead to a better or worse future is up to us.

KAI WINN

The Enterprise. Captain Kirk. “Live Long and Prosper.” The iconography of Star Trek in popular culture is supported by several well-known characters and phrases – sometimes phrases not actually said in any series. Even those who do not watch Star Trek know Mr. Spock is a Vulcan, Klingons are the bad guys, except when they're not, and that Starfleet will “boldly go where know no man (or no one) has gone before,” – oh, and that the best villain in Star Trek is Khan. After all, as we recall through pop culture osmosis, Kirk screams Khan's name, a scene parodied elsewhere in pop culture. Khan must be the best villain, or else why would Captain Kirk be so darn upset? [“Khan!”] However, Khan's name recognition and cultural impact notwithstanding, the augmented, genetically-enhanced Khan Noonien Singh only appears in one episode of one series of Star Trek, “Space Seed”, and then returns in the film Star Trek II to exact some sort of “wrath” of himself.

Khan was introduced to Star Trek as a cautionary tale about eugenics, and he made for a fine adversary for that one episode. Star Trek II is one of the franchise's better film entries, but Khan himself, in the film, is more of an instrument of revenge against Captain Kirk, the post-World War II politics and foreboding social message of the character discarded to make room for the action-packed, high-stakes, singularly-focused space adventure. Wrath of Khan is good. Khan in Wrath of Khan is a hammy, one-note villain with a plastic chest. Are you sure it's Khan you love, or the movie? His distant relative, La'an Noonien-Singh, gets more character development and depth in half a season of Strange New Worlds. Yet, the cultural impact of the Khan name more than the character keeps him fresh in the minds of Star Trek fans. The name is what counts. In Star Trek: Into Darkness, when Benedict Cumberbatch revealed himself as “Khan”, the camera got in real tight for a tilted close-up, as if simply saying he is Khan was enough to shock the world. In Star Trek: Picard, a character holding a document with the name “Khan” on it was enough to be considered a huge reveal. The namemade an impact more than the character. People remember the name, a few melodramatic lines, some goofball histrionics and a wig that defies hairstyle classification.

The notion that Khan is Star Trek's greatest villain runs through an impossible, perpetual motion machine of popular culture discourse. Khan is the greatest villain in Star Trek because people say that Khan is the greatest villain in Star Trek. He's not a bad villain – Space Seed is a pretty solid episode, actually – but Star Trek has so many more intriguing and complex villains. I can think of ten better Star Trek villains the top of my head, and most of them are from Deep Space Nine. This is largely due to DS9's larger cast of recurring, supporting characters and serialized storytelling compared to, say, The Next Generation. Gul Dukat is a far more layered and fascinating monster, and his Cardassian supremacist politics and personality do more with that particular concept than Khan ever did. Even Weyoun gets more character development than Khan, and he's just a basket of clones.

There is one Star Trek antagonist that never seems to get her due with a portion of Trek fans. A character of subterfuge, conspiratorial manuevering, ambitious, insincere motivations mixed with sincere faith, and yes, significant depth. Winn Adame, the Kai of Bajor. A search through Trek fandom usually reveals that fans regard her as one of the “worst” characters, or “most annoying” or “most hated” in the series. Some fans acknowledge that, being a villain, the designation of “most hated” is not so bad, but many others hate her in the sense that they prefer skip the Winn episodes. They do not simply hate what she stands for but hate watching episodes in which she is a key player. I see this a lot in Trek fan circles. “DS9 is good, but skip the Bajor episodes and the Ferengi episodes.” Anyone who skips The Magnificent Ferengi hates Star Trek. This is my hill, this is where I die.

Earlier this month, over the course of two days, I marathoned all fourteen Winn episodes, and my findings are as follows: Kai Winn is easily one of the best villains in all of Star Trek, perhaps second only to Dukat. My most heartfelt apologies to Q – more concept than man – a judge of humanity who serves as counter-point to the vision of a more enlightened Earth. With the exception of “Deja Q” where Q becomes human, Q episodes are not really aboutQ. They are about a test for humanity.

Anyway, Winn. Kai Winn. Let's talk about her.

Popular discourse about Kai Winn casts her as an entitled woman who demands to see the manager, but that is not an accurate representation of her character or her power levels. Kai Winn doesn't ask to see the manager. Kai Winn is the manager. She's ambitious, she wants power, she gets power, and she uses power.

Part of the disdain for the character seems to be how she talks. Much of what Winn says throughout all seven seasons of DS9 is insincere in one way or another. Winn's speech patterns usually fit into one of three categories. Condescension, passive-aggression, and only occasionally, direct aggression. Here is an example of her upper-level condescension game: [“I feel your anger for me, and I forgive you for it.”] The subtext is that Winn is better than the person to whom she is speaking, but there is enough plausible deniability for Winn to claim she was being humble or sympathetic. “I feel your anger for me, and I forgive you for it.” indicates that the other interlocutor in this argument, in this case Keiko O'Brien, must be at fault. It's like saying “I'll pray for you.” or “Bless your heart.” if you live in the mid-west.

