Hi everyone! It's been while, but we're finally back with a new video on one of my favorite cult-classics. New videos will be coming out more regularly again, but please do leave a like and/or a comment on this one to get the algorithm on our side again. Much appreciated. - Thomas
I agree with you, that responsibility, humility and discipline are essential values of any good human being. But, the problem I see is moral; I really can’t take as an example of a good person a soldier, because essentially a soldier is a murder, whatever the excuse he uses to justifies the murders. And that is the problem with the fascist/authoritarian society (in the movie, in the book or in reality). They don’t have a morality base on goodness, ethics and reason, they have a morality of strength. And in a society of strength doesn't matter who is right or wrong morally, only matters who has the biggest stick and can (and will) impose his point of view upon all others. Please don’t mistake the glorified image of soldiers with justice and integrity, war is the opposite of justice; is death, lies and horror. Especially if you are from the USA, don’t fool yourself thinking your country is right imposing war and terror on other countries, stop your government on spreading war and violence around the world, please. That is why I think, we need to work for a world without soldiers, without war and without authoritarian governments.
It MAY be a fine fun movie, what it has to do with the book, other than the title, is another story. Some books should never be made into movies. This is one of them.
You know what's strange? *When viewed from the lens of "leadership", Ace Levy is an important character.* Recognizing competent leadership and being humble enough to follow rather than to fight for leadership is what the other 85% of us have to do for the leaders to matter at all.
"The difference lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."
This disproves what now? Sargon of Akad? What the fuck is going on here? I'm actually stunned by how tone deaf this is. Edit: Was this supposed to come out on the 1st?
What is going on here is that Starship Troopers (the novel) introduces readers to a set of valuable lessons in leadership and personal responsibility. You can use these principles in your own life regardless of your politics. Not sure why this is so controversial?
@@storytellers1 The values are buried in authoritarian & libertarian ideals with well documented shortcomings. It puts all responsibility & blame on those at the bottom of power structures, with those at the top in total control & without consequences. These values are "Might makes right" just said in such a way as to disguise the reality they work towards.
@@edmonddantes563 I read the book before I saw the movie. I think they both have a good message. I never saw Heinlein as purely fascist as a lot of people seem to receive his work, having said that, he def. wasn't the flower picking kind either. Maybe that's the sign of great work that both sides can find their narrative in it and thus it says more about the reader / watcher than it does about the creators ideas.
Nah, sorry, but you're way off the map on this. Not only has there been several academic discussions of the fascist themes and imagery of the book, but your counter-arguments to that are really bad. Anybody seriously citing Carl Benjamin on any topic just can't be taken seriously.
There are a lot of intersting discussions to be had about discipline, leadership and motivation but Jocko seems to be really reductive. And using PragerU clips unironically and uncritically is laughable and a bad influence on people who don't know what PragerU is. Rule #1. If you want to be taken serious, don't use PragerU
Prageru is garbage on almost everything. However a video like this shows they can produce not useless content. Unfortunately it’s a video produced by a bunch of people completely incapable holding themselves to a most basic standard of journalism and political theory. My problem with guys like jocko and many more conservative service members. They hold a traditional idea of Society that they think would be best. Their ideas are almost always blinded by nostalgia for something that was never real. Conservatives love talking about personal responsibility but in reality they don’t care about it. When you talk about race relations in America, the US knowingly disabling governments for profits, and straight up genocides committed by they US. These people ignore shit like this. They aren’t patriots they are nationalists
@@oopsiepoopsie2898 You're essentially calling them hypocrites, but hypocrisy doesn't mean they're wrong, it means they lack virtue. You're implicitly agreeing with them (assuming YOUR totalizing statement is true).
A tale of two books: The Forever War vs Starship Troopers. Both are an interesting take on the war novel, if I recall Heinlein was a WW2 vet and I feel like those experiences would influence his attitude towards war and service. In my opinion nits an overall positive one. When I read Starship Troopers I wanted to join up in the mobile infantry it sounded bad ass. While as Joe Haldeman served in Vietnam which his experience can be felt in tbe characters reluctance to fight and a sort of chaotic and often brutal reduction in warfare. Both are fantastic novels and i would love to see a comparison between both.
I think the difference between the two books can be explained well with "The Bet War Ever" a look at how WWII was / is ingrained in the American cultural narrative: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_War_Ever Vietnam on the other hand was not a "noble" war and it had nothing it could pretend it was, even to the casual observer. I think this mostly explains why both books appear to be polar opposites.
That speaker is deeply unsettling when I hear him. That anger in the voice. That accusatory tone. That unflinching certainty. Yes. I do agree with a lot of the sentiments and arguments. That is beside my reaction to the delivery. And I think it is part of why Verhoeven were so appalled by the book. Why he hated it. The thing is, that at it's core. Starship Troopers depicts a fascist totalitarian government... that works. It's not a dystopia with rebels seeking to tear down the boot keeping people down. If anything. It's a Rodenberry level Utopia. For everyone in the system. It is a system where everyone has a shoe to fill and efforts are rewarded and security is enforced top down. That is the problem. It is too alluring. And you are meant to forget the alternatives. I remember listening to the first chapters of the book. That first drop. Where these ultraunits of soldiers level a city. Smashing through structures as alien civilians flee in terror. As they are not in the system. They are acceptable expenditures. And it's that blindness to alternatives that I think Paul rejects so vehimently. You get results by devoting yourself. Yes. But what are those results? He lived through Europe during WW2. He's seen both Nazi and Allied forces that inspired the book. And I'm not sure he prefers either of them. To me, Starship Troopers is a fascinating tale of a human becoming a soldier ant. I love the metalevel parody of Verhoeven's version. But I also want a non-parodic version. With the mech-suits, wanton genocide and all. I want essentially Band if Brothers in space, yes. We follow these true believers. But also are confronted with the horrors that these unstoppable marines have become. A great adaptation of the Heinlein book still needs that kind of distance. Because even if the characters don't question the lessons. The viewer should.
Verhoven want appalled at the book. He didn't read it. That's why the writers (who did read it and did like it) were able to quote *verbatim* several long segments from the book. Verhoven used fascist costumes but didn't portray a fascist society. Non citizens like Johnny's parents had wealth and freedom.
Can't wait for this comment section to devolve into a shitshow about whether it's fascistic or not. You seem to have done a good job of a neutral overview of the conversation around it so props on that.
who cares if its fascist or not? an author was robbed of his creative vision and story by hollywood executives/directors. why isn't this the topic of criticism. how can the 'its fascist!' boogeyman have the spotlight without highlighting this more?
@@storytellers1 That's what happens when you don't read the damn book and there are this many definitions of fascism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism. You could ask 24 different people and get 24 different definitions that may include all authoritarianism, all capitalist countries, the PRC and the USSR or may not include Italy and Spain.
I find it a bit odd that you mention Red Letter Media @2:20 for "attempting to correct the record by highlighting the movies intended but flawed critique of Heinlein's world view, and how and why this was originally misunderstood" when at no point in their _Starship Troopers_ Re:View episode did they argue or even mention this standpoint. They largely only discussed the film's parodization and satire of Fascism and fascist propaganda in general, compared the film to a _Star Trek_ episode, and discussed it's casting choice; set design; and special effects. They don't discuss the book or how the movie relates to it at all, nor do they comment if it successfully critiqued Heinlein's world view. The closest they get to this specific topic is mentioning that some critics panned the movie upon release after misinterpreting it as actual Fascist-propaganda. They however never in the video argued or discussed exactly _why_ this happened, nor did they argue or highlight that the film was a "flawed critique of Heinlein's world view". If anything, they seemed to support the notion that the film was a successful parody of Fascism in general, but they don't discuss if it successfully criticizes the book. I don't think that video really supported the point you were making at all, unless you were referring instead to some other RLM content outside that video and only used it as a backdrop. This isn't to say this necessarily contradicts your argument that Heinlein's novel has a leadership subtext underneath the more commonly discussed political ones, but I don't think anything in that particular video supports it.
I think I may have mixed RLM's review up a bit with Wiscrack's video!? In all honesty, I watched the RLM vid a long time ago, and thought that they talked about how it was misunderstood. Went back to rewatch it a bit and noticed that they do mention how Verhoeven tries to mock militarism/fascism etc. But you're right, they technically don't talk about how it was misunderstood. My bad
@@storytellers1 It's all good, just wanted to clarify things. Don't want to present a source inaccurately, even if it's used more as a passing example. Thanks for acknowledging the slip up.
No. Several key scenes were quoted verbatim from the book. It's clear the writers loved the book and verhoven had no clue they were doing it. The lectures in high school presented Heinliens view of a constitutional republic with limited franchise based on service fairly.
Nazis had also a very complex system of values, methods and views. Some of them may have even been beneficial. But it doesn’t even start to make it acceptable at its core. The point that Heinlein’s book has only 2 chapters dedicated to the politically tyrannical nature of this dystopia doesn’t change the fact that it’s tyrannical and unacceptable.
It's a constitutional republic (aka a democracy) with limited vote franchise available to all citizens. Many real world constitutional republics in the last 200 years have let fewer people vote.
The "extreme ownership" idea reminds me of Rule .303 (or at least Beau of the Fifth Column's interpretation of it...), that if you have the capability, you have the responsibility
I think that calling it "Heinlein's ideal society" is a mistake. Heinlein didn't present it as ideal, but simply as one that - so far - worked better than its predecessors.
If we're going to praise the concept of ownership as exemplified in the military, then we cannot place a soldier fighting a war outside of the context of the war they are fighting. If they are on the side of the aggressor, invading and seeking to dehumanize and humiliate an opposing force, then they must take ownership of that too. Too many war films focus on the individual heroics and camaraderie of fellow soldiers within the stance of 'isn't war hell'. Soldiers are in part victims of war, but narratives which focus on the virtues of discipline and ownership tend to shield soldiers from their own complicity. Misguided people are fed these narratives and fantasize about their own capacity for heroics. Even if the concept of extreme ownership is valuable, and can be demonstrated through inspiring instances in war, by divesting the themes of fascism from your arguments over ownership you have played into militaristic jingoism. The soldiers take ownership for each other's actions and welfare, but channel hate towards an outside force. Willing to use any means to defend their virtues, they forsake virtue. They seek to follow the examples of dead heroes without reflecting on their reasons, relying instead on emotion and slogans. Sure they take extreme ownership in some cases, but in others they are entirely willing to let other people do their thinking. Of course extreme ownership can be separated from fascism, and can help people grow, but not within the context of Starship Troopers. To me, that is the central error of this video.
