When I was in 8th grade fifty years ago one of the books that was required reading in my homeroom class was Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky – about a group of high school kids that got stranded on an unihabited wild planet. It was Heinlein's answer to Golding's Lord of the Flies.

The high school kids, rather than devolving to a primitive state of affairs, managed to rise above that inclination BECAUSE they were able to draw on the lessons of history they'd learned in school and the lessons of what government and civilization require that they had learned in school.

The youth of today have been cut off from these lessons of history that are needed to build and maintain civilization. All previous learning has been canceled. They are like people living in a self-imposed dark age, cut off from all the lessons of history.

Before our youth could even begin to become a part of the human race they have been cut off from the ties that bind humanity and make us truly human beings.

They are primitives whose societies have to begin from the very beginning – totally cut off from previous human experience and hard lessons learned.

They are people living in a dark age cut off from all knowledge and the learning built and passed down through the generations.

forelock tug to the Karl Marx Treatment Center.

'pelipsky's thinking is muuuch improved and under control. Keep. It. Together. K.I.T.

This Heinlein guy...he was white, wasn't he? In that case, we can learn nothing from him because all whites are racists, and thus every idea or concept originating from them is absolutely unacceptable. Except for Karl Marx.

Ivan Betinov wrote:This Heinlein guy...he was white, wasn't he?

At least, he was a Socialist once -- before it became mainstream...Me thinks, we ought to reject the Pythagoras' Theorem, however -- because Pythagoras was not only White, but also owned a slave...

Most Equally Esteemed Komrads,

Our collective in the Alaskan People's Republic had seen fit to place Little Free Libraries ™ near our assigned housing unit. Some thought criminal kept placing copies of Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" where impressionable young minds might see them. It was horrible. Children exposed to concepts of citizenship and responsible adulthood? There was much buzz and speculation among certain block monitors about who might be the culprit. No show trial was ever held.

PROG OFF

I found a lot of 100 copies of that book on some obscure auction site. Got it for next to nothing. I REALLY enjoyed putting those books out for the youngsters. I know Starship Troopers helped warp shape my thinking as a fry. The snowflake parents complained bitterly to the HOA and demanded that the Little Free Library ™ be removed from the neighborhood. Fortunately it was in the front yard of the Board President and he heartily approved of Starship Troopers.

PROG ON

A committee was formed to monitor the Little Free Library ™. I was the secretary....

Subversive in the Current Truth ™,

Red Salmon

Politics is downstream from culture is downstream from education, I guess.

I salute comrade Salmon for his heroic efforts. I liked Starship Troopers.

Interesting analysis about the politics of Heinlein and the mindless shrieks of 'fascism' against the starship troopers movie:

TANSTAAFL failed to translate in CHAZ.

Red Fish (not to be confused with Two Fish or Blue Fish), I was truly horrified by the rotten treatment Starship Troopers got from Paul Verhoven. Turned that wonderful novel into "Dougie Hauser, Space Nazi." If I ever run across him, I'm going to do my best to see he gets a full set of lumps.

Ivan Betinov wrote:Red Fish (not to be confused with Two Fish or Blue Fish), I was truly horrified by the rotten treatment Starship Troopers got from Paul Verhoven. Turned that wonderful novel into "Dougie Hauser, Space Nazi." If I ever run across him, I'm going to do my best to see he gets a full set of lumps.

Spit, spit! Heinlein sounds old and white, he is surely evil! Spit, spit!

[img]images/clipart/Prog_Off.gif[/img]

The funny thing is, Verhoeven apparently admitted never having read the book. Seriously (see the youtube link above). Also, his attempt to paint Heinlein's "Starship Troopers Universe" as a sort of fascist society are quite interesting, because he in fact does not achieve his goal. He just shows how historically uneducated "progressives" are unable to interpret the world around them.

For example:
- becoming a citizen by joining the army in Heinlein's book (and the movie) is a free choice, not mandated by the state (unlike in fascism). In fact, in Heinlein, civilians are even discouraged to join the army and told to live their lives just like they want (more like a liberal utopia).
- the society is militaristic because they are at war against space-bugs bent on destroying them (similar to the USA in WW II fighting fascism). Militarism during a war is not fascism, it's survival... something "progressives" don't really understand. Verhoeven said in interviews he wanted to show how war makes fascists of us all, thereby missing the point completely. The very concept of any authoritarian statism (fascism, socialism, all similar if you ask me) is to re-create the regimentation, single-mindedness and discipline of an army during peacetime to pursue the goals determined by the state. Military organisation during an existential war is not the same as civilian life.
- Cute how Verhoeven gives the humans "Wehrmacht"-inspired uniforms, but just like in the MSM today: painting your opponents as evil Nazis doesn't make them that.