Although simple condescension with plausible deniability brings Winn to the dance, passive-aggression is Winn is what wins her the contest. In this scene, Major Kira and Vedek Bareill, who are becoming acquainted but have not yet become romantically involved, are confronted by Winn. After pretending she doesn't remember Kira's name – classic move – she says [“After working so hard, you deserve a little recreation.”] OK, so here, Winn is making it known she thinks Bareill is interested in Kira and may use that knowledge to her advantage at a future date. It's a threat. Next, only seconds later, when Bareill tells Winn that Kira is in the garden for spiritual reasons, Winn says [“A worthy endeavor for someone who has lead such a life of violence, child.”] Really putting on the pressure. Kira fought in the resistance, something she correctly wears as a badge of honor. Winn is envious of this valor, and wants to take it from her by making it seem sinful instead of righteous. Then, Winn remarks that she knows Kira used one of the sacred orbs without permission from the Vedek assembly, but the assembly does not actually need to be consulted. This is another threat. Winn knows Bareill and Kira used an orb without telling anyone, which is not against the rules, but might be considered discourteous by the highly religious population if that information were revealed.

Finally, Winn asks Kira how long she will be staying, and Winn responds [“Feel free to stay as many days as you like. Even a week, if necessary.”] Obviously, this is code for “You have one week to leave this place, or else I will use my political influence and what I have learned here today against you.” Notice how she chooses to speak to both Bareill and Kira. Above them. What an absolute boss, and each devastating passive-aggressive threat happens within seconds of each other, and all in the span of about half a minute. Winn maximizes her passive-aggression and fits a lifetime worth of threats into one brief conversation. No wasted motion. She is the Serena Williams of making you feel bad.

Last but not least, Winn engages in direct aggression from time to time. [“Oh, doctor. I won't forget what you've said here today.”] [“If you're wise, you will never speak to me with such disrespect again!”] This is rare, because Winn prefers to keep her feelings and motivations hidden, not to mention her D&D alignment, and that's what makes her unique. Winn is a “villain” but she is also the spiritual leader of Bajor. Captain Sisko cares about the Bajoran people. They spend a lot time working together, whether they want to or not. Sometimes Sisko's interests and Winn's interests even align. With the exception of Winn's first appearance, which involves a criminal conspiracy, Winn is usually working alongside the Starfleet officers and Bajoran militias – until her interests come into conflict with theirs. Winn is a villain, but she also offers to officiate Captain Sisko's wedding. The relationship is complicated. Winn is envious of Sisko because he was chosen to be the Emissary of the Prophets, and that leaves her in his shadow – but she's never plotting to steal his baseball or whatever. That would have been a great episode, actually. Sisko's baseball goes missing, and it turns out it was Kai Winn being super petty.

What makes Winn such a great character is that she's complicated. Her choice of words might make her insincere, and her ambition might make her arrogant, but there is some sincerity and humility within her. In the second season, when Winn is still a Vedek, she conspires with Minister Jarro to drive the Federation out of Bajoran space. In exchange for her cooperation, she will be made Kai. However, she was not aware of Jarro's connection with the Cardassians, and when this is revealed, she correctly turns on him. She gives up her conspiracy and her potential position as Kai because she's not that kind of traitor. Even in season seven, she tells Gul Dukat [“I don't forgive war criminals.”] Winn went through a lot during the occupation. In one episode, she reminds Kira that those who were caught preaching the word of the Prophets were executed. Winn did this anyway, despite the risks, because their faith helped the Bajoran people get through the occupation. In another episode, it's revealed that Winn tried to encourage the Bajoran clergy to resist further, bribing Cardassian officers to spare Bajorans. The implication is that Winn probably saved a lot of lives during the occupation.

In the seventh season, Winn goes full-on villain mode, but the circumstances are unusual. She receives a vision from entities that she initially believes are the Prophets. Not long after, the entities reveal themselves as the Pah-Wraiths – the ancient enemies of the Prophets. Winn had no idea, but the Prophets refuse to engage with her through the orb anymore.

Winn goes to Kira for guidance, but when the former resistance fighter tells the Kai that she should step down and show humility, Winn can't bring herself to do it. She fails the test – initially. Winn is manipulated and entrapped into serving the Pah-Wraiths, and once there are no more options, she goes along with the plan. What do you do when you have never intentionally done anything to offend your gods, but through the trickery of others, you forever cut yourself off from them? In the end, she gives Captain Sisko the key to defeating Gul Dukat: destroying the book of the Kosta Mojan. [“Emissary, the book!”] [“The book was the key!” “To a door that can never been opened again.”]

Kai Winn is best understood as a tragic character who suffered too much trauma living through the occupation. She speaks of it often. Her ambition comes from insecurity, vulnerability, a desire to protect herself: qualities that are exacerbated by trauma. Dr. Bashir correctly calls her a coward, but her cowardice comes from somewhere. It doesn't make her actions justified. It only makes her actions interesting. Kai Winn is a fascinating character, easily one of the best villains in all of Star Trek, and ten times the character that Khan could ever dream to be. And now to check the comments section!