The biggest problem with making media like that is that it puts a bad taste in the peoples’ mouth. I will first off say, you are absolutely correct, as a combat veteran it took seeing innocents burned alive in front of their children to fully understand it. The reality of war is horrible, but the idealization of “the fight worth fighting” is a mental propaganda that we have willingly took part in for centuries regardless of which side. That’s why WWII is idealized and memorialized in so many ways, it’s the closest we as people have come to fighting “true evil.” Nobody cares about the soldiers or their willingness to fight with the Nazi’s, they just care about what their flag idealized. A bigger group of people now are disenfranchised with the idea of war now that we have spent the last few decades playing wack-a-mole in the Middle East, but I really wish more people would really understand what you just said.
Claims Verhoeven misunderstood Heinlein's book for being fascist - and then explains in detail and with glowing praise how the original story teaches fascism! (And for extra points repeatedly quotes Prager U to support his point that it is _not_ jingoistic, militaristic or fascist and most of all _not_ to view only through a political lense.) After years of subscriptions this is a hard unsubscribe.
I'm sorry to hear that, Martin. As I explain, this video is not intended as some sort of endorsement of Heinlein's Federation, and most certainly not as a political endorsement of Prager U (I could have picked other videos which explain some of Jocko's principles, but this one just happened to fit best with my video because it touched on the right principles in a concise manner). In fact, I think there are some serious blindspots in Heinlein's worldview, and he proposes some silly ideas in the book. Again, I'm not interested here in the whole debate about whether Verhoeven's movie and/or the book are fascist or not. It's been done to death already. All I am trying to argue here is that the book (not really the movie) is valuable in the way it introduces readers to certain tried and tested leadership principles, and that people seem to overlook that aspect. I'm not sure what is inherently fascistic about taking extreme ownership, staying humble, and realizing that discipline can help give you more freedom in life? Seems pretty uncontroversial and milquetoast to me. Lastly, I'd want to emphasize that I am not a fascist in the slightest, nor do I wish to promote in any way. I'm sorry if you felt like it came across that way. - Thomas
@@storytellers1 You say you didn't intend to promote fascism, but you failed to concern yourself withe the ways the film sought to condemn it. You chose to ignore the propaganda, the gullible nature of the protagonists, the mangled limbs of the authority. When you say "I'm not interested here in the whole debate about whether Verhoeven's movie and/or the book are fascist or not." Believe me, that's obvious. Very obvious and loud and clear.
@@storytellers1 I'm sorry to hear that, Thomas. I neither want to ascribe fascism or bad faith arguments to you you, nor call Heinlein personally a fascist. But it is the very fact that you call your video essay "uncontroversial" and "milquetoast" that only reinforces my initial reaction. It is the same claim as that of a privileged racist to be "colorblind". I believe you that you believe that - but that doesn't make it true. Your attempt to gloss over all of the deeply antidemocratic, militaristic, sexist and imperialistic ideas baked into the core of Heinlein's novel, and then use an author who built his carreer on imperialism and jingoism and a channel paid by - to be perfectly clear - people who are willing to sacrifice the future of humanity to further their own profit, to give it a presumably non-political spin and dress it up with some Peterson clean up your room lobster theory hogwash is both ignorant and disgusting. And yes, I do believe you did so _unaware_. But I am afraid, anyone _unaware_ of these facts at this point in history is either grossly negligent or at the very least does not want to look at reality because it is uncomfortable and he has the privilege to ignore it. If you want to see someone do this topic actually justice, maybe check out very much the less polished but infinitely more honest Kyle Kallgren's ruclips.net/video/y5bHLrGBUKo/видео.html
Back in 2018 I read the book, and the movie is merely a shadow of the book. The book as if it's peeking in the future, spoke on a whole new level to me. From now on, it's one of the top books in my library.
"fascism făsh′ĭz″əm noun A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. " No.. it was not fascist.
Some of these comments are proving the point of the video if people actually read the starship Troopers book they would understand is not exactly a fasicist story
While Verhoeven ridiculed at war and warmongering, I always looked at Starship Troopers as an appreciation of the warrior. To me the political dimension of the film was secondary. I always liked it because it's a classic heroes journey.
I always thought that the film was ridiculing this journey. At the end, the gullible heroes chose to not question that they are in fact the invading force and embrace being Nazis.
@@jtorr2997 They may have been lead to believe in something that they wouldn't have otherwise. But right or wrong is only determined by whoever wins the moral argument in the end. And they believed what they where doing is right and they succeeded in their mission. That's where Verhoeven failed. As a storyteller, if you want to show that the heroes initial values are wrong, a inner shift in beliefs must occur somewhere at the end of the second act, or beginning of the third. The heroes actions must reflect the moral of the story. But the Troopers always believe bugs are bad fighting and is good. They never change that believe. Then they win. The end. So whatever ideals they abide by are good from a story perspective. Satire or not, if the storyteller wants to say that fascism is bad, then the hero must fail at fascism. Or at the very least fascism must lead to something bad. So the film poked fun at some Nazi ideology. But Verhoeven ultimately failed at showing us why fascism is bad.
@@clarkparker4860 There are many examples of films where evil wins. There are clues sprinkled throughout the film that point out that the bugs home planet was invaded by humans, and they were unable to orchestrate the destruction of Rico's home. It isn't a failure of writing that makes people cheer genocide. It's a failure to pay attention to nuances beyond the intentionally vapid surface. He uses the expectations of the hero's journey to make us reexamine who our heroes really are. Is the beautiful clean cut protagonist a bad guy? No way. Bug ugly, must be the bad guy? Whoever wins the moral argument is a lame way to defend closing your eyes to evil if evil wins. I think that's the point. Beautiful teens right out of Beverly Hills 90210 could never be evil if they've already deemed themselves moral.
@@jtorr2997 Well of course; you can absolutely draw parallels to the Hitler-Jugend. And the part where Doogie Howser proclaims that the brain bug is afraid and everybody cheers in excitement always left me with a uneasy feeling and empathy for the alien. I always appreciate a filmmaker being subtle rather than preachy. But I do disagree on Rico, Dizzy an Carmen, being absolute pawns. I was invested in their development as people. I think the movie shines most when it depicts the positive attributes of it's characters; having self discipline, courage in the face of danger, compassion for their brothers and sisters in arms. And Rico perseveres in the end because he applies the lessons, he learned the hard way throughout the film. I differentiate between what people like you and me deem as evil and what a storyteller can depict as evil through visual storytelling. I think Verhoeven makes a good case. But while I love the film, I don't think it's a satirical masterpiece by any stretch. After watching it I felt more like, taking charge, taking responsibility, being courageous is something that I aspire to do. I didn't feel like, "Nazis are really bad people." or "Damn! I need to do something about fascism asap." I don't think, as a storyteller, you have to be preachy and on the nose, but you should somewhat be capable of directing the viewers attention, on what is dear to your heart. But the movies reception was a clear indicator that he wasn't as precise in his storytelling as he'd wished. I think a shift in Rico's attitude somewhere down the line or a complete negative character arc would have been a better way to convey the underlining message.
@@clarkparker4860 The reason Rico didn't have a change of heart is that the film is a fictional propaganda piece produced by the fascist government in the film. Meta, huh? That's what's up with all the in-universe commercials.
Unpopular opinion but the book was an utter bore. It was a treatise on why everyone should be in the military, and why the military knows better. It's hilariously off the deep end. In before all of the "you just didn't understand it" comments. You can understand something and still disagree with it, shocking idea for a lot of you.
Fair enough. I would similarly advice against embracing Starship Trooper's proposed worldview wholeheartedly as well. There is a certain propagandistic element to the story which Verhoeven might have intuited, but which he imo failed to fully grasp. I might make another video about that sometime soon. Regardless, I did enjoy the book quite a bit as a sci-fi military adventure tale and for its coming of age story. But yeah, you do need to take it with a grain of salt I'd say
You still don't understand it, though. It wasn't about the military. It was about how authority should never be divorced from responsibility. The military was just an easy way to illustrate that. I do agree that the novel wasn't the most engaging at times if you're just in it for the main story.
"fascism făsh′ĭz″əm noun A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. " No.. it was not fascist.
When I found out the truth behind Heinlein's Starship Troopers, I started disliking the movie because Verhoeven did such a disservice to Heinlein. Heinlein fought in WWII and hated fascism. His pro-military stance in the book was in response to the anti-militarism of the 1960s. Heinlein saw that military personnel returning from Vietnam were being horribly mistreated and spat on by the civilian populace, none of whom had any idea what the returning service members had gone through. Heinlein wanted to show the positive aspects of the military in Starship Troopers: discipline, courage, selflessness, honor, esprite de corps, etc.
Verhoeven wasn't wrong tho. Nothing here disputes it's fascist message. Why'd you ignore the role of propaganda in the film? Why did you chose to ignore that the Federation is an invading force in the film? Why are you quoting PragerU? PragerU has repeatedly been dis-proven in their revisionist attempts. I'm really disappointed in this channel for going this route.
Because I'm not specifically talking about the movie? As for Prager U, the only reason why I used that vid was because it happened to concisely illustrate what I wanted to convey. Similar to the Tedtalk video. Not sure how the mere presence of their channel automatically disproves the message of the video?
@@storytellers1 PragerU is a shameless right wing propaganda site often associated with pro-fascist messages. It's unfortunate you chose to ignore that. I hope you're new new subscribers aren't all insurrectionists. I'm unsubscribing before that.
He WAS wrong. Militarism does NOT equal fascism. I'm sick of recycled poly-sci 101 level interpretations from people who can't even make that distinction. The world portrayed in the novel is a very democratic one, albeit one that is held together by the military rather than by a political party with military backing. It provides EVERYONE with the ability to gain political power, provided they're willing to put forth their lives as collateral. And that makes complete sense, because why would you ever want people NOT willing to fight given the ability to send others to do so in your place? That's as anti-fascist as you can get.