So all in all, I follow Carl Benjamin's idea about this movie: it's a failed attempt to paint a picture of fascism that completely exposes the ignorance of the "artistic class" about the true nature and definition of fascism itself.


Greetings

...becoming a citizen by joining the army in Heinlein's book (and the movie) is a free choice, not mandated by the state (unlike in fascism). In fact, in Heinlein, civilians are even discouraged to join the army and told to live their lives just like they want (more like a liberal utopia).

In fact, one did not have to join the military to gain citizenship; if they attempted to sign up for one of the service branches and were deemed physically or mentally unable to meet service requirements and still insisted on earning their citizenship, they could opt for service in some other needed but difficult, unpleasant, and possibly dangerous task.

“Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.”

The point (that Verhoven missed by a long shot) was not to indoctrinate the population into subservience to the state, but rather impress on them how important their sovereign franchise was; the moral was that something earned through toil and sweat and tears was treasured far more than something given to you by accident of birth.

“Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not - and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.”

And even there, Heinlein does not beat an ideological drum. He posited a system of government and built a society around that system, but within the system they did not claim to have found Utopia. Note the exchange in one of the History and Moral Philosophy classes (I can't remember if it was when Juan Rico was in high school or in OCS) in which the instructor asked why the government had retained this system of earned citizenship. The students offered a variety of fairly idealistic reasons, which the instructor shot down one-by-one. At the end of the discussion he gives the main reason the government continued a system that had been adopted as an expedient during post-war anarchy: it works. It is imperfect. Not everyone is happy. But it works.

Minitrue wrote:The funny thing is, Verhoeven apparently admitted never having read the book. Seriously (see the youtube link above). Also, his attempt to paint Heinlein's "Starship Troopers Universe" as a sort of fascist society are quite interesting, because he in fact does not achieve his goal. He just shows how historically uneducated "progressives" are unable to interpret the world around them.

This reminds me of the attempts by the progs to claim Orwell as one of their own and to promote 1984 as a warning against Trump, or Bush before him. For the life of me I can't imagine how they can interpret the life under IngSoc as anything conservative.

The closest America came to 1984 was in the 8 years between Trump and Bush. Ironically, no talk of Orwell existed under Obama. But once Trump wins the election, 1984 is once again all the rave and becomes a bestseller. What can they possibly glean from it unless they see it as an operating manual?

I have never heard of a prog reading (or watching) 1984 and thinking,

"This book describes a world in which proggism has won and all the nice-sounding proggish ideas have solidified into doublethink, two minute hate, and similar monstrosities. I better make a reassessment of my proggish values."

Not. A. Single. Effing. Prog.

Red Square wrote:This conversation reminded me of the attempts by the progs to claim Orwell as one of their own and to promote 1984 as a warning against Trump, or Bush before him. For the life of me I can't imagine how they can interpret the life under IngSoc as anything conservative.

The closest America came to 1984 was in the 8 years between Trump and Buish - but under Obama no talk of Orwell existed. Once Trump wins the election, 1984 is all the rave and becomes a bestseller. What can they possibly glean from it unless they see it as an operating manual?

By that you mean Verhoeven‘s complete mischaracterization of Starship Troopers.

Just last month I read Heinlein's The Puppet Masters (1951), where secret agents battle parasitic invaders from outer space, who attach themselves to the backs of humans and control them like the puppet masters control the puppets.

The mind-controlling parasites could be his analogy with the Soviet influence operators, and is a reminder that the Red Scare was not only justified, but not sufficient enough. The mind-controlling parasites have multiplied and are now trying to control America.

I especially liked the scene where the U.S. President goes before Congress to talk about this danger, but the congressmen boo him and dismiss it as paranoia. Even one of President's close friends, a general, takes the floor to accuse him of mental derangement and calls for an impeachment, which a lot of congressmen support.

The secret agents jump on this general and discover an alien behind his back, who was controlling his mind. They lock down the room and make everybody take off their clothes. All the congressment who had earlier supported impeachment appeared to have the "puppet masters" on their backs.

Makes me want to check all of today's Democrat leaders, the media, the professoriat, and MItt Romney for parasites.

Karl Marx Treatment Center wrote:By that you mean Verhoeven‘s complete mischaracterization of Starship Troopers.

Yes, of course. I just edited my post on Orwell, adding Minitrue's quote to it, to clarify what exactly I was commenting on.

And by the way, KMTC - that's a great observation you made in the topic starter. Cut off from the knowledge of history and oblivious to humanity's hard lessons, the CHAZ crowd is more likely to re-enact Lord of the Flies. The very existence of CHAZ is already damning enough.

In their case, it'll be Lord of the No-See-Ums.

