Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the enemy seem like “the other” , and in this case these are actual alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side”
Paul Verhoeven also deliberately made the first scene shot for shot similar to a german Nazi propaganda film.
The whole movie is to make you root for “our side” and demonize the other. I personally didn’t realize this fully when I watched it, which makes the process so insidious.
The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry.
The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire on all levels. Paul Verhoeven claimed he hated the book and didn't finish it.
Contrary to common believes, that a fascist society must visually similar to what been portrayed in a WW2 movie, a real fascist society now days hides behind layers of outlooks that makes them look normal. People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise, and their government and law might be structured like a normal one. The most obvious difference between a fascist society and a normal society is probably how the society create and changes it's laws, which is complex to observe even in a normal society. This is the reason why so many people couldn't believe it when they're already in one.
"There is no effort ... I mean they do all the scientific research, but they never investigate how to communicate with them, how to have peaceful solution... their society thrive on the need of an enemy. And they have all these space ships and faster than light travel, they made all this advancements, but it's a fascist society that just breeds his bread for war." (11:07)
> People in a fascist society may work a well-paid job in a clean glassy high-rise
Just like under fascism in Italy and Germany. Most people would spend their attention on work and entertainment, often avoiding discussing politics and ignore dissenting voices outside of the overton window.
1. The article is Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism".
2. A parent post implies that "normal" society has actually become Fascist without us realizing it, and starts talking about how you can't go outside the Overton Window.
3. Post to which I replied says you can probably be perfectly happy in such a society, until you come to understand your situation, at which point you are "red pilled" (though refused to spell out, as that is unsayable).
Nowhere in the above is there any discussion of gender, women, trans issues, or feminism, except maybe very indirectly, insofar as "Notes on Nationalism" comes from an era with (and is partly a discussion of) Fascism, and Fascism is often said to be misogynistic.
Anyway, let's take a step back. This whole thread was saying, basically, that mainstream "liberal" society/politics is "the real fascism" and that people need to get "red pilled". I'm spelling out what's going on in the thread, not supporting it.
The term red pill comes from The Matrix where the non-subtle metaphor is "want to know the truth? Take the red pill". There was no need to censor the term if that was the meaning.
A group of people, often considered misogynists or anti-feminists, who think they have a secret truth about dating women, also use the term.
There is also the subtle metaphor of The Matrix, that the redpill actual refers to transitioning into women. The color was choosen because in the 90s estrogen hormone therapy were literally red pills in the 90s.
"Gnostic" as in hidden knowledge -- "You're really in the Matrix!" Surely that's what "red pill" is about(?); that's the film reference.
Though asterices could perhaps be a dog whistle too: "Only my desired recipients understand." A dog whistle of taboo gnosis.
(When you go to an art gallery you hear lots of dog whistles: The text describing each piece is full of strange word-patterns. Often the repetition or gratuitous insertion of an unexpected word, e.g. "bodies", often as a double- or triple- entendre. The cant(ations) are easy to notice, once you dwell on the strangeness and ask yourself: "Why are they talking like that?")
I suppose gnosis tends to live outside the Overton Window, thus would go hand-in-hand with dog-whistles. Related, the groups with this "knowledge" tend to have developed their own (incompatible) moralities -- and indeed, induction to such a group involves violation of the conventional morality (think killing a random person to enter a gang). "You can't leave us now; among the Others you'll feel guilt."
So these three go together: Gnosis, dog-whistles, and "righteous sin". I suppose the last one develops last.
Hmm, I see it currently happening. Everything is fine, until you step over certain line and then mob of self-righteous evil people descent and at least attempt to ruin your life... The left truly never changes...
The Man in the High Castle adaption by Amazon was fantastic in this. The Nazi cities were beautiful. They were orderly, clean, everyone was well dressed and nice. Infrastructure was top notch and there were only very small hints that something was off. It was the type of NIMBY paradise that the rich Californians would kill for.
What I have found to be a fantastic guiding principle for fascism in the West is the saying of a Peruvian dictator: "for my friends: anything, for my enemies: the law!". We're seeing this right now as the West has completely re-written the rules of The Game for the sake of hurting Russia and Russians. Going to be an interesting decade as the world re-shapes to adjust for the rule change and the West likely becomes more of an authoritarian fascist totality.
