[honzaik]

last week's "truth" (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1164091464198...)

"I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country! Our Military Patriots desperately need FISA 702, and it is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous SUCCESS on the battlefield."

[tonmoy]

I thought you were quoting a propaganda ad from starship troopers for a second there

[throwatdem12311]

Th amount of conservatives/republicans that love Starship Troopers (the film) because they take it at face value is pretty scary. The ones that call it poor satire are especially…interesting.

They continue to prove Verhoeven’s point many times over even decades later.

[Der_Einzige]

How many times do we have to tell you this old man?

The book and author of the book was serious/not satire and meant everything earnestly at least the time of writing.

It’s objectively not meant to be looked at as satire. Most of the “citizenship requires service” stuff would be amazing from the perspective of smashing this countries geriocracy.

[thrance]

Verhoeven is the filmmaker, that adapted the book to the screen. He is very much an anti-fascist, and absolutely did turn the book into a satire of itself and the ideology it tries to convey.

> Director Paul Verhoeven admits to have never finished the novel, claiming he read through the first two chapters and became both bored and depressed, calling it "a very right-wing book" in Empire magazine. He then told screenwriter Edward Neumeier to tell him the rest. They then decided that while both the novel and its author Robert A. Heinlein strongly supported a regime led by a military elite, they would make the film a satirical hyperbole of contemporary American politics and culture: "Ed and I [..] felt that we needed to counter with our own narrative. Basically, the political undercurrent of the film is that these heroes and heroines are living in a fascist utopia - but they are not even aware of it! They think this is normal. And somehow you are seduced to follow them, and at the same time, made aware that they might be fascists." Verhoeven later claimed that many viewers had not caught on to the satirical part. Ironically, diehard Heinlein fans later declared that the filmmakers themselves also completely misinterpreted Heinlein's nature and intentions. They say he was a libertarian who opposed conscription and militarism, and depicted the oligarchy-by-ex-military-citizenry government in the book because it was an example of something that has never been done in real life. He was not advocating it, but was merely speculating that such a system could exist without collapsing.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/trivia/?item=tr0782027

[least]

The book does contain fascist themes and Heinlein was not advocating for traditional libertarianism in it. I read it more as exploring the boundaries of liberty and what would constitute a “free” society. The society was, for most, effectively free, just that a normal person didn’t have the right to full citizenship without serving. It was a utopia for the average person - only those that served really saw the absolute horrors of war and were the only ones able to vote and hold office. Would you rather live in a society where your quality of life was genuinely excellent but you weren’t entitled to vote or one where your quality of life is markedly worse but you are allowed to steer the direction of your own governance? It’s a theme explored in many utopian stories, usually with the conclusion that freedom trumps ignorant bliss.

In a vacuum I think the interpretation Verhoeven had is mostly fine. It only becomes apparently ignorant if you’ve read more of Heinlein’s work, where libertarian themes are pervasive.

[throwatdem12311]

Who is the old man? I explicitly mentioned the film.

[djeastm]

>giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country!

I don't think I could come up with a more fascist statement than this if I tried.

[ethbr1]

The most surprising thing about watching the Trump trainwreck has been in how spineless he is about any personal ideological conviction.

He cares about perceptions of him. He cares about power and money.

But past that it's literally... whoever was last in the room with him. Which in this case was obviously Palantir. And 50 days ago was Hegseth.

[kasey_junk]

Why is that surprising? He’s been that way on the public stage for 40 years. What’s surprising is his base popularity hasn’t moved at all. He’s giving a fair chunk of the population what they want.

[tclancy]

>He’s giving a fair chunk of the population what they want.

That would be upsetting if so. I feel the far more frightening thing is he is telling a large swath of people who don't know what they want, what they want. And then delivering that. So it could be literally anything.

[mindslight]

Because the only thing they really want is validation of their unserious world view, and their frustration that results from it. Trump's thrashing around without a coherent plan and [inevitably] making our position worse mirrors their own existence.

[khuey]

The only remotely ideological conviction he has is "trade bad, tariffs good".

[unethical_ban]

It was his selling point. The people who voted for him don't care that he has no ideological conviction. They like that he is instinctively against "liberals". It just so happens that those are the people giving him less money and groveling.

The low-brow term for this is "owning the libs", but I believe it's really what's happening. It doesn't matter his personal moral failures or inconsistency, as long as he sets back social progress.

[ethbr1]

That feels like too reductive of a distillation and conveniently excises the necessity of examining his supporters' grievances for legitimate ones.

He was elected by a broad coalition of conservative-ish stakeholders, many of whom had very coherent and enunciated goals.