@@jtorr2997 Does one need to agree with the specific political views of a platform to share parts of a video which happens to include relevant content? By that metric, I should also have omitted Sargon of Akkad (considering he's been accused of similar things) regardless of the fact that his video is among the most watched Starship Troopers videos. For the record, I'm not a Prager U fan, I don't watch their videos, and I'm sure I disagree with them on plenty of issues. Just because I use a video which happens to come from their channel doesn't mean I endorse their politics. Unless you think the content of the video itself is wrong or 'disproven' I don't see the issue
@@storytellers1 I think that boils it down to the point. Why would you think that using Starship Troopers to extol virtues of leadership could come without political baggage? You're dismissal of Verhoeven comes without really considering his valid criticism of what your video is promoting. In your video essay, you include a scene from the movie where questioning the ethics of genocide is seen as laughable or unpatriotic. Being a leader was only possible for Rico when he bought absolutely and unquestionably his moral correctness. It contrasts in the film with the fact that they are gullible kids. Your praise of the book ignores the anti-communist view of America in 1959. So yeah, you can't divorce these things from saying the book had a good message while ignoring the ground you're pulling it from. Your inclusion of PragerU covers your video in dirt your can't remove because it's inconvenient.
Weirdly right wing references: that prageru-guy, pewdiepie and Sargon. I'm sure y'all know the german word for leader is Führer. That one also talked about discipline, sacrifice and insects all the time. Glorifying military and hierarchy are a big part of fascist mindsets as well.
Movie watcher non-book reader spotted 😂🥴 Bruh you really don’t know wtf you’re talking about if you think Pewdiepie, Sargon of Akkad, or Prager University are right wing commentators 🤣 A capitalist influencer who’s target audience is European minors, A classic Liberal, and a conservative media channel? Why do I get the feeling that you need to “talk” to your “friends” and parents before forming a political thought
Tim No, because its illogical to judge the many for the actions of the few. You are inadvertently yourself an agent of chaos and censorship, since you are so quick to assign labels and discard opinions into your pre-programmed categories based on a stupid 4-grid political compass chart that isn’t even acknowledged in any academic circles. I’m sorry, pal, but you’ve been conditioned to think a certain way ever since you started attending Western Public Schools or perhaps when you were first exposed to a tel-a-vision. In anycase, I politely ask that you wake up and start doing your own due diligence and research into politics and history without the opinions and noise of self-centered agenda pushers. Good luck have fun. ruclips.net/video/Y9TviIuXPSE/видео.html
@@medikare7469 im pretty sure conservatives are universally considered on the right side of the political spectrum. In regards to Liberals, that depends if you're American or not. Everywhere apart from the US Liberals are considered right wing too.
@@detimeditom Of all the possible examples you could pick of Pewdiepie's poor judgement in telling the audience about his beliefs, the signs is the worst. He was genuinely trying to get people to write the most vile things on video for money. The joke hinges on the text being offensive, like the saluting pug. Dankula thought the saluting pug was a joke not because he actually thinks it's a serious political act, but because it's ridiculous for an innocent cute little animal to be in agreement with angry moustache man. Additionally, because of Pewdiepie constantly getting intro trouble he pledged to donate to the ADL and only didn't go through it because his own fanbase warned him that they're very anti-free speech (seriously look up Sasha Baron Cohen's speech to the ADL where he proposes that free speech rights don't mean you have a right to livestream). Is donating to the ADL something that Pewdiepie would consider doing if he were the person you claim he is? In regards to "right wing", look up Stalin's "doctor's plot". If you think disliking a particular group is right-wing exclusive, think again. If you actually wanted to make a case for Pewdiepie having unsavory political views, you'd go for things like him recommending Yukio Mishima's books. I mean, I'd still disagree, but at least it's not as stupid as the fiverr videos or whatever. Yes I'm censoring myself because I don't want to trigger the bad word filters. Yes if you click my profile you'll see I'm subbed to Pewdiepie. Full disclosure.
I really like Jocko Willinck's idea of taking ownership over everything. I think it's important to do that and that helps you change what you actually can control. However, I think that sort of idea can also promote victim-blaming and that, to me, isn't a step forward. The reality is, certain circumstances do make life harder for people but that doesn't mean we should allow the victim mindset to affect our lives.
There have been plenty of regimes which were militaristic without being fascistic. The Soviet Union maintained a sizeable military and quickly, and forcefully resorbed the old Russian empire. Were the Soviets fascists? And the North Koreans?
@@brandanb9735 Facism is an over wrought word. But Turkey is the best example of a militaristic regime. And it has a coup about every other decade. Militarism is a much more flawed political system than a republic.
Not true at all. You haven't read the book. The society of Starship Troopers is very free. It isn't authoritarian in the slightest. People don't serve the state. You don't know what fascism is.
@@br8745 Yes it easy. "Fascism" and "democracy" have become a false binary in our vacuous political discourse. The former being code for "everything I don't like" and the latter being "every I do like."
Can you please do a review of some episodes of 101 Dalmation street, it highlights a lot about coming of age, leadership, and different personalities with in a family and how all that works. I would Love to see you do a video on the show please
being on the us military reading list just adds to the fact of it being jingoistic fashy nonsense. The pragerU and sargon inclusions were baffling for me as well.
Have you read it? There are definitely some controversial things in it and I some silly notions that I do not agree with, but as a coming of age story mixed with some timeless lessons on leadership and personal responsibility, it's quite good. Not sure why the pragerU and sargon inclusions were 'baffling'? There are many videos of Jocko explaining some of his principles, including the Tedtalk that I used. The PragerU video just so happened to encapsulate to three most important lessons from the book in a concise manner. This video is not meant as some sort of endorsement of whatever politics PragerU pushes. As for Sargon, his video is among the most watched videos on Starship Troopers. To omit it from my overview of the discussion would be to fail at my job. You're absolutely allowed to not like Starship Troopers, but I hope you understand that your criticism of what I decided to include in the video seems unwarranted
Oh yeah, can't include people you disagree with to show counter points. "Jingoisitic fashy nonsense". You sound like you have your own political biases anyway. I highly doubt you know what facism even is.
You are sadly a conditioned brainwashed sheep npc person if you think Sargon of Akkad is actually right wing. He’s more liberal than most self-described liberals, but you’re not going to agree with that statement if the extent of your political understanding only goes as far as those 4-grid ‘political compass’ charts.
The problem I have with this whole idea of a militaristic led society, and this whole pro military simping bullshit and so on, is the fact that this society, just like all societies, across all eras of human civilization, is only allowed to exist thanks to the working class and the working class alone, not the military, hell, there would be no military without the worker, but workers have existed before the military Obviously in a work of fiction such as Starship Troopers the writer can do whatever they want, no matter how stupid, but it fucking pisses me off that the idea of "The Soldier" is presented like this heroic, idealistic thing when these Soldiers are just pawns passed through a meat grinder to satisfy the desires of an elite that exploits us all, while the people who actually make things work are not really appreciated at all, in fact, are merely seen as resources to be used and then dispposed of. Most wars, especially the ones started by the US, have no noble justification behind them, the resources WASTED on the military could be used for better things too, but we chose to waste those anyways, and there's still people who simp for the military in this fucking world smh. Anyway, my comment doesn't even really address the video itself, it's just that these mfs are so caught up on military propaganda that they can see what really matters in the real world.
You sound like a socialist bordering on communist and if you’re living in the West you are fooling yourself thinking that workers are any more or less important than the military. If it wasn’t for a strong national defense and even better the ability to project power your country and opportunities to achieve a good living would go down in general and depending on who’s your neighbor you might be forced to serve or be conscripted. It’s a nice utopian view you have but without the military your ability to breath could be stolen from you so while your naive nature is cute it isn’t realistic. War is just political governance by the only means necessary when diplomacy fails and it’s not films or books that glamorize the horrors of war that make war an inevitable outcome but rather human nature and our seemingly innate need to conquer and kill whether your workers paradise were to exist or not.
@@azovandy14.88 That's a nice load if bs right there, but here in my country our military has little experience fighting against outside threats, but they do have a lot of experience fighting against civilians, there's been many military coups that led to dictatorships here in my country, they'd kidnap, torture, kill and rape people who oppose them (including children) and have shaped a good chunk of our culture, by force even. Under military dictatorship, the working class has been brutalized, while those in the military have lived lives of luxury, to this day they have a separate healthcare system and a separate military court system that often find them not guilty of many crimes they commit, all paid with the preople's money. You talk as if the working class needs the military to exist, it's the complete opposite, all classes in society need the working class to exist, everything the military needs is manufactured by the working class and that's that. There would be no Soldier if there was no worker to make their weapons. I am from a historically militaristic country, just this year there was yet another coup attempt, and being led by the military has been a fucking disaster through and through, especially for the workers. I don't see a reason to praise so much the image of the Soldier, when ultimately the fabric of civilization is held together by the workers, that's my point. But even the US would benefit from not wasting so much money in the military, if they weren't trying to control the rest of the world through military terrorism and foccused on improving the lives of the American people instead, the US would be a paradise on earth, but while many politicians say that investing on public healthcare would break their economy for example, there's a lot more money being invested in their military apparatus that won't really bebefit the average American citizen at all.