No one was interested in hurting the Russians until they invaded Ukraine. And nothing about this makes me suddenly think of my country as the good guys or makes any of the issues with my country any better.
Not OP, but I wonder is he is having the same feeling I am on this whole Ukraine situation.
Below is a paste from a conversation I had with a close group of friends:
I feel sorry for Ukrainians. I can't help but shake the feeling that they are being used as a pawn for the US to drain the military resources of Russia.
I would guess that, the optimal outcome from the neocon/neolib perspective is for Russia to rubblize Ukraine over a period of months to a year, all they while the west says "woe is me", and supplies equipment to decimate Russian armor and aircraft.
This makes Russia the indisputable bad guy for the atrocities committed against Ukraine, all the while the west has clean hands in decimating Russia's military power.
The end result is hundreds of thousands to millions of dead Ukrainians that the neocons will shed crocodile tears over.
Only cost them a few hundred million dollars to do hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Russia.
If there was any legitimate desire to have Russia back off, they would be offering terms such as guaranteeing that Ukraine would never enter NATO as part of a treaty, lifting of sanctions, etc, contingent on a full withdrawal.
Russia was invited to NATO in the Partnership for Peace program.
And invading a country without provocation and which was elected democratically is kind of the reason for a defensive alliance in the first place.
Furthermore with Russia being a defacto dictatorship it becomes hard to deal with the actual position of the Russian people (who aren’t allowed to protest or have free media or vote)
After all that, there is still the Russia–NATO Council that was established in 2002 for handling security issues and joint projects.
I believe you, yet western countries refused to discuss that very topic few weeks ago when Russia demanded that NATO was not extended further. Frankly, as a mere western Europe citizen, arguably living far away from russian borders, I could not care less about NATO extension. I feel more threatened by the war mongering in the west than by the russian army, and I suspect many other people feel the same. Yet this opinion is not represented at all in the western "democracies".
There are several layers of propaganda, and you point to only one of them.
1) The propaganda for West is that "power balance" shit story. US citizens are distant enough to believe this is rational PoV. (it is not)
2) The propaganda for russians is that Ukraine is a failed state, has no legitimate govt, makes undercover nukes and nazis use ukrainian people as hostages. (all of this is lie)
3) The propaganda for Ukraine is that Russians and Ukrainians are literally "brothers", more "brothers" than ukrainians and poles. Everyone speaking russian language is part of Russia. (clear manipulation)
We Ukrainians don't like this propaganda and don't want live under Putin's (or any other non-democratic) regime. If US (and Europe) feels we can help them achieve their goals, we are fine with that. Because it aligns with our national goals -- make Russia weak, or even make it disappear from global map.
Not arguing that point. He made the decision to invade, he has agency of his own and is responsible for his actions.
My point is that if people think his Nazi and NATO talk is bullshit, call it by offering terms that completely neutralize those points.
It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us." It's a completely different thing to say, "Ukraine will never be in NATO, here is a legally binding treaty stating so, contingent on X actions by Russia."
> It's one thing to say, "Ukraine was never going to be in NATO, trust us."
No one ever said that. Ukraine is going to be in NATO if they want to be in NATO. The claim that Ukraine would eventually be admitted to NATO is not the bullshit.
The bullshit is that NATO is offensively directed at Russia; the only reason Russia isn't in NATO and covered by its defensive shield (Russia joined the onramp Partnership for Peace program in 1994) is that Putin decided he didn't want it to be, made known-unacceptable demands to bypass the accession process, was rebuffed as he knew he would be, and used that as a reason to stop any work toward joining.
The book is brilliant, I would say, for being readable at the same time as an ode of support and admiration for the social order, and as a scathing critique of that order. IIANM Heinlein himself was more on the side of the first interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong) but was fair enough to offer solid footing for the opposite view; although one wonders how much of it was conscious and how much of it was his capability for credible depiction of social and political phenomena, complete with the warts and flaws.
Verhoeven's book is more obviously satirical, and I recall getting the clear message of how the Humans are a mirror image of the Bugs.
The book is a vehicle for Heinlein's political views and he is 100% in support of the ideology described. The political system described in the book isn't fascism, rather it is democracy with the franchise limited to people who have served their country. Heinlein believes people who have never made personal sacrifices make poor decisions and therefore political power should be limited to people who have made such sacrifices. It's the same reason why children lack the right to vote in real-world democracies: a lack of experience to base decisions on. Heinlein also believes that democracy and human rights are fragile and need to be actively defended, not taken for granted.