Red Square wrote:In their case, it'll be Lord of the No-See-Ums.

I think of it as Lord of the Gnats.

The acronym of Tunnel in the Sky is a dog whistle of sexism. Get your jollies out now sexist pigs. This is just another book that needs to be burned, er... I mean canceled.

Minitrue wrote:So all in all, I follow Carl Benjamin's idea about this movie: it's a failed attempt to paint a picture of fascism that completely exposes the ignorance of the "artistic class" about the true nature and definition of fascism itself.


Greetings

Margaret wrote:

Red Square wrote:In their case, it'll be Lord of the No-See-Ums.

I think of it as Lord of the Gnats.

Or, in typical stupid American kkkomunism... it could just be pure Hollywood History Reeducation-- like when Marlon *Che" Brando had gone all like berserk in the jungles of the Viet Nam War. And, Martin Flynn was selected for this special mission that will take him in to the no man's land up the Potomac to make sure the inner belt implosion was--- The Final: Apocalypse Know.

After all, The Resistance here in Amerikkka is fueled by Mazel Tov Cocktails. Let's be clear with the situation, or we might get stuck on stupid, or som'think

forelock tug,
Jackalopelipsky
Russian Asset
#BR 549

Margaret wrote:The acronym of Tunnel in the Sky is a dog whistle of sexism. Get your jollies out now sexist pigs. This is just another book that needs to be burned, er... I mean canceled.

Tunnel in.....wait....Oh! My, look at the time! Beets to tend, I'll be ummm...busy.

Ivan the Stakhanovets wrote:

Margaret wrote:The acronym of Tunnel in the Sky is a dog whistle of sexism. Get your jollies out now sexist pigs. This is just another book that needs to be burned, er... I mean canceled.

Tunnel in.....wait....Oh! My, look at the time! Beets to tend, I'll be ummm...busy.

Pig!

Just wait until I tell Karen on you.

Karl Marx Treatment Center wrote:... The [highlight=#ffff00]youth of today have been cut off from these lessons of history[/highlight] that are needed to build and maintain civilization. All previous learning has been canceled. They are like people living in a self-imposed dark age, cut off from all the lessons of history. ...

And the thing is: it works.

Germany-2000 is a real-life test object to study (and confirm) it. Amiland-2000, too. In both cases, the root of *-2000 is the *-post-late-60s.

Germany-2000:

Germany's history, also as taught in school, appears to begin with '33 (Hitler takes over). Soon it's '39 (WW2 starts). Then '45. Shame. Shame. Shame, again. Next, '60s: finally, Turks rebuild ruined Naziland (yep, latest Current Truth = Anatolian gastarbeiters did it). Now '68, into early '70s: finally - Nazis out, kinda New Man on the horizon, and - at first very slowly - spiralling leftwards korrektwards begins. Uh, and the parallel DDR/GDR? Why, People's Korrekt Paradise (um, admittedly with a few glitches).

(of course, there are (yet) all those formed before the 60s, plus younger ones formed under Soviets, and there is (still) that tiny sliver of Bildungsbürger - truly educated middle class people (that sliver always exists, even in dictatorships - but: their reach is a sliver, too) - Bildungsbürger, who of course pass their Geist to their sphere: kids, friends, students(?), readers(?), audiences(?))

Since '80s, and getting momentum in the '00s: korrektwards spiralling accelerates, and so does - increasingly professionalized - "shaming-as-Nazi" (also conversely - a nice bidirectional positive feedback, ain't it?). It's not "shaming" just to "shame", it's enforcing "surrender & submit" - it's "get on the korrekt plantage, or else", pure and simple. A "Nazi", hurled intensely enough (thusly, amplified by "public" opinion and "civil" society) is potentially existence-destructing here (be it a person or body), since about 2015.

(Since '80s .. : funny, how the absorption of cultural "americanisms" - particularly in Germany - accelerated since the 80s, too ; early PC ("vertically challenged", "alternatively abled", ...) needed 1+ year to seep into Yurop ; in the 90s, LGBT(TQQIAAP), feminism, etc. slid across Big Pond in half a year ; gender, sexuality, ethnicity, microaggression, triggering, recently wokeness, followed soon ; full blown Floydism jumped the Pond in but two weeks ; remarkable increase in effectiveness of the Global Leftish Astroturf Apparatus, within four decades)


Amiland, post-late-60s, is in the same trouble. Only, it's not "Nazi" (as in: you a Nazi!, he a Nazi!, this opinion is Nazi!, that position is Nazi!, ...), but - nowadays - "oppressor", in those seemingly endless variations (you slave-owner, you racist, you heteropatriarchally phallogocentric whitey, ... , you know the drill).

When Floydo-CHOPism finally fizzles out, soon some new "oppression" will pop up: non-melaninous rationalist! ruthless exploro-expandist! vehicular cosmograbist! ... you name it, Komrade. (for starters: xxx kontraklimatist, eh?)

mi wrote:... Pythagoras .. owned a slave ...

... and possibly probably certainly stole "his" theorem (which outrageously stresses the inequality of a, b, and c - yet, mantled as an "equation"!) from that poor guy. Who himself, that Thracian-African Zalmoxis, a genuine cosmopolite, altruistically transmitted the vast culture and profound knowledge of his native Central African Mitochondrial Haplogroup.

Genosse Dummkopf wrote:

Karl Marx Treatment Center wrote:... The [highlight=#ffff00]youth of today have been cut off from these lessons of history[/highlight] that are needed to build and maintain civilization. All previous learning has been canceled. They are like people living in a self-imposed dark age, cut off from all the lessons of history. ...

Since '80s, and getting momentum in the '00s: korrektwards spiralling accelerates, and so does - increasingly professionalized - "shaming-as-Nazi" (also conversely - a nice bidirectional positive feedback, ain't it?). It's not "shaming" just to "shame", it's enforcing "surrender & submit" - it's "get on the korrekt plantage, or else", pure and simple. A "Nazi", hurled intensely enough (thusly, amplified by "public" opinion and "civil" society) is potentially existence-destructing here (be it a person or body), since about 2015.


Amiland, post-late-60s, is in the same trouble. Only, it's not "Nazi" (as in: you a Nazi!, he a Nazi!, this opinion is Nazi!, that position is Nazi!, ...), but - nowadays - "oppressor", in those seemingly endless variations (you slave-owner, you racist, you heteropatriarchally phallogocentric whitey, ... , you know the drill).

The oppressive collectivist society is always fighting against the monster. But the monster isn't a monster at all. And what becomes the greatest monster stalking the oppressive collectivist society is the very heart and spirit that makes us human. That spirit that makes us human is murdered in each and every one. That's what it takes to kill the monsters stalking the collective. The monster is ultimately the very heart and spirit that makes a human a human. The oppressive collectivist society makes us come to believe our very humanity is a monster that must be killed.

To be a part of the collective and hunt and kill monsters you must first kill the monster within. That is the poison you must swallow to be a part of the collective. And they all then become monsters. Because they poisoned their humanity to death.

Does that make sense to you?

Margaret wrote:... Does that make sense to you?

But, Komradette M - this time we do it the right way! Ja?

Genosse Dummkopf wrote:

Margaret wrote:... Does that make sense to you?

But, Komradette M - this time we do it the right way! Ja?

We watched the old Spanish movie The Spirit of the Beehive again last night. All of the allegorical connections in the movie about the monster and collectivism are still swirling in my mind.

I wish to retrain many brains for The World of Next Tuesday™.

I too remember "Tunnel in the Sky", I seem to remember also one young student stranded in time in 15th century Italy was art student by name of "Leonard Vincent".....Heinlein was genius at capturing young readers minds......

Red Square wrote:Just last month I read Heinlein's The Puppet Masters (1951), where secret agents battle parasitic invaders from outer space, who attach themselves to the backs of humans and control them like the puppet masters control the puppets.

The mind-controlling parasites could be his analogy with the Soviet influence operators, and is a reminder that the Red Scare was not only justified, but not sufficient enough. The mind-controlling parasites have multiplied and are now trying to control America.

I especially liked the scene where the U.S. President goes before Congress to talk about this danger, but the congressmen boo him and dismiss it as paranoia. Even one of President's close friends, a general, takes the floor to accuse him of mental derangement and calls for an impeachment, which a lot of congressmen support.

The secret agents jump on this general and discover an alien behind his back, who was controlling his mind. They lock down the room and make everybody take off their clothes. All the congressment who had earlier supported impeachment appeared to have the "puppet masters" on their backs.

Makes me want to check all of today's Democrat leaders, the media, the professoriat, and MItt Romney for parasites.

Komrade Red Square... It appears after all that work writing out your take on "The Puppet Masters," you've misspelled Pierre Delecto McMittens. Although I must say parasites controlled by parasites is quite a concept.

Kommissar Uberdave wrote: Komrade Red Square... It appears after all that work writing out your take on "The Puppet Masters," you've misspelled Pierre Delecto McMittens. Although I must say parasites controlled by parasites is quite a concept.

Big fleas have little fleas,
Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum.

A little ditty (anonymous) based on a poem by Jonathan Swift. Who would have thought that a Eurocentric white cis-male of the 18th century could be so woke? Or is it un-woke to speak so of fleas, who definitely have dog whistles? It is all so confusing.