Where were you when you realized Starship Troopers was a training manual?

Where were you when you realized Starship Troopers was a training manual?

Would you like to know more about the other training manuals?

yea it's called every hitler speech he warned us.

...

Did you read the book?

Did you watch the movie? You fucking idiots always harp about the book when obviously we're talking about the movie.

Buenos Aries was an inside job.

You're clearly talking about the moral values of the film, or what it was based on. The movie has no respect for the source material and misses the point Heinlein was trying to say.

When he was plain "Mr. Dubois" and I was one of the kids who had to take his course he hardly seemed to see me — except once when he got me sore by implying that I had too much money and not enough sense. (So my old man could have bought the school and given it to me for Christmas — is that a crime? It was none of his business.)
He had been droning along about "value," comparing the Marxist theory with the orthodox "use" theory. Mr. Dubois had said, "Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
"These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value — the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives — and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use."
Dubois had waved his stump at us. "Nevertheless — wake up, back there! — nevertheless the disheveled old mystic ofDas Kapital , turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical, this pompous fraud Karl Marx,nevertheless had a glimmering of a very important truth. If he had possessed an analytical mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value... and this planet might have been saved endless grief.
"Or might not," he added. "You!"
I had sat up with a jerk.

>moral values

Buenos Aires was an inside job to justify the invasion of the klendathu planet. Much like 9/11 was an inside job to justify the invasion of the middle east.

"If you can’t listen, perhaps you can tell the class whether ‘value’ is a relative, or an absolute?"
I had been listening; I just didn’t see any reason not to listen with eyes closed and spine relaxed. But his question caught me out; I hadn’t read that day’s assignment. "An absolute," I answered, guessing.
"Wrong," he said coldly. " ‘Value’ has no meaning other than in relation to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely personal and different in quantity for each living human — ‘market value’ is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average of personal values, all of which must be quantitatively different or trade would be impossible." (I had wondered what Father would have said if he had heard "market value" called a "fiction" — snort in disgust, probably.)
"This very personal relationship, ‘value,’ has two factors for a human being: first, what he can do with a thing, its use to him... and second, what he must do to get it, its cost to him. There is an old song which asserts that ‘the best things in life are free.’ Not true! Utterly false! 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.
"Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain." He had been still looking at me and added, "If you boys and girls had to sweat for your toys the way a newly born baby has to struggle to live you would be happier... and much richer. As it is, with some of you, I pity the poverty of your wealth. You! I’ve just awarded you the prize for the hundred-meter dash. Does it make you happy?"
"Uh, I suppose it would."

No dodging, please. You have the prize — here, I’ll write it out: ‘Grand prize for the championship, one hundred-meter sprint.’ " He had actually come back to my seat and pinned it on my chest. "There! Are you happy? You value it — or don’t you?"
I was sore. First that dirty crack about rich kids — a typical sneer of those who haven’t got it — and now this farce. I ripped it off and chucked it at him.
Mr. Dubois had looked surprised. "It doesn’t make you happy?"
"You know darn well I placed fourth!"
"Exactly!The prize for first place is worthless to you... because you haven’t earned it. But you enjoy a modest satisfaction in placing fourth; you earned it. I trust that some of the somnambulists here understood this little morality play. I fancy that the poet who wrote that song meant to imply that the best things in life must be purchased other than with money — which istrue — just as the literal meaning of his words is false. The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion... and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself — ultimate cost for perfect value."

The federation doesn't need to justify anything with false flags in the setting. Survival of the species is what's paramount.

this story red piled me when I saw the movie. I've become Tyler Durden.

You're right. However, will the troops be as motivated to invade a planet on the other side of the galaxy? No.

> However, will the troops be as motivated to

that's the NCO's job bro.

So, how do you get people not in the army to join when they can't be motivated to join the army by some NCO?

In the book? They're pretty motivated because they have a grunt mixed with hotshot pilot culture so they like killing things, but at the same time are lazy fucks and life sucks as a soldier. If the topic is about social engineering and historical false flags, propaganda, we could talk about that. But op seems to infer a goofy movie to be related to 9/11.

>So, how do you get people not in the army to join when they can't be motivated to join the army by some NCO?

same as in any other country, by pain of punishment. conscription, etc. if really desperate kidnap new soldiers. this problem has been solved everywhere in world history.

Citizenship, pay. The book mentions that a majority of soldiers are non combat jobs and something like 10% is fighting men. The federation is a galaxy spanning power and no alien race can compete against them.

I'm also under the impression that the Hungers Games is also another manual. There's a part in the movie where they talk about how to defeat katniss, and the best way to do it is to get the populace to do so by shoving images of her down their throats and forcing them to associate her with beatings.

What do you associate when you hear gay marriage? Anything about the christian bakeries forced to shut down because they didn't want to serve against their religion? What about women's rights? Do you associate them with the high rate of male suicide and the restricted rights of fathers in this country? And immigrants/refugees. Obviously everyone associates them with crime and ficki ficki. The native population has grown to vehemently despise each of these things.

Pretty tin foily stuff, but I made trades that were profitable on the idea that the Iranian sanctions would be dropped and that Hillary was involved. (among other trades revolving around the idea of encroaching american isolationism)

The Jewish (((community center))) attack?

>the book

Fuck. We are talking about the movie. Get with the topic here.

You can't force civilians to become citizens in the movie. It negates the whole reasoning of why citizens have more rights than civilians.