0:25 Elite?! Hardly! Their standard-issue weapon, the Morita, doesn't even have sights, and M.I. troopers are typically seen shooting from the hip even though it's a bullpup! Also, why do they use intermediate-caliber small arms against an enemy whose forces are made up of essentially biomechanoids? What they need is anti-material weaponry, which they only use when the plot calls for it. It should be standard-issue. 1:17 See? No sights. Utterly incompetent design. It's a Ruger AC556 (or Mini-14 converted to full-auto) in bullpup configuration spliced together with an underslung short-barrel Ithaca 37. Obviously, they were trying to outdo the M41A pulse rifle (itself inspired by the M-16/M-203 over-and-under combo) which was a Thompson M-1A1 spliced together with an underslung subcompact Remington 870 with a SPAS-12 forearm, the whole thing encased in an outer shell. It had a collapsible stock, but none of the actors actually used it (because movie people don't "get" firearms). 1:20 Verhoeven is a socialist. Heinlein was a nationalist. So of course, Verhoeven doesn't "get" Heinlein. Heinlein's ideals were both nationalist and libertarian. In other words, he was all about CIVIC nationalism. From his point of view, that was the best way to PREVENT totalitarianism. You know, because it gave The People the means to fight it. 6:38 Why would they say "oh" instead of "zero" or "aught?" 7:14 That sounds like collectivism to me. I thought Heinlein was against collectivism. Not in the way Ayn Rand was, though. 9:51 Notice how he gives that spiel while wearing a suit and tie, an outfit that you wouldn't wear while working in, say, a mattress factory or the sterile lab of an orthopedics plant. What irks me about people who think the way he does is that his ilk doesn't have a problem with the lowly peon being overworked and underpaid, forced to do the work of five people while getting paid less than $12 an hour (yes, even in an orthopedics plant). But you can bet he has friends and/or family members who have orthopedic implants that were likely made in a plant where the workers who make those things can't afford those implants. 10:29 Short period of time? Is 20 years a short period of time? That's how much of my life I wasted working high-stress, dead-end, poverty-wage jobs. Never got me anywhere. Not a single one of them was "cushy." They were all miserable and one of them even ruined my health in the form of brown lung. Something else that irks me about his ilk is that they assume that everyone else's experiences are the same, or should be the same, as theirs. *Note:* No one salutes with their left hand. 10:34 How far down does an individual have to be beaten, though? When is enough finally enough? How do we reconcile humility with dignity? The collectivist will always glorify humility while chastising dignity. The individualist will always exalt dignity while regarding humility with skepticism. Heinlein was somehow able to reconcile these concepts, though from his own perspective, he leaned more in the direction of anti-collectivism. *Note:* Assuming that humility is the negation of dignity, then how much of our dignity must be sacrifice in the name of "order" and "civilization?" Freedom takes priority over "order" in a free society, right? And is a civilization truly civilized if it strips the individual of dignity? 12:15 What purpose does a necktie serve in combat? The necktie is functionally useless and is purely symbolic. It symbolizes slavery. 12:57 Why not train them primarily in the use of weaponry that would actually be useful against the adversary they face? Like grenade launchers and payload rifles. 13:10 Except they never actually do that in the movies. They NEVER adapt! They continue to use their pissant intermediate-caliber rifles throughout all the movies! 13:24 That's one of the biggest gripes against the movie, and rightly so. Notice how they're all shooting from the hip with BULLPUP rifles that don't even have sights! 13:30 Poorly designed helmet. Ridiculous hoss of a combination gun. Incompetent weapon handling. 13:52 "The Marine Corps does not want robots. The Marine Corps wants killers. The Marine Corps wants to build indestructible men...men without fear." ~Private Joker 13:54 If it takes that many shots from that many rifles just to down one bug, then you need to rethink the logistics (and ergonomics) of your equipment. 14:12 If they'd had payload rifles or anti-material rifles handy, that stunt wouldn't have been necessary. Cool stunt, though. Kinda Wookiee-like. Jump on "the big tally-ho" and take it out with a mighty bang. That's good for cinematic effect, but makes no sense in terms of combat logistics. They should have at least one weapon per squad (I keep reiterating the payload rifle as an example) that can deal with that sort of thing. Or just replace ineffectual pissant assault rifles with payload rifles. Assault rifles in this world, and against this type of enemy, would only be useful as backup weapons (if that). 14:36 What about problems that are habitually created by OTHERS to the point that they become systemic? I'll give a simplistic, minor, and common example: clogging and plunging a toilet. If the same individual is constantly clogging a toilet and leaving it for some other individual to plunge, and it's always being plunged by the same person, then what you have is an unsustainable system (and possibly also a situation of enabling on the part of the toilet-plunging individual and barbaric parasitism on the part of the habitual toilet-clogger). No matter how much discipline the toilet-plunging person exhibits, it doesn't do anything to make the toilet-clogger more conscientious to fix the problem they habitually create. So why preach discipline to the one already showing it? Why not preach it where it's deficient? Most jobs are miserable, but they're made even more miserable when people are arbitrarily forced to do extra unpaid work because of problems created by others and always left for the same grunts to deal with. Dung rolls downhill. What do the high and mighty plan to do after they've drowned all of us expendable peons in their infectious waste? *Note:* What I'm getting at is basically this: Be wary of those who blame the individual for problems that are clearly systemic. They're most likely looking to use you as a scapegoat. Also, collectivism is the bane of humankind.
Inspirational, timeless, and *based* on facts and supportive source material. You could do a couple more videos on the various different topics Heinlein touches on in his books, the man was basically a less mellow-dramatic Nostradamus, except his predictions are accurate. “Service men are not brighter than civilians. In many cases civilians are much more intelligent. That was the sliver of justification underlying the attempted coup d' etat just before the Treaty of New Delhi, the so-called 'Revolt of the Scientists': let the intelligent elite run things and you'll have utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility.” “This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted . . . and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.” "Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?-the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives-but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."
Verhoven tried to satire the book and he failed miserably. That's what's so great about it. He tried to claim fascism where there was none in the novel, and his movie ended up just being a good action movie that was truer to the book than he intended.
Yeah can't take you seriously when you are looking at a character that it's suppost to be a mockery of facist ideals and think he is somehow a good example of leadership in a movie that is all about how facism is a backwards ideology I don't want to presume anything but you are starting to make me question things about you
I don't want to presume anything about you either, but you are starting to make me question whether you actually watched the video, considering that I am not talking about the movie, but about the novel. I use clips from the movie to make it more visually appealing and fun to watch
people arguing over it having fascists neo conservatism, while sleeping on the fact the book is set in a universe riddled with Easter eggs that it is infact set in a universe where e nazis made it to Argentina and established an empire
Yeaaaa, I’m not going to believe Sargon of Akkad when he says something is or is not fascist. Especially when the source material heavily encodes weakness when you don’t serve the state in support of protecting the race of humanity. And therein the quotes you cited heavily emphasize these factors. It’s fine to not want to look at a film solely through a political lense, but to to our right reject the association from the beginning and give a 2:1 citation in favor of your assertion makes me concerned what you were exactly trying to say. You can describe the tenants of leadership without having to even drag in a rushed assertion that it’s not fascist.
What a weird criticism. If you don't like the military you could still read the stuff they read because at least it gives you insight. Know thy enemy and all that. Even if you're not planning to "fight" them, understanding people you don't like or agree with doesn't just make you a well-rounded person... I think it actually makes us more human.
Titanium Rain You seem like the type of psychic that would have a lot of understanding to gain from reading some of Heinlein’s works. " … I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." -(Ret.) Lt. Col. DuBois, M.I.
Hi everyone! It's been while, but we're finally back with a new video on one of my favorite cult-classics. New videos will be coming out more regularly again, but please do leave a like and/or a comment on this one to get the algorithm on our side again. Much appreciated. - Thomas
I agree with you, that responsibility, humility and discipline are essential values of any good human being.
But, the problem I see is moral; I really can’t take as an example of a good person a soldier, because essentially a soldier is a murder, whatever the excuse he uses to justifies the murders.
And that is the problem with the fascist/authoritarian society (in the movie, in the book or in reality). They don’t have a morality base on goodness, ethics and reason, they have a morality of strength. And in a society of strength doesn't matter who is right or wrong morally, only matters who has the biggest stick and can (and will) impose his point of view upon all others.
Please don’t mistake the glorified image of soldiers with justice and integrity, war is the opposite of justice; is death, lies and horror. Especially if you are from the USA, don’t fool yourself thinking your country is right imposing war and terror on other countries, stop your government on spreading war and violence around the world, please.
That is why I think, we need to work for a world without soldiers, without war and without authoritarian governments.
It MAY be a fine fun movie, what it has to do with the book, other than the title, is another story.
Some books should never be made into movies. This is one of them.
You know what's strange? *When viewed from the lens of "leadership", Ace Levy is an important character.*
Recognizing competent leadership and being humble enough to follow rather than to fight for leadership is what the other 85% of us have to do for the leaders to matter at all.
Would you ever do videos on the TV series supernatural 🤔🤨
Starship Troopers will always be a great movie.
The sequels however can stay in the trashcan.
# flexxarnnn
Read The Book!
What sequels?
@@krishivagarwal5189 Exactly
I repeatedly push them out of my mind.
"I doubt anyone here would recognize civic virtue even if it reached up and bit you in the ass."
"The difference lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."
@@anticommunist5851 you got the quote wrong, soldier.
Max Johnson
Book > Movie
Cool Another for my list!
Second thought - hyper Individualism
Piley Benton - choice reductionism
Lucky black cat - radical responsibility
This disproves what now? Sargon of Akad? What the fuck is going on here? I'm actually stunned by how tone deaf this is.
Edit: Was this supposed to come out on the 1st?
What is going on here is that Starship Troopers (the novel) introduces readers to a set of valuable lessons in leadership and personal responsibility. You can use these principles in your own life regardless of your politics. Not sure why this is so controversial?
@@storytellers1 The values are buried in authoritarian & libertarian ideals with well documented shortcomings. It puts all responsibility & blame on those at the bottom of power structures, with those at the top in total control & without consequences. These values are "Might makes right" just said in such a way as to disguise the reality they work towards.
Would you like to know more?
Let them rain boyo let them rain.
_How about a nice cup of Liberty!_
Still an interesting film when the director chose to parody the militarism after seeing the horrors of WWII firsthand.
What’s more interesting is how he managed to accidentally make a great film nonetheless despite misunderstanding it
@@edmonddantes563 I read the book before I saw the movie. I think they both have a good message. I never saw Heinlein as purely fascist as a lot of people seem to receive his work, having said that, he def. wasn't the flower picking kind either.
Maybe that's the sign of great work that both sides can find their narrative in it and thus it says more about the reader / watcher than it does about the creators ideas.
@@edmonddantes563 misunderstanding what?
Discipline GUARANTEES freedom.
Would you like to know more?
Nah, sorry, but you're way off the map on this. Not only has there been several academic discussions of the fascist themes and imagery of the book, but your counter-arguments to that are really bad. Anybody seriously citing Carl Benjamin on any topic just can't be taken seriously.