Verhoeven's movie is just a campy film; the man admitted that he stopped reading the book as soon as he saw the first "fascist" element, because he thinks that "military" equals "fascism". The movie is a strawman that does not represent Heinlein's views and is best thought of as a mindless action movie with a simple message of "war bad" instead of biting political satire.
> it is democracy with the franchise limited to people who have served their country
That's what the system teaches you in school. But IIRC, Heinlein did not force this down your throat as an absolute truth. In fact, and again IIRC, there was never any proper public discussion we are made aware of, of the reason for the war against the bugs. It's even possible that it's a Human-initiated campaign; Rico is not told, nor is he ever concerned with those kinds of things.
> Heinlein also believes that democracy and human rights are fragile and need to be actively defended
Yes, exactly. Whether one agrees with Heinlein's views or not, his work should likely be put in context. Heinlein's interviews are a good place for that context.
My personal understanding of Heinlein is that he shifted from a very pro-government conservative to a far more laissez faire libertarian as he aged and as you follow his works throughout his life. Starship Troopers came far earlier in this progression.
Possibly, but what I'm saying is that he "lets" you read his book as an anti-government radical, and not feel Heinlein is forcing his beliefs onto the plot.
> Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry
This is a very shallow interpretation of the book. When did you read it?
I have seen the book quoted in defense of near fascists ideas (like that soldiers should have more say in politics and more voting rights then civilians). In full seriousness.
I have never seen it quoted to support anything else.
The book is very clear that everyone, regardless of ability, has a right to perform the term of service necessary for the franchise, and that all have complete freedom of speech.
There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.
Convinced pacifists and those unwilling to become part of their army don't get to vote. Everybody who votes is expected to spend enough time in military to be shaped and molded by them. Plus, the book is clear on superiority of soldiers when it comes to making state and political decisions. That are fairly fascist ideas, very straightforwardly.
Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are never used for anything else except ideas like this.
Never mind the people who quote it, such as you know them. The book is available on its own, to any who will give it a few hours.
Like most of its critics, you don't know what the book says.
Soldiers aren't considered superior, they don't even get to vote until they retire. It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, not the subordination of all civil institutions to the State. Note that the book's extensive moral philosophizing talks about the collective and general good, but _not_ the importance of the State. It is largely silent about what civil society and its institutions look like. There is no suggestion of a totalitarian thought control apparatus, and indeed the book notes the risk that the electorate will panic and screw up defense policy.
And again, it notes that all persons, franchised or not, have the right to free speech, which is hardly typical of a fascist society.
Further, the book is a thought experiment. Heinlein never wrote another book of the kind, and wrote a number that most would consider positively subversive.
> It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all
No. It requires being soldiers and equates being soldiers to individual willingness to sacrifice himself for the good. Unwuestioningly assuming those are the same ... and also that self sacrifice should be requires.
Those are fascist ideas, really. And here you are defending them, equating the system describe by the book with what book defends.
Because, the book is written from the point on view of fan and contain no other point of view.
I didn't mean for my original message to come across harshly.
The plot is ancillary; the novel is really a description of a certain kind of martial logic, and a criticism of larger society that the author grew up in. Juan Rico is a stand-in for the reader, only there to be a blank slate upon which Heinlein's ideas about society and the military are imparted. It's most more of a treatise than a story.
A lot of people seem to be comparing the book and the movie as if they're on equal footing, which I do not think they are.
Thank you for reminding me again of starship troopers. It is a great movie and in my experience has quite a bad rap amongst the "intelligentsia", mostly I think because people just go off the trailer and dismiss it as a "stupid alien action movie". When I discussed the satire, images etc with people they often look at me like I'm crazy.
You’re welcome, I think the movie can be a great starting point for both debates and further study. The war on terror (after 9/11) and the war in the movie have great parallels.
I've avoided watching it, despite sitting firmly in the age demographic it was aiming at upon release, for exactly the reasons you've described. Even now it feels as if I have to suppress my 'higher functions' to consider seeking it out.
>Showgirls was a critical failure upon release, panned for its acting (particularly Berkley's), characters, dance numbers, directing, plot, screenplay and sex scenes and is consistently ranked as one of the worst films ever made. Despite this, Showgirls has become regarded as a cult film and has been subject to critical re-evaluation, with some notable directors and critics considering it a serious satire worthy of praise.