Sort of. You are implying the other 90% is support staff for the fighting men, but those were just other types of federal service completely, from the space navy to people that were test subjects for biological and chemical sciences.
The MI supported itself, "Everybody fights everybody works." Even the cook and chaplain suited up and dropped into combat. Heinlein was picturing an army with zero to little support staff, much like how Marines are still expected to be badass killers even if they're PoG (since they use the navy's support system).

Riiiiiiight.

Right, what I was getting at was the bulk of the Fedederal Forces weren't MI. It also mentions arguments by space pogs about ' why do we need the MI when we have planet cracking space ship guns?

' the movie is named after the book. How can you talk about s topic and exclude it's source? It's the very thing it takes a big chunk of dialogue from despite failing to tell the story properly. But one thing it does get right is the class lecture on might making right. What are your thoughts on that scene?

>You can't force civilians to become citizens in the movie. It negates the whole reasoning of why citizens have more rights than civilians.

you must not be familiar with the Battle of Stalingrad.

you fight with your friends on the basement of a bar, that's cool.

The only good Clinton is a dead Clinton!

That isn't related to the setting though.

Because the people who wrote the script had certain things in mind. The book isn't about the propaganda released by the hollywood industry.

My thoughts are that while right is subjective, objectively superior might is going to rule.

Refer to vietnam and the draft.

Gotcha. They even sort of address Heinlein's varying degree of force argument from the book in the film, albeit in a comical way involving a Busey. Medic!

For OP, there's actually a good deconstruction of the film as a satire of fascism (including Buenos Aires as a false flag) on yt that I'll look for. Some of the novel fans think the film is an attack on the novel, but I'm not one of those, they're both great but have completely different points.

There's no room for so much dialogue in an action movie. The movie is brilliant in it's own right.

Plus the op states the movie being an 'instruction manual'. Wouldn't the parts regarding history and moral philosophy be a good reference when considering ones own values and that of society?

oh it's not related to reality? then why even discuss it without mentioning smurfs? you suck.

Are you fucking retarded?

Well if the topic is really about Hollywood propaganda, then to me it seems like the dumb though fun action movie was made to essentially defame the book and impress onto the minds of the people of the film rather than the book when hearing its title. As you may know, Heinlein got much criticism from leftists when he made his book, with insults of 'fascist' and so on.

reading this short book takes you a day tops you illiterate nigger

I'll have to find the video then. I'm only suspicious about it being against the book due to the previous ire towards it by mainstream critics/media.

There's always truth in satire. If the movie was made to be a satire of fascism, then there must be truth to fascism itself.

>still missing the topic at hand

I especially liked this part when the book mentions how juvenile delinquents is a contradictory phrase. It's almost similar to our current time with social issues regarding crime

>corporal punishment teaches children not to do wrong

It only shows that might makes right, which right is a subjective term they don't realize yet.

It doesn't teach them why what they are doing is wrong.

Given the intense hatred by mainstream academics towards fascism compared to gommies, there must be something to it then

Mainstream academics on the govt.s payroll, you say?

It goes on to mention man has no inherent moral sense and that all morality is based off of the self interest of survival and the ability to apply that sense to others, starting with family and going to the top which is the species.

What is your opinion on Yuri Bezmenov and his lectures?

>people whos views oppose mine are on the government payroll

I read that. However, reasoning with a child why what he is doing wrong is going to yield better results than simply getting out the belt.

I'd have to rehash it. However, being that his job was to plant propaganda, I wouldn't doubt that his lectures were, in fact, propaganda.

>global warming is real, said the mainstream acedemist on govt payroll

Where do you think the funding for science comes from? They have to apply for govt grants...

Not him but Bezmenov was a faggot that 'exposed' something that was happening for millennia.
Nothing there was new, what was new however was the theory that the KGB in fact ruled the world, which is utter bullshit.

no but I'm pretty sure you are sperglord.

Meh. I've made more money that you'll ever come across.

global warming is real tho

hey cracked

So did the subversion of the west start with the Frankfurt school then?

And that detail is mentioned too. Not to simply hit the child but to explain why you did so along with the punishment.

We've been warming since the last ice age.

Manmade climate change is a wealth redistribution meme.

yes, it is real, but not currently happening.

subversion? could be. could be two pals working together to keep a tight lid on their own region.

must be on another page. however, in real life, at least from my youth, no one taught kids why what they were doing was wrong. they were too intellectually lazy to not just simply beat their child. most people shouldn't have the automatic right to reproduce.

Page before

Last page of that chapter

>the point Heinlein was trying to say.

Heinlein repeatedly stated that he wasn't in the business of writing sunday school parables or books with messages extolling what he believed in. He wrote a story about a fictional government based on fascism and for some reason internet libertarian gun nerds have jerked off to it ever since

Well I guess I'm wrong

okay im not gleaning that the physical punishment was for a reason other than intellectual laziness.

>i hit him so he wouldn't do it again

It's told through the puppy analogy

im guessing there's another page missing.
which page comes after this one?

I fucked up my page order posting.

Here's the one I missed.

Regardless of the book the point of physically punishing a child along with telling him if what he did wrong is to teach him that there are consequences for ones actions, and, for the less developed minds of children pain is the best way of helping them remember that fact. Hell, one of the favored idioms of my instructors was 'pain retains'.

downloaded the audio book it's 9 hours long though