There are a lot of intersting discussions to be had about discipline, leadership and motivation but Jocko seems to be really reductive.
And using PragerU clips unironically and uncritically is laughable and a bad influence on people who don't know what PragerU is.
Rule #1. If you want to be taken serious, don't use PragerU
This totalizing statement is the real irony.
Prageru is garbage on almost everything. However a video like this shows they can produce not useless content. Unfortunately it’s a video produced by a bunch of people completely incapable holding themselves to a most basic standard of journalism and political theory. My problem with guys like jocko and many more conservative service members. They hold a traditional idea of Society that they think would be best. Their ideas are almost always blinded by nostalgia for something that was never real. Conservatives love talking about personal responsibility but in reality they don’t care about it. When you talk about race relations in America, the US knowingly disabling governments for profits, and straight up genocides committed by they US. These people ignore shit like this. They aren’t patriots they are nationalists
@@oopsiepoopsie2898 You're essentially calling them hypocrites, but hypocrisy doesn't mean they're wrong, it means they lack virtue. You're implicitly agreeing with them (assuming YOUR totalizing statement is true).
I don't mind that I liked it in my youth for the wrong reasons. But, nowadays, I like it more for new reasons.
It sends a chill down my spine realizing that Heinlein’s words mirror our world. Art imitates life, I guess.
We get it u like jocko
A tale of two books: The Forever War vs Starship Troopers. Both are an interesting take on the war novel, if I recall Heinlein was a WW2 vet and I feel like those experiences would influence his attitude towards war and service. In my opinion nits an overall positive one. When I read Starship Troopers I wanted to join up in the mobile infantry it sounded bad ass. While as Joe Haldeman served in Vietnam which his experience can be felt in tbe characters reluctance to fight and a sort of chaotic and often brutal reduction in warfare. Both are fantastic novels and i would love to see a comparison between both.
I think the difference between the two books can be explained well with "The Bet War Ever" a look at how WWII was / is ingrained in the American cultural narrative: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_War_Ever
Vietnam on the other hand was not a "noble" war and it had nothing it could pretend it was, even to the casual observer. I think this mostly explains why both books appear to be polar opposites.
My man is finally back! YEA!!
That speaker is deeply unsettling when I hear him. That anger in the voice. That accusatory tone. That unflinching certainty.
Yes. I do agree with a lot of the sentiments and arguments. That is beside my reaction to the delivery. And I think it is part of why Verhoeven were so appalled by the book. Why he hated it.
The thing is, that at it's core. Starship Troopers depicts a fascist totalitarian government... that works. It's not a dystopia with rebels seeking to tear down the boot keeping people down. If anything. It's a Rodenberry level Utopia. For everyone in the system. It is a system where everyone has a shoe to fill and efforts are rewarded and security is enforced top down.
That is the problem. It is too alluring. And you are meant to forget the alternatives. I remember listening to the first chapters of the book. That first drop. Where these ultraunits of soldiers level a city. Smashing through structures as alien civilians flee in terror. As they are not in the system. They are acceptable expenditures. And it's that blindness to alternatives that I think Paul rejects so vehimently. You get results by devoting yourself. Yes. But what are those results? He lived through Europe during WW2. He's seen both Nazi and Allied forces that inspired the book. And I'm not sure he prefers either of them.
To me, Starship Troopers is a fascinating tale of a human becoming a soldier ant. I love the metalevel parody of Verhoeven's version. But I also want a non-parodic version. With the mech-suits, wanton genocide and all. I want essentially Band if Brothers in space, yes. We follow these true believers. But also are confronted with the horrors that these unstoppable marines have become.
A great adaptation of the Heinlein book still needs that kind of distance. Because even if the characters don't question the lessons. The viewer should.
Verhoven want appalled at the book. He didn't read it. That's why the writers (who did read it and did like it) were able to quote *verbatim* several long segments from the book.
Verhoven used fascist costumes but didn't portray a fascist society.
Non citizens like Johnny's parents had wealth and freedom.
Can't wait for this comment section to devolve into a shitshow about whether it's fascistic or not. You seem to have done a good job of a neutral overview of the conversation around it so props on that.
Yup lol. I blame Verhoeven
who cares if its fascist or not? an author was robbed of his creative vision and story by hollywood executives/directors. why isn't this the topic of criticism. how can the 'its fascist!' boogeyman have the spotlight without highlighting this more?
@@storytellers1 That's what happens when you don't read the damn book and there are this many definitions of fascism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism.
You could ask 24 different people and get 24 different definitions that may include all authoritarianism, all capitalist countries, the PRC and the USSR or may not include Italy and Spain.
@@storytellers1 Verhoeven was right to make fun of it
@@Diogenerate wah wah cry us a river. Heinlein was a loser
I find it a bit odd that you mention Red Letter Media @2:20 for "attempting to correct the record by highlighting the movies intended but flawed critique of Heinlein's world view, and how and why this was originally misunderstood" when at no point in their _Starship Troopers_ Re:View episode did they argue or even mention this standpoint. They largely only discussed the film's parodization and satire of Fascism and fascist propaganda in general, compared the film to a _Star Trek_ episode, and discussed it's casting choice; set design; and special effects. They don't discuss the book or how the movie relates to it at all, nor do they comment if it successfully critiqued Heinlein's world view. The closest they get to this specific topic is mentioning that some critics panned the movie upon release after misinterpreting it as actual Fascist-propaganda. They however never in the video argued or discussed exactly _why_ this happened, nor did they argue or highlight that the film was a "flawed critique of Heinlein's world view". If anything, they seemed to support the notion that the film was a successful parody of Fascism in general, but they don't discuss if it successfully criticizes the book. I don't think that video really supported the point you were making at all, unless you were referring instead to some other RLM content outside that video and only used it as a backdrop.
This isn't to say this necessarily contradicts your argument that Heinlein's novel has a leadership subtext underneath the more commonly discussed political ones, but I don't think anything in that particular video supports it.
I think I may have mixed RLM's review up a bit with Wiscrack's video!? In all honesty, I watched the RLM vid a long time ago, and thought that they talked about how it was misunderstood. Went back to rewatch it a bit and noticed that they do mention how Verhoeven tries to mock militarism/fascism etc. But you're right, they technically don't talk about how it was misunderstood. My bad
@@storytellers1 It's all good, just wanted to clarify things. Don't want to present a source inaccurately, even if it's used more as a passing example. Thanks for acknowledging the slip up.
The only thing the book and movie had in common was the title
And some characters' names
No. Several key scenes were quoted verbatim from the book. It's clear the writers loved the book and verhoven had no clue they were doing it.
The lectures in high school presented Heinliens view of a constitutional republic with limited franchise based on service fairly.
Nazis had also a very complex system of values, methods and views. Some of them may have even been beneficial. But it doesn’t even start to make it acceptable at its core. The point that Heinlein’s book has only 2 chapters dedicated to the politically tyrannical nature of this dystopia doesn’t change the fact that it’s tyrannical and unacceptable.
It's a constitutional republic (aka a democracy) with limited vote franchise available to all citizens.
Many real world constitutional republics in the last 200 years have let fewer people vote.
The "extreme ownership" idea reminds me of Rule .303 (or at least Beau of the Fifth Column's interpretation of it...), that if you have the capability, you have the responsibility
As often as I come across comments referencing BOTFC I'd think he would have more subs.
Did you just try to say Starship Troopers isn't fascist...and then explain fascism?!?
I think that calling it "Heinlein's ideal society" is a mistake. Heinlein didn't present it as ideal, but simply as one that - so far - worked better than its predecessors.
If we're going to praise the concept of ownership as exemplified in the military, then we cannot place a soldier fighting a war outside of the context of the war they are fighting. If they are on the side of the aggressor, invading and seeking to dehumanize and humiliate an opposing force, then they must take ownership of that too. Too many war films focus on the individual heroics and camaraderie of fellow soldiers within the stance of 'isn't war hell'. Soldiers are in part victims of war, but narratives which focus on the virtues of discipline and ownership tend to shield soldiers from their own complicity. Misguided people are fed these narratives and fantasize about their own capacity for heroics.
Even if the concept of extreme ownership is valuable, and can be demonstrated through inspiring instances in war, by divesting the themes of fascism from your arguments over ownership you have played into militaristic jingoism. The soldiers take ownership for each other's actions and welfare, but channel hate towards an outside force. Willing to use any means to defend their virtues, they forsake virtue. They seek to follow the examples of dead heroes without reflecting on their reasons, relying instead on emotion and slogans. Sure they take extreme ownership in some cases, but in others they are entirely willing to let other people do their thinking. Of course extreme ownership can be separated from fascism, and can help people grow, but not within the context of Starship Troopers. To me, that is the central error of this video.
The biggest problem with making media like that is that it puts a bad taste in the peoples’ mouth. I will first off say, you are absolutely correct, as a combat veteran it took seeing innocents burned alive in front of their children to fully understand it. The reality of war is horrible, but the idealization of “the fight worth fighting” is a mental propaganda that we have willingly took part in for centuries regardless of which side. That’s why WWII is idealized and memorialized in so many ways, it’s the closest we as people have come to fighting “true evil.” Nobody cares about the soldiers or their willingness to fight with the Nazi’s, they just care about what their flag idealized. A bigger group of people now are disenfranchised with the idea of war now that we have spent the last few decades playing wack-a-mole in the Middle East, but I really wish more people would really understand what you just said.
Hmmm... I dunno if I can take the advice seriously of anyone who appears on praeger u.
Claims Verhoeven misunderstood Heinlein's book for being fascist - and then explains in detail and with glowing praise how the original story teaches fascism! (And for extra points repeatedly quotes Prager U to support his point that it is _not_ jingoistic, militaristic or fascist and most of all _not_ to view only through a political lense.) After years of subscriptions this is a hard unsubscribe.
I'm sorry to hear that, Martin. As I explain, this video is not intended as some sort of endorsement of Heinlein's Federation, and most certainly not as a political endorsement of Prager U (I could have picked other videos which explain some of Jocko's principles, but this one just happened to fit best with my video because it touched on the right principles in a concise manner). In fact, I think there are some serious blindspots in Heinlein's worldview, and he proposes some silly ideas in the book. Again, I'm not interested here in the whole debate about whether Verhoeven's movie and/or the book are fascist or not. It's been done to death already. All I am trying to argue here is that the book (not really the movie) is valuable in the way it introduces readers to certain tried and tested leadership principles, and that people seem to overlook that aspect. I'm not sure what is inherently fascistic about taking extreme ownership, staying humble, and realizing that discipline can help give you more freedom in life? Seems pretty uncontroversial and milquetoast to me. Lastly, I'd want to emphasize that I am not a fascist in the slightest, nor do I wish to promote in any way. I'm sorry if you felt like it came across that way. - Thomas
@@storytellers1 You say you didn't intend to promote fascism, but you failed to concern yourself withe the ways the film sought to condemn it. You chose to ignore the propaganda, the gullible nature of the protagonists, the mangled limbs of the authority. When you say "I'm not interested here in the whole debate about whether Verhoeven's movie and/or the book are fascist or not." Believe me, that's obvious. Very obvious and loud and clear.
@@storytellers1 I'm sorry to hear that, Thomas. I neither want to ascribe fascism or bad faith arguments to you you, nor call Heinlein personally a fascist. But it is the very fact that you call your video essay "uncontroversial" and "milquetoast" that only reinforces my initial reaction. It is the same claim as that of a privileged racist to be "colorblind". I believe you that you believe that - but that doesn't make it true. Your attempt to gloss over all of the deeply antidemocratic, militaristic, sexist and imperialistic ideas baked into the core of Heinlein's novel, and then use an author who built his carreer on imperialism and jingoism and a channel paid by - to be perfectly clear - people who are willing to sacrifice the future of humanity to further their own profit, to give it a presumably non-political spin and dress it up with some Peterson clean up your room lobster theory hogwash is both ignorant and disgusting. And yes, I do believe you did so _unaware_. But I am afraid, anyone _unaware_ of these facts at this point in history is either grossly negligent or at the very least does not want to look at reality because it is uncomfortable and he has the privilege to ignore it. If you want to see someone do this topic actually justice, maybe check out very much the less polished but infinitely more honest Kyle Kallgren's ruclips.net/video/y5bHLrGBUKo/видео.html
Back in 2018 I read the book, and the movie is merely a shadow of the book. The book as if it's peeking in the future, spoke on a whole new level to me. From now on, it's one of the top books in my library.
"fascism
făsh′ĭz″əm
noun
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
"
No.. it was not fascist.
I low key thought Jocko was gonna be a guest narrator
Lmao, I wish
@@storytellers1 he probably would have done it
is that a prageru video lmao
Jocko is almost as bad as Pager U.
Marty Moose 🙈🙉🤡
PragerU and Sargon, damn
@@anticommunist5851 What are you some 12 year old kid with racist parents that doesn't know any better?
Marty Moose 🙉🙈🙊
I remember seeing this with friends and one of them not liking it because he didn't realize it was actually parody.
Just accept that there is only ONE Starship troopers movie. If you really need more content, play Starcraft.
Whatever Sargon of Akkad says, assume the opposite is true.
i was waiting for the twist the entire runtime of the video...
you're literally showing clips from prageru? I'm not sure how many layers of misunderstanding of fascist intent are going on here?
Some of these comments are proving the point of the video if people actually read the starship Troopers book they would understand is not exactly a fasicist story
Never read the book saw the movie later on but was first introduced to it by the show Rico's Roughnecks. ;)
I loved how the rifles had no sight system. Also l dont see how the book pushed fascism.
Good to see you guys making videos again. I like how you appreciate the thumbnail more after you've seen the video 😆
My man! Good to see you again too
Can You Talk About Kaitou Joker?
Funny thing, is I like both the book and the movie.
same - it's like seeing two sides of the same story - both have something real to say
The movie, if for the wrong reasons, *is* decent satire of how fascism can be easy to swallow if presented well.
While Verhoeven ridiculed at war and warmongering, I always looked at Starship Troopers as an appreciation of the warrior. To me the political dimension of the film was secondary. I always liked it because it's a classic heroes journey.
I always thought that the film was ridiculing this journey. At the end, the gullible heroes chose to not question that they are in fact the invading force and embrace being Nazis.
@@jtorr2997 They may have been lead to believe in something that they wouldn't have otherwise. But right or wrong is only determined by whoever wins the moral argument in the end. And they believed what they where doing is right and they succeeded in their mission.
That's where Verhoeven failed. As a storyteller, if you want to show that the heroes initial values are wrong, a inner shift in beliefs must occur somewhere at the end of the second act, or beginning of the third. The heroes actions must reflect the moral of the story.
But the Troopers always believe bugs are bad fighting and is good. They never change that believe. Then they win. The end. So whatever ideals they abide by are good from a story perspective.
Satire or not, if the storyteller wants to say that fascism is bad, then the hero must fail at fascism. Or at the very least fascism must lead to something bad.
So the film poked fun at some Nazi ideology. But Verhoeven ultimately failed at showing us why fascism is bad.
@@clarkparker4860 There are many examples of films where evil wins. There are clues sprinkled throughout the film that point out that the bugs home planet was invaded by humans, and they were unable to orchestrate the destruction of Rico's home. It isn't a failure of writing that makes people cheer genocide. It's a failure to pay attention to nuances beyond the intentionally vapid surface. He uses the expectations of the hero's journey to make us reexamine who our heroes really are. Is the beautiful clean cut protagonist a bad guy? No way. Bug ugly, must be the bad guy? Whoever wins the moral argument is a lame way to defend closing your eyes to evil if evil wins. I think that's the point. Beautiful teens right out of Beverly Hills 90210 could never be evil if they've already deemed themselves moral.
@@jtorr2997 Well of course; you can absolutely draw parallels to the Hitler-Jugend. And the part where Doogie Howser proclaims that the brain bug is afraid and everybody cheers in excitement always left me with a uneasy feeling and empathy for the alien. I always appreciate a filmmaker being subtle rather than preachy.
But I do disagree on Rico, Dizzy an Carmen, being absolute pawns. I was invested in their development as people.
I think the movie shines most when it depicts the positive attributes of it's characters; having self discipline, courage in the face of danger, compassion for their brothers and sisters in arms. And Rico perseveres in the end because he applies the lessons, he learned the hard way throughout the film.
I differentiate between what people like you and me deem as evil and what a storyteller can depict as evil through visual storytelling. I think Verhoeven makes a good case. But while I love the film, I don't think it's a satirical masterpiece by any stretch.
After watching it I felt more like, taking charge, taking responsibility, being courageous is something that I aspire to do. I didn't feel like, "Nazis are really bad people." or "Damn! I need to do something about fascism asap." I don't think, as a storyteller, you have to be preachy and on the nose, but you should somewhat be capable of directing the viewers attention, on what is dear to your heart. But the movies reception was a clear indicator that he wasn't as precise in his storytelling as he'd wished.
I think a shift in Rico's attitude somewhere down the line or a complete negative character arc would have been a better way to convey the underlining message.
@@clarkparker4860 The reason Rico didn't have a change of heart is that the film is a fictional propaganda piece produced by the fascist government in the film. Meta, huh? That's what's up with all the in-universe commercials.
I’m sorry this video is fascist
Jocko is not the most famous contemporary authority on leadership. Have you checked the academic texts? Or business texts?
Jocko’s type AAAAAAAAAAAAAA personality scares me.
Unpopular opinion but the book was an utter bore. It was a treatise on why everyone should be in the military, and why the military knows better. It's hilariously off the deep end.
In before all of the "you just didn't understand it" comments. You can understand something and still disagree with it, shocking idea for a lot of you.
Fair enough. I would similarly advice against embracing Starship Trooper's proposed worldview wholeheartedly as well. There is a certain propagandistic element to the story which Verhoeven might have intuited, but which he imo failed to fully grasp. I might make another video about that sometime soon. Regardless, I did enjoy the book quite a bit as a sci-fi military adventure tale and for its coming of age story. But yeah, you do need to take it with a grain of salt I'd say
You still don't understand it, though. It wasn't about the military. It was about how authority should never be divorced from responsibility. The military was just an easy way to illustrate that. I do agree that the novel wasn't the most engaging at times if you're just in it for the main story.
"fascism
făsh′ĭz″əm
noun
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
"
No.. it was not fascist.
Starship Troopers the film is a sci-fi Triumph of the Will. It's the propaganda film being made by the fascist government it depicts.
When I found out the truth behind Heinlein's Starship Troopers, I started disliking the movie because Verhoeven did such a disservice to Heinlein. Heinlein fought in WWII and hated fascism. His pro-military stance in the book was in response to the anti-militarism of the 1960s. Heinlein saw that military personnel returning from Vietnam were being horribly mistreated and spat on by the civilian populace, none of whom had any idea what the returning service members had gone through. Heinlein wanted to show the positive aspects of the military in Starship Troopers: discipline, courage, selflessness, honor, esprite de corps, etc.
Come back :(
Verhoeven wasn't wrong tho. Nothing here disputes it's fascist message. Why'd you ignore the role of propaganda in the film? Why did you chose to ignore that the Federation is an invading force in the film? Why are you quoting PragerU? PragerU has repeatedly been dis-proven in their revisionist attempts. I'm really disappointed in this channel for going this route.
Because I'm not specifically talking about the movie? As for Prager U, the only reason why I used that vid was because it happened to concisely illustrate what I wanted to convey. Similar to the Tedtalk video. Not sure how the mere presence of their channel automatically disproves the message of the video?
@@storytellers1 PragerU is a shameless right wing propaganda site often associated with pro-fascist messages. It's unfortunate you chose to ignore that. I hope you're new new subscribers aren't all insurrectionists. I'm unsubscribing before that.
He WAS wrong. Militarism does NOT equal fascism. I'm sick of recycled poly-sci 101 level interpretations from people who can't even make that distinction. The world portrayed in the novel is a very democratic one, albeit one that is held together by the military rather than by a political party with military backing. It provides EVERYONE with the ability to gain political power, provided they're willing to put forth their lives as collateral. And that makes complete sense, because why would you ever want people NOT willing to fight given the ability to send others to do so in your place? That's as anti-fascist as you can get.
