Not much of a revelation, just an observation, but how much of sci-fi pushes the ideal that Humanity's path forward is unification?
Star Trek is a major one, and many would state it was a progressive show, and it earnestly was.
It also stated that in its ideal future, there's a Federation of like-minded extraterrestrials, and as a member species, Humanity lives in a united, post-scarcity society under a single government.
To that end, how many alien species in these stories are so inhuman, in that they have no differences, a world-wide government, a single language?
It's laughable how direct the propaganda was, and continues to be.
I'd actually say most of the popular Sci-Fi was Leftist, as intended by the media.
The Day The Earth Stood Still, is allegedly an anti-war movie, but it's not. It's actually a Fabian Socialist movie. One thing you must understand about western Fabian Socialism is that they have always harped on the idea of them being the only people interested in world peace. And their concept of world peace comes through the total submission of your ability to act without consulting them.
Klaatu's speech is actually extremely evil from an anti-Leftist position.
No aggression can be tolerated from anyone anywhere? That makes no sense on it's face as a statement because it requires aggressive intolerance... which is exactly what Klaatu's threatening to do: commit genocide in the name of collective self-defense, a very common Communist trope.
He mentions that "your ancestors" created laws and made police to enforce them. Just to be clear, police are not an ancient invention, they are a modern invention necessitated by industrialized high-density cities. The Left assert that a government authoritarian force to coerce peace is a necessary concept, even though it's effectively a new concept (that it currently being challenged by the Left).
Klaatu's concept of policing is supreme, totalitarian, and unrestricted rule to an unsympathetic and uncaring robot. ... a non-human form of Judge Dredd...
Klaatu's civilization is secure from war and aggression, because they have voluntarily submitted and disarmed themselves to absolute tyranny and unrestrained violence by machines.
He mentions that he doesn't care how you run your own planets, but is prepared to exterminate all life on the Earth if "violence is extended" towards the other planets. Mind you, Earth hasn't even achieved space flight yet. In the movie people are already dead, and we are all well aware of how loose the concept of "violence" can be.
The mentality of the Left is everywhere in this movie: an absolutely cynical and disgusted view of humanity, deserving of any disaster that befalls it. A sense of absolute superiority and morality in the view of the person promoting an effectively anti-human belief. Arguing that any offense against the smug one's perfect order should be met with unrestrained violence. The idea that disarmament and tyranny leads to perfect utopian safety. And to complete the smugness: the implicit assertion that you'll make the "correct" decision if you were only civilized enough to understand how much better the Left is than you.
Fundamentally, I always felt like the aliens were never actually good because they always seemed so menacing. But now it really seems like the aliens are truly evil. What's worse is that, as with Thanos, the Left basically agrees with the villain on principle.
... That's a bad thing you crazy fucking pinkos.
Good analysis.
It doesn't really feel necessary to break down leftist thought any further than this: they are good, and you are bad. From this simple truism, they can conjure justification for any action required to maintain their authority and systematically condemn any action that threatens to reduce or restrict their control.
One of the most glaring recent examples is the kids in cages. When 2400 kids were in cages under Trump, it was an unnecessary cruelty purposely perpetrated by an uncaring monster. But now that 5x as many kids are in cages under Biden, it's an unavoidable product of circumstance, a regrettable but necessary course of action undertaken by a good and compassionate man with no other choice.
Meanwhile, we've got 5x as many kids in cages.
Thomas Sowell brings this up repeatedly in his books about intellectuals and intellectualism never having to face the consequences of their own actions and policies, and thus never even considering the potential that they are wrong. So, when Leftist policy inevitably does the opposite of what it intends, they continue the policy, claim it wasn't done hard enough, claim that other persons might have had to do it, but never take responsibility themselves for the activity.
And while that's true to a point, I would go further to say that many of them never cared in the first place, and were simply focusing on power alone.
I think the single greatest Hollywood demonstration of Leftist moral absolutism, supremacism, and what I call "Leftist Inevitability Doctrine" comes from a little seen film called "Fall Of Eagles". It's a Hollywood Dramatization of the events leading up to Lenin's arrival in Moscow.
As is typical for western Leftists, the dramatization portrays Trotsky in a fairly favorable light, and Lenin as a highly charismatic but absolutely ruthless person. There is one scene where Kaiser Wilhelm is discussing the dangers of the secret plot to send Lenin into Moscow in order to foment a revolution and knock the Russian Empire out of the war.
There is a specific line in that film that always makes me lose my shit. When one of the Socialist conspirators looks Wilhelm right in the eye and says "the Bolsheviks only want peace". Kaiser, rightly, doesn't believe that.
The film tries to portray Wilhelm as a bit mad in this scene, but the socialist as a stern but humble man attempting at any price to create a peaceful world.
This narrative is the Western Fabain Socialist self-narrative in a nut shell, particularly of the time. The Socialists of the era made all sorts of noise about how WW1 was capitalists and monarchists attempting to seize power for their particular state, and that Internationalist Socialists needed to oppose the war and even their own states in order to bring about peace, which could then bring about the slow usurpation of these states through socialism. And if Russia just so happened to have a revolution which brought about a Socialist state, who could complain about the expansion of a peaceful and inevitable ideology? This narrative is actually around the same time when Mussolini separated from the Internationalist Socialists and started advocating for socialism that was not so tied to internationalism, but was more tied to nationalism. He agreed more with the State Socialist line of thinking that only the state could maintain the socialist revolution.
The absolute absurdity of claiming that the Bolsheviks only wanted peace is truly galling. Every single place the Bolsheviks touched descended into war, famine, ethnic cleansing, and murder. Even outside of Russia in neighboring states where Bolsheviks had effectively set up their own autonomous zones, they were using starvation as a political weapon to maintain control. The Bolsheviks didn't just not want peace, they started a civil war, they committed mass murder, they even formed an army and invaded Poland, not in 1939, but in 1919. The Civil War wasn't even fully over before the Bolshevik Red Army, led by Lenin, Stalin, and what-do-you-know Trotsky (so peaceful), attacked all of Eastern Europe (and supported a Communist uprising in Berlin), in a desperate attempt to overthrow the German government and take Berlin... because Lenin never wanted to seize control of Russia, he always wanted to seize control of Germany.
And there was never any allowed opposition to the Bolsheviks either, the White Army fought until their death or merging with other forces because the Bolsheviks wanted to fucking exterminate them. When Eastern European states like Estonia and Poland wanted independence from Russia, the Bolsheviks were determined to destroy them and install Bolshevik/Communist puppet governments in those states and call it "independent" despite being entirely dependent upon Moscow. It didn't help that Germany was actually also trying to do the same thing, just specifically with non-communist puppet governments.
Given the first opportunity to create peace, the Bolsheviks started a war. Trotsky didn't really shed a fucking tear about it, and Stalin was eventually the man who truly brought peace to the communists... because he was the absolute tyrant that you submit yourself to if you don't want death.
Now compare Fall of Eagles to Klaatu's speech.
It's basically the same speech when it comes to "peace" and "inevitability". But who enforces that peace and disarmament? In The Day The Earth Stood Still, it was Gort. But in reality, It was Stalin.
True peace can only come when you submit to Stalin. Thank's socialists. You're not fucking crazy at all.