Most people I've talked to who watched Starship Troopers didn't think it was satire. To be fair, the enemy is literally not human which does make it harder to pick up on.
I remember watching it as a teenager back in 1997. I was the only one laughing in the cinema, it was just hilarious.
It immediately dawned on me after though: why was no one else laughing, really? In Austria of all places.
Hadn’t anyone else paid attention during history classes - at all?
Continuously chilling yet I’ve never been really surprised by the creeping normalcy of fascist thought since the 90s - in part because of Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers.
I think that's the mark of effective satire though - or it can be, I'd say there's a spectrum. Some satire needs to call itself out to the audience - make it clear what it is going after, and why. Others is the latter half of it - and Starship Troopers is definitely in this category - play it so straight that you do have to actually key in to it, and it might not hit right away.
I was early teens when I watched it, so while the "do you want to know more?" definitely hit as a "okay this is kind of absurd" we were definitely there for action and bugs exploding. But it certainly hit different when I revisited it and you realize just how effective a satire it is at pretty much every level.
And I think that's the important part: you can totally miss the point of the movie, and that's basically critical to it's message: it is written and structured as fascist propaganda, and the fact that that can seem reasonable if you accept it uncritically is the message - it's a whole movie which very subtly is pointing out that fascism and its death cult heroism worship is exactly that, but because we dressed it up to look pretty while making what's happening abundantly clear on screen (you die horrifically in a pointless war), you're almost thinking this is reasonable.
Well said, I especially like your take “It’s seems reasonable to accept it uncritically is the message”
How often do we accept the story or the identity we are already part of?
For instance in the current conflict I wonder how language plays a part. Many Russians speak no to little english, and vice versa I/we often don’t speak Russian. I wonder how much this insulation adds to our conflict. I can’t learn from their viewpoint and they not from mine. Which leaves us with a one sided view like in the movie.
I had a similar reaction. It was so over the top as to seem obviously satirical, and indeed a poke in the eye to Heinlein's dangerously serious take on the subject matter. I forgave people for not having read the original Heinlein, but I couldn't understand how people didn't see the satire.
That is the trouble with good satire. It needs to be subtle enough that readers feel the pull of the thing being satirized, or there's no real lesson in it. But if it's too subtle, people will miss the point. In practice, it's impossible to get every person to hit both gates. Poe's Law [1] was coined before Starship Troopers, but it certainly applies.
When I was a teen in midwest USA I took a German foreign exchange student to an NFL game. They were mortified at the whole stadium standing to sing the national anthem, thought it was bizarre and scary.
Or reading that some schools do Pledge of Allegiance every day. That is the most fascist thing I can imagine. Something that would never happen in Europe outside single time in army or similar institution... National anthem is limited to independence day...
When I was a teen in <large college town> I thought it was bizarre and scary that anyone would feel enough patriotism to sing the national anthem. Now I think it's bizarre and scary for anyone to feel such a lack of patriotism that they would think it's bizarre and scary to want to sing the national anthem.
> In a 2014 interview on The Adam Carolla Show, the actor Michael Ironside, who read the novel as a youth, said that he asked Verhoeven, who grew up in the German-occupied Netherlands, "Why are you doing a right-wing fascist movie?" Verhoeven replied, "If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships but it's only good for killing fucking Bugs!"
The real cases are not much different. In the backdrop of invading a country thousands of miles away on a false pretext, the American Sniper story is a window into that[0]:
“Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq,” he writes after describing his first kill, a woman who walked into a street with a grenade in her hand as marines advanced into her village. After a moment’s hesitation, he drops her with a shot.
“That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages,’” he writes of this scene. “There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there.”
The best response to "Starship Troopers" is "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman, which gives a great account of the use of propaganda to manufacture a war.
The movie is a terribly stupid take on a very good (and widely, perhaps deliberately, misunderstood) book.
It says a lot about Heinlein that he wrote Haldeman to praise his take on the subject.
Paul Verhoeven also deliberately made the first scene shot for shot similar to a german Nazi propaganda film.
The whole movie is to make you root for “our side” and demonize the other. I personally didn’t realize this fully when I watched it, which makes the process so insidious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers