The Brain Bug left his caves

[SittingBull]

The Brain Bug left his caves.

As I learned:

Karl Rove is on tour. First at state Conservative Party's annual dinner. And now Hardball on MSNBC, too.

This is the biggest evidence: The Downing Street Memos are true and bring them into serious trouble.

The Brain-Bug left his shaddy caves.

Muahahaha.

;-)

[leveymg]

1. "If it can feel fear, we can win."

[SittingBull]

2. Uoohhhh

The similarity is frightening :D

PS: Nice movie, so realistic. Change Bugs to iraquis...

And the pictures at least...

Modern Art:

[SittingBull]

3. not to laugh!

[leveymg]

5. There it is - the Pentagon recruiting campaign

that will appeal to High School and College students. Top News. Enlist. Easy as tapping your finger.

[leveymg]

4. Paul Verhoeven explicitly made that point in interviews.

Of course, Robert Heinlein wasn't subtle in his endorsement of Fascism.

That MARC Train poster IS for real, isn't it? Does it strike you as more Stalinist or Italian Futurist in its derivation?

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Heinlein was not endorsing fascism.

In 'Starship Troopers' he was using SF to explore the mentality of fascism and militarism.

If anything, he was libertarian. Look at 'Stranger in a Strange Land' and 'Glory Road'.

[leveymg]

7. I've read a bit about him, and I have to say he seems to have

been on the warm side of ambivalence toward militarism and authoritarian institutions.

I agree, Heinlein was not a racist. But, I recall he was a veteran of the Pacific war, a man of his time, and the swarming bugs were symbolic of the Japanese human wave attacks. Still, he was sympathetic to the oppressed and a real admirer of individual courage and virtue. The lead character in Starship Troopers was revealed at the end to be -- surprise -- Filipino.

His outlook wasn't that unusual for a college-educated American in the 1940s and 1950s.

[rsdsharp]

9. Heinlein was a 1929 graduate of Annapolis

who was retired from Naval service with TB. Without that illness, he would have remained in the US Navy for his entire career (his brother Lawrence retired from the Army as a General officer), and we probably would never had heard from him in a literary context. Heinlein was pro military but very much anti authoritarian. Oddly his politics seemed to be a reflection of those of his wife.

His second wife, Leslyn, was a vocal liberal (possibly even socialist) Democrat, and Heinlein's politics in the thirties and early 40s reflect her views. He ran for office as a Democrat in California in 1938 espousing the views of Upton Sinclair (and lost decisively). His first (and last) novel was just released in paperback: "For Us the Living." It was written in 1938 -- fifty years before his death -- and never published. It's more a definition of his (and Sinclair's) political philosophy at the time than a novel. He calls for an economic system which allows the government to print money in amounts sufficent to equal the national production, and distibute it to its citizens monthly. In his view this ends economic swings, and the risk of depression (the biggest problem of the day). That, coupled with social Libertarianism (everything is OK so long as it soesn't hurt anyone else) was his philosophy in a nutshell.

During WWII he worked on the Manhatten project and met his third wife, Virginia, who was much more conservative than Leslyn. Heinlein promptly let his Liberterian viewpoint dominate his political (and economic) views for the remainder of his life.

[leveymg]

10. Thank you for that detail correction. His description of the attack

on Manhattan by air in "For Us the Living" was also prescient. I skimmed the book a few months ago, but wasn't drawn into it as I was by some of his later work.

Okay, I'll back away from the suggestion that Heinlein may have admired Fascism. The book Starship Troopers, nevertheless, is told through the eyes of characters who are destined for success within a highly-disciplined militarized society where citizenship, itself, and even the ability to marry is contingent on service to the world state. He doesn't waste many pages exploring the problems with such a social arrangement. Indeed, he goes into loving detail about the qualities of mind and character that allow his characters to survive and rise to leadership roles within the various military services. The enemy are bugs, and nothing more, to be defeated through massed firepower and, ultimately, terror. The torture of the cave-dwelling brain bug to achieve that result is particularly resonant today.

A strange tale from a Libertarian.

[rsdsharp]

11. Strange?

Not really. Heinlein was on the miltary rolls from the time he was 18 until his death shortly before his 80th birthday. With that background you're surprised that he was championing the military at the height of the Cold War?

I've read Starship Troopers easily a dozen times. There is no requirement of military service to marry in the book. Rico's parents were married, and neither had served (prior to the bombing of Buenos Aires). The novel did require service as a predicate to exercising the franchise, but it was made clear that voting wasn't considered very important by the general population, and was a right held by only a small minority.

The society in Troopers wasn't "militarized" -- don't confuse the film with the book, which won a Hugo by the way. Yes, he referred to the enemy as "bugs." He also described them as being spider-like alien creatures. The book was written in 1959, not all that long after we fought the "Japs" and the "Krauts." I think you're reading symbolism into the book that really isn't there, and trying to apply political correctness 45 years after the fact. As for massed firepower and "terror" being advocated to win an all out war begun by an attack by the other side, that's exactly what won World War II. It's far from my favorite, but I frankly don't see anything in the book that makes it strange coming from a Libertarian.

[leveymg]

13. A Libertarian sees the virtue of organizing society along military lines?

I would suggest that, as familiar as you obviously are with Heinlein, that you consider carefully whether he can really be described as a "Libertarian." I know that's a broad, catch-all category for persons who disagree with socialist state-centered solutions, but I think military discipline (rigorous State control) over all aspects of individuals' lives -- as was described in the book -- contradicts the very essence of libertarian thought.

It's been nearly 30 years since I casually read the book in High School. You may be correct that I'm conflating details of the book with the film which I saw seven or eight years ago. Summer before last, I read a couple chapters of a biolography of R.H., about the period he lived in Santa Cruz, CA, where I lived in the early 1980s. No, we never met, unfortunately.

If you can remind me how Heinlein resolves this apparent conflict between individual liberty and military discipline, I would be grateful for your insight.

[rsdsharp]

14. Two things

One. It's a novel, not a political tract.

Two. I don't believe the society in Star Ship Troopers had "rigorous State control over all aspects of individuals' lives." Johnny Rico was the spoiled son of a rich man who had virtually no interest in, or respect for, those in government service -- political or miltary. The father thought Johnny was throwing away his life for a chance at a virtually useless franchise. His father volunteered for military service after his wife was killed in an attack, but increased patriotism and/or thirst for revenge, is certainly common in war time, and not at odds with the Libertarian philosophy. Certainly there is discipline and control in the military, and the troops don't have the vote, lest they "vote not to make a combat drop." But only those who volunteer serve in the military, and are therefore subject (voluntarily) to that authority. I don't believe this conflicts with Libertarianism. Accepting the consequences of one's voluntary actions is not the same as having those consequences imposed involuntarily.

I'd be grateful for examples of the State control in civilian society you see in the book. Absent that, I see no conflict to resolve.

[leveymg]

15. The rationale for loss of freedom in the military is of liberty deferred

by military necessity.

I understand the concept: when you enter the service, you choose to sign off much of your own freedom, and defer it, in order to protect the larger liberty of a free society. But, does that rationale apply when all of society is under military control for the duration, as is apparently the post-attack world envisioned by Heinlein? Again, it's been a long time, but I'm under the impression that most everything -- education, production, political institutions -- and most everyone were mobilized to optimally serve the war effort. He stated somewhere in there that privieges and rights would be reserved to veterans only, such as holding elective office, even after the war ended - do I recall that correctly?

What he's describing (idealizing?) is a futuristic Sparta, the model totalitarian state, not an Athenian democracy during an emergency. Which would you choose to live in?

The thing about "the war against terrorism" that's most troubling is that it, also, seems to be a forever war, and liberty will be lost with no hope of being regained when peace returns.

[rsdsharp]

16. You're confusing the book with the film, and possibly

Joe Haldeman's "Forever War." There was very little about civilian society in the book once Rico joined the mobile infantry (this was written as a juvenile novel with lots of action), and virtually nothing along the lines you describe before that. Veterans were the only ones who could vote or hold office, AFTER they had served, but most of the veterans did not serve in the combat arms, and there is no description of the society as being militaristic.

The book contains none of the jingoistic posters, slogans, or commercials of the film, none of the torture of the "brain bug" (which was captured by Zim, but small enough to be carried out of the caves under his arm). The uniforms were described in a manner that conjured up Marine dress blues, not the SS. Johnny's friend Carl was a brilliant scientist who died in an attack on Pluto (IIRC), not the Doogie Howser/Himmler/Goebbels mind reading compilation of the film. Carmen makes one cameo appearance after Rico is in basic training, although she is in pilot training in the book. Neither do men and woman bunk or shower together -- perhaps the one intersting thing in the film. That little gem was lifted from "Forever War."

[leveymg]

17. I'll have to go back and read the book with new eyes. But, you still

haven't answered my key question - how does Heinlein, a libetarian as you describe him, resolve the issue of why one would choose to give up freedom to preserve a total warfare state? Even without the jingoistic details, the post-attack world he describes is run as a military dictatorship. Is this really a necessary and a good tradeoff? Where does Heinlein say that it's not worth the loss of freedom, or explain why a nation at war must be run like an Army in the field?

If he doesn't address that issue, then he's advocating the Sparta model, implicitely, and that makes him something other than a libertarian.

[rsdsharp]

18. You'll have to show me where

Heinlein describes the post-attack world as a "military dictatorship." I don't believe that ever happens his the book, and as such, your premise is invalid.

[leveymg]

19. The premise is well supported by the book.

Had to do some quick searches to nail it down for you.

In Heinlein's own words, the global society into which Rico is born allows only those who have "placed the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage" to become citizens and vote. In other words, only the soldiers and others who have put their lives on the line can vote and are trusted with civil office.

How did such a society come about? Was it by the free choice of the majority. No, it was imposed by coup d'etat and martial law committee whose power became a permanent ruling elite of soldier-dictators. Heinlein's global state of the 22nd century is one that would follow a devastating war with the "Chinese Hegemony."

The war lost to China provoked a revolt on the part of the veterans. "They had lost a war, most of them had no jobs, many were sore as could be over the terms of the Treaty ... especially the P.O.W. foul-up," Heinlein wrote with eerie prescience seven years before the Vietnam War. With civil order breaking down, "Some veterans got together as vigilantes to stop rioting and looting, hanged a few people ... and decided not to let anyone but veterans on their committee.... What started as an emergency measure became constitutional practice -- in a generation or two."

Now, answer a few questions for me:

* How, in such a military dictatorship, is a choice to serve the state made freely, if that society coerces national service as the sole meeans of gaining franchize and full civil rights?

* How does Heinlein attempt to reconcile this contradiction? Does he even try? Show me where.

* How can a social order that forces the individual to serve the state as the price of civil rights even remotely be considered "liberarian"?

* How is "the welfare of the group ahead of person" a libertarian concept?

[rsdsharp]

20. Show me where the citizens didn't have any rights absent service.

The franchise could be obtained through a voluntary action. There was no draft. Most people didn't feel it was worth obtaining -- obviuosly they didn't feel oppressed, or under served by the government they couldn't vote for. The government wasn't military. The military couldn't vote or hold office. Were we a military dictatorship under Eisenhauer? Under Kennedy? They were both former military. Both volunteered, too. And neither would have been eligible for office while in the military. And we had a draft under both. Yes, there was a coup, by FORMER members of the military, overthrowing an ineffective, and perhaps oppresive, goverment. A coup has actually happened in this country. Check out the writings of Jefferson for the rationale.

Nor does Heinlein write that the society was oppressive. Certainly the Ricos, who had no "rights," seemed quite happy, not to mention wealthy. I don't find it surprising that a career military man would choose to argue that those who were willing to defend a society should be those who ran it, whether he actually believed it or not. And it might not be that bad an idea, at that. Compare that system to our current "Chicken-Hawk" administration.

Heinlein himself said he was a Libertarian. He explained his change in politics by saying "I've simply changed from a soft-headed radical to a hard-headed radical, a pragmatic libertarian." For Us the Living, Afterword, Page 313 paperback edition.

Again, two points, and these will be my last words on the subject. First, (and I'm repeating myself) this was a NOVEL. If you are offended by your perceived contradiction in Heinlein's self-professed political beliefs, and the society described in the book, it's a novel, not an attempt to argue for the imposition of the system described, or to describe his own political ideal. Heinlein's novels describe all kinds of political systems, from virtual anarchy to empire, democracy to communism, and more besides. It doesn't mean they reflected his own philosophy.

Second, if you want to argue Heinlein's politics, you should have done it with him, or at least his wife, who apparently influenced him. And for that you're a bit late. RAH died in 1988, and Ginny in 2003.

[leveymg]

21. Self-sacrifice is like love, it has to be freely given.

In any system -- no matter how despotic -- the individual is greater for what is given to the group. What else explains unit cohesion? There - I answered my question for you.

[SittingBull]

8. Yes it's real

strange!

My source believe it is similar to Stalins realism in the 30th of last century.

Just coincidence!

[cthrumatrix]

12. of course it's real .... OUR media sucks