@@jtorr2997 Does one need to agree with the specific political views of a platform to share parts of a video which happens to include relevant content? By that metric, I should also have omitted Sargon of Akkad (considering he's been accused of similar things) regardless of the fact that his video is among the most watched Starship Troopers videos. For the record, I'm not a Prager U fan, I don't watch their videos, and I'm sure I disagree with them on plenty of issues. Just because I use a video which happens to come from their channel doesn't mean I endorse their politics. Unless you think the content of the video itself is wrong or 'disproven' I don't see the issue
@@storytellers1 I think that boils it down to the point. Why would you think that using Starship Troopers to extol virtues of leadership could come without political baggage? You're dismissal of Verhoeven comes without really considering his valid criticism of what your video is promoting. In your video essay, you include a scene from the movie where questioning the ethics of genocide is seen as laughable or unpatriotic. Being a leader was only possible for Rico when he bought absolutely and unquestionably his moral correctness. It contrasts in the film with the fact that they are gullible kids. Your praise of the book ignores the anti-communist view of America in 1959. So yeah, you can't divorce these things from saying the book had a good message while ignoring the ground you're pulling it from. Your inclusion of PragerU covers your video in dirt your can't remove because it's inconvenient.
Weirdly right wing references: that prageru-guy, pewdiepie and Sargon.
I'm sure y'all know the german word for leader is Führer. That one also talked about discipline, sacrifice and insects all the time. Glorifying military and hierarchy are a big part of fascist mindsets as well.
Movie watcher non-book reader spotted 😂🥴 Bruh you really don’t know wtf you’re talking about if you think Pewdiepie, Sargon of Akkad, or Prager University are right wing commentators 🤣 A capitalist influencer who’s target audience is European minors, A classic Liberal, and a conservative media channel?
Why do I get the feeling that you need to “talk” to your “friends” and parents before forming a political thought
@@anticommunist5851 don't you agree conservatives are right wing? Or ukip? Or writing signs that say "death to all jews"? Sounds right wing to me
Tim No, because its illogical to judge the many for the actions of the few. You are inadvertently yourself an agent of chaos and censorship, since you are so quick to assign labels and discard opinions into your pre-programmed categories based on a stupid 4-grid political compass chart that isn’t even acknowledged in any academic circles. I’m sorry, pal, but you’ve been conditioned to think a certain way ever since you started attending Western Public Schools or perhaps when you were first exposed to a tel-a-vision. In anycase, I politely ask that you wake up and start doing your own due diligence and research into politics and history without the opinions and noise of self-centered agenda pushers. Good luck have fun.
ruclips.net/video/Y9TviIuXPSE/видео.html
@@medikare7469 im pretty sure conservatives are universally considered on the right side of the political spectrum. In regards to Liberals, that depends if you're American or not. Everywhere apart from the US Liberals are considered right wing too.
@@detimeditom Of all the possible examples you could pick of Pewdiepie's poor judgement in telling the audience about his beliefs, the signs is the worst. He was genuinely trying to get people to write the most vile things on video for money. The joke hinges on the text being offensive, like the saluting pug. Dankula thought the saluting pug was a joke not because he actually thinks it's a serious political act, but because it's ridiculous for an innocent cute little animal to be in agreement with angry moustache man. Additionally, because of Pewdiepie constantly getting intro trouble he pledged to donate to the ADL and only didn't go through it because his own fanbase warned him that they're very anti-free speech (seriously look up Sasha Baron Cohen's speech to the ADL where he proposes that free speech rights don't mean you have a right to livestream). Is donating to the ADL something that Pewdiepie would consider doing if he were the person you claim he is?
In regards to "right wing", look up Stalin's "doctor's plot". If you think disliking a particular group is right-wing exclusive, think again.
If you actually wanted to make a case for Pewdiepie having unsavory political views, you'd go for things like him recommending Yukio Mishima's books. I mean, I'd still disagree, but at least it's not as stupid as the fiverr videos or whatever.
Yes I'm censoring myself because I don't want to trigger the bad word filters. Yes if you click my profile you'll see I'm subbed to Pewdiepie. Full disclosure.
I really like Jocko Willinck's idea of taking ownership over everything. I think it's important to do that and that helps you change what you actually can control.
However, I think that sort of idea can also promote victim-blaming and that, to me, isn't a step forward. The reality is, certain circumstances do make life harder for people but that doesn't mean we should allow the victim mindset to affect our lives.
Well said. I imagine that is why Prager U had him on as well
Militarism is inherently fascist so.... this video misses the point. Verhoeven was spot on.
There have been plenty of regimes which were militaristic without being fascistic. The Soviet Union maintained a sizeable military and quickly, and forcefully resorbed the old Russian empire. Were the Soviets fascists? And the North Koreans?
@@brandanb9735 Facism is an over wrought word. But Turkey is the best example of a militaristic regime. And it has a coup about every other decade. Militarism is a much more flawed political system than a republic.
Not true at all. You haven't read the book. The society of Starship Troopers is very free. It isn't authoritarian in the slightest. People don't serve the state. You don't know what fascism is.
wrong pellungrobe
@@br8745 Yes it easy. "Fascism" and "democracy" have become a false binary in our vacuous political discourse. The former being code for "everything I don't like" and the latter being "every I do like."
Hahaha Like the Film. Do get it wrong or is it actually that Bad? Is Prager U ment as a joke or seriously? I dont know!
Can you please do a review of some episodes of 101 Dalmation street, it highlights a lot about coming of age, leadership, and different personalities with in a family and how all that works. I would Love to see you do a video on the show please
Why on earth would i want to integrate thoose principles in anyones lifes? What is this...
Damn 330k subscribers and less than 10k views. That ain't right.
being on the us military reading list just adds to the fact of it being jingoistic fashy nonsense. The pragerU and sargon inclusions were baffling for me as well.
Yeah. I mean, there good books on the military reading lists, like enders game, but Heinlein was a bit of a nutter.
Have you read it? There are definitely some controversial things in it and I some silly notions that I do not agree with, but as a coming of age story mixed with some timeless lessons on leadership and personal responsibility, it's quite good. Not sure why the pragerU and sargon inclusions were 'baffling'? There are many videos of Jocko explaining some of his principles, including the Tedtalk that I used. The PragerU video just so happened to encapsulate to three most important lessons from the book in a concise manner. This video is not meant as some sort of endorsement of whatever politics PragerU pushes. As for Sargon, his video is among the most watched videos on Starship Troopers. To omit it from my overview of the discussion would be to fail at my job. You're absolutely allowed to not like Starship Troopers, but I hope you understand that your criticism of what I decided to include in the video seems unwarranted
Oh yeah, can't include people you disagree with to show counter points. "Jingoisitic fashy nonsense". You sound like you have your own political biases anyway. I highly doubt you know what facism even is.
You are sadly a conditioned brainwashed sheep npc person if you think Sargon of Akkad is actually right wing. He’s more liberal than most self-described liberals, but you’re not going to agree with that statement if the extent of your political understanding only goes as far as those 4-grid ‘political compass’ charts.
They're only baffling if you think Sargon and PragerU are pro-fascist. They aren't. They frequently speak against the unchecked power of the State.
Hello, How are you? I am under the water, please help me, here too much raining. huuuuuu...
Indian guy meme lol
Awesome video essay! People looking to take charge in situations would actually learn a lot from this. Great job dude
One of the best books I’ve ever read
Amen. Heinlein was correct.
oh yeah, PragerU clips, those were the best parodies you showed.
My guy’s from Sveden, ya
The problem I have with this whole idea of a militaristic led society, and this whole pro military simping bullshit and so on, is the fact that this society, just like all societies, across all eras of human civilization, is only allowed to exist thanks to the working class and the working class alone, not the military, hell, there would be no military without the worker, but workers have existed before the military
Obviously in a work of fiction such as Starship Troopers the writer can do whatever they want, no matter how stupid, but it fucking pisses me off that the idea of "The Soldier" is presented like this heroic, idealistic thing when these Soldiers are just pawns passed through a meat grinder to satisfy the desires of an elite that exploits us all, while the people who actually make things work are not really appreciated at all, in fact, are merely seen as resources to be used and then dispposed of. Most wars, especially the ones started by the US, have no noble justification behind them, the resources WASTED on the military could be used for better things too, but we chose to waste those anyways, and there's still people who simp for the military in this fucking world smh.
Anyway, my comment doesn't even really address the video itself, it's just that these mfs are so caught up on military propaganda that they can see what really matters in the real world.
You sound like a socialist bordering on communist and if you’re living in the West you are fooling yourself thinking that workers are any more or less important than the military. If it wasn’t for a strong national defense and even better the ability to project power your country and opportunities to achieve a good living would go down in general and depending on who’s your neighbor you might be forced to serve or be conscripted. It’s a nice utopian view you have but without the military your ability to breath could be stolen from you so while your naive nature is cute it isn’t realistic. War is just political governance by the only means necessary when diplomacy fails and it’s not films or books that glamorize the horrors of war that make war an inevitable outcome but rather human nature and our seemingly innate need to conquer and kill whether your workers paradise were to exist or not.
@@azovandy14.88
That's a nice load if bs right there, but here in my country our military has little experience fighting against outside threats, but they do have a lot of experience fighting against civilians, there's been many military coups that led to dictatorships here in my country, they'd kidnap, torture, kill and rape people who oppose them (including children) and have shaped a good chunk of our culture, by force even.
Under military dictatorship, the working class has been brutalized, while those in the military have lived lives of luxury, to this day they have a separate healthcare system and a separate military court system that often find them not guilty of many crimes they commit, all paid with the preople's money.
You talk as if the working class needs the military to exist, it's the complete opposite, all classes in society need the working class to exist, everything the military needs is manufactured by the working class and that's that. There would be no Soldier if there was no worker to make their weapons.
I am from a historically militaristic country, just this year there was yet another coup attempt, and being led by the military has been a fucking disaster through and through, especially for the workers. I don't see a reason to praise so much the image of the Soldier, when ultimately the fabric of civilization is held together by the workers, that's my point.
But even the US would benefit from not wasting so much money in the military, if they weren't trying to control the rest of the world through military terrorism and foccused on improving the lives of the American people instead, the US would be a paradise on earth, but while many politicians say that investing on public healthcare would break their economy for example, there's a lot more money being invested in their military apparatus that won't really bebefit the average American citizen at all.
It was nothing like the book.
Would you like to know more?
I love the movie but the book is way better
The book sucks.
@@nope5657 What chapter didn't you like?
Learn English.
On the bounce Soldier
Cool
Damn, didn't know it was Heinlein, thanks.
It is, it's good. And it won't take that much of your time either.
0:25 Elite?! Hardly! Their standard-issue weapon, the Morita, doesn't even have sights, and M.I. troopers are typically seen shooting from the hip even though it's a bullpup! Also, why do they use intermediate-caliber small arms against an enemy whose forces are made up of essentially biomechanoids? What they need is anti-material weaponry, which they only use when the plot calls for it. It should be standard-issue.
1:17 See? No sights. Utterly incompetent design. It's a Ruger AC556 (or Mini-14 converted to full-auto) in bullpup configuration spliced together with an underslung short-barrel Ithaca 37. Obviously, they were trying to outdo the M41A pulse rifle (itself inspired by the M-16/M-203 over-and-under combo) which was a Thompson M-1A1 spliced together with an underslung subcompact Remington 870 with a SPAS-12 forearm, the whole thing encased in an outer shell. It had a collapsible stock, but none of the actors actually used it (because movie people don't "get" firearms).
1:20 Verhoeven is a socialist. Heinlein was a nationalist. So of course, Verhoeven doesn't "get" Heinlein. Heinlein's ideals were both nationalist and libertarian. In other words, he was all about CIVIC nationalism. From his point of view, that was the best way to PREVENT totalitarianism. You know, because it gave The People the means to fight it.
6:38 Why would they say "oh" instead of "zero" or "aught?"
7:14 That sounds like collectivism to me. I thought Heinlein was against collectivism. Not in the way Ayn Rand was, though.
9:51 Notice how he gives that spiel while wearing a suit and tie, an outfit that you wouldn't wear while working in, say, a mattress factory or the sterile lab of an orthopedics plant. What irks me about people who think the way he does is that his ilk doesn't have a problem with the lowly peon being overworked and underpaid, forced to do the work of five people while getting paid less than $12 an hour (yes, even in an orthopedics plant). But you can bet he has friends and/or family members who have orthopedic implants that were likely made in a plant where the workers who make those things can't afford those implants.
10:29 Short period of time? Is 20 years a short period of time? That's how much of my life I wasted working high-stress, dead-end, poverty-wage jobs. Never got me anywhere. Not a single one of them was "cushy." They were all miserable and one of them even ruined my health in the form of brown lung. Something else that irks me about his ilk is that they assume that everyone else's experiences are the same, or should be the same, as theirs.
*Note:* No one salutes with their left hand.
10:34 How far down does an individual have to be beaten, though? When is enough finally enough? How do we reconcile humility with dignity? The collectivist will always glorify humility while chastising dignity. The individualist will always exalt dignity while regarding humility with skepticism. Heinlein was somehow able to reconcile these concepts, though from his own perspective, he leaned more in the direction of anti-collectivism.
*Note:* Assuming that humility is the negation of dignity, then how much of our dignity must be sacrifice in the name of "order" and "civilization?" Freedom takes priority over "order" in a free society, right? And is a civilization truly civilized if it strips the individual of dignity?
12:15 What purpose does a necktie serve in combat? The necktie is functionally useless and is purely symbolic. It symbolizes slavery.
12:57 Why not train them primarily in the use of weaponry that would actually be useful against the adversary they face? Like grenade launchers and payload rifles.
13:10 Except they never actually do that in the movies. They NEVER adapt! They continue to use their pissant intermediate-caliber rifles throughout all the movies!
13:24 That's one of the biggest gripes against the movie, and rightly so. Notice how they're all shooting from the hip with BULLPUP rifles that don't even have sights!
13:30 Poorly designed helmet. Ridiculous hoss of a combination gun. Incompetent weapon handling.
13:52 "The Marine Corps does not want robots. The Marine Corps wants killers. The Marine Corps wants to build indestructible men...men without fear." ~Private Joker
13:54 If it takes that many shots from that many rifles just to down one bug, then you need to rethink the logistics (and ergonomics) of your equipment.
14:12 If they'd had payload rifles or anti-material rifles handy, that stunt wouldn't have been necessary. Cool stunt, though. Kinda Wookiee-like. Jump on "the big tally-ho" and take it out with a mighty bang. That's good for cinematic effect, but makes no sense in terms of combat logistics. They should have at least one weapon per squad (I keep reiterating the payload rifle as an example) that can deal with that sort of thing. Or just replace ineffectual pissant assault rifles with payload rifles. Assault rifles in this world, and against this type of enemy, would only be useful as backup weapons (if that).
14:36 What about problems that are habitually created by OTHERS to the point that they become systemic? I'll give a simplistic, minor, and common example: clogging and plunging a toilet. If the same individual is constantly clogging a toilet and leaving it for some other individual to plunge, and it's always being plunged by the same person, then what you have is an unsustainable system (and possibly also a situation of enabling on the part of the toilet-plunging individual and barbaric parasitism on the part of the habitual toilet-clogger). No matter how much discipline the toilet-plunging person exhibits, it doesn't do anything to make the toilet-clogger more conscientious to fix the problem they habitually create. So why preach discipline to the one already showing it? Why not preach it where it's deficient? Most jobs are miserable, but they're made even more miserable when people are arbitrarily forced to do extra unpaid work because of problems created by others and always left for the same grunts to deal with. Dung rolls downhill. What do the high and mighty plan to do after they've drowned all of us expendable peons in their infectious waste?
*Note:* What I'm getting at is basically this: Be wary of those who blame the individual for problems that are clearly systemic. They're most likely looking to use you as a scapegoat. Also, collectivism is the bane of humankind.
Ft. WHO??!!
Jocko 🤮
Yo mate hope you are well. Just watched your essay on the movie prisoners. It was one of the best video essays I've ever seen.
Inspirational, timeless, and *based* on facts and supportive source material. You could do a couple more videos on the various different topics Heinlein touches on in his books, the man was basically a less mellow-dramatic Nostradamus, except his predictions are accurate.
“Service men are not brighter than civilians. In many cases civilians are much more intelligent. That was the sliver of justification underlying the attempted coup d' etat just before the Treaty of New Delhi, the so-called 'Revolt of the Scientists': let the intelligent elite run things and you'll have utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility.”
“This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted . . . and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.”
"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?-the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives-but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."
It's not really your thing but breaking down Story by NF would be awesome.
I don't know what upsets me more;
That the film is so badly misunderstood,
or the book.
Thank you for making an effort.
Verhoven tried to satire the book and he failed miserably. That's what's so great about it. He tried to claim fascism where there was none in the novel, and his movie ended up just being a good action movie that was truer to the book than he intended.
What if there's a rebel in on of my troops? What should I do?
You should really do flags of our fathers Great War movie
This video was made on the path.
Yeah can't take you seriously when you are looking at a character that it's suppost to be a mockery of facist ideals and think he is somehow a good example of leadership in a movie that is all about how facism is a backwards ideology
I don't want to presume anything but you are starting to make me question things about you
I don't want to presume anything about you either, but you are starting to make me question whether you actually watched the video, considering that I am not talking about the movie, but about the novel. I use clips from the movie to make it more visually appealing and fun to watch
A fun mashup of story and Jocko. Love it!
Band of Brothers also did this really well
This was interesting! Looking forward for the upcoming content!
Why didn’t I get a notification of this????
people arguing over it having fascists neo conservatism, while sleeping on the fact the book is set in a universe riddled with Easter eggs that it is infact set in a universe where e nazis made it to Argentina and established an empire
What? Where in the book does it suggest that?
It’s about fucking time. 💎🙌🚀
I think a better character for these lessons is commander Erwin
Not sure who that is!?
@@storytellers1 Attack on Titan. He's the only person that has ever made me feel patriotic about anything
@@LucasDimoveo Haven't watched it. I've only ever watched Studio Ghibli when it comes to anime. Suppose that's a recommendation then?
@@storytellers1 dear gods you have to! Go in without watching videos essays about it. No memes either. This is infinite video essay material
@@LucasDimoveo Roger that. Getting after it.
CAN'T. STOP. LIKING. VIDEO!!!!
Lol favourite movie as a kid
This is a crossover I did not see coming.
There’s an RTS game of starship troopers soon to be released.
S O Y ?
If you haven’t read the book, how can you form an opinion on the source material?
Dutch Verhooven is a smoothbrain.
Yeaaaa, I’m not going to believe Sargon of Akkad when he says something is or is not fascist. Especially when the source material heavily encodes weakness when you don’t serve the state in support of protecting the race of humanity. And therein the quotes you cited heavily emphasize these factors. It’s fine to not want to look at a film solely through a political lense, but to to our right reject the association from the beginning and give a 2:1 citation in favor of your assertion makes me concerned what you were exactly trying to say. You can describe the tenants of leadership without having to even drag in a rushed assertion that it’s not fascist.
Great to have you guys back!
jocko rocks
The fact that the book is in the US military's must read list tells u all u need to know about this book. Yikes.
Have you read it?
Clearly you have not read it, civilian. Cope.
...the fact you closed your statement with 'yikes' is telling also.
What a weird criticism. If you don't like the military you could still read the stuff they read because at least it gives you insight.
Know thy enemy and all that. Even if you're not planning to "fight" them, understanding people you don't like or agree with doesn't just make you a well-rounded person... I think it actually makes us more human.
Titanium Rain
You seem like the type of psychic that would have a lot of understanding to gain from reading some of Heinlein’s works.
" … I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."
-(Ret.) Lt. Col. DuBois, M.I.
Using Sargon of Akkad as an unironic source for a point is somewhat troubling, gotta say
Silence Marxist
@@GigaChadh976 yeah that's about what I was expecting as a reply
@Sergio Ortiz Not sure what that has to do with him being credible or not...but sure, you do you
Ft. Jocko Willink? GOOD