Reflections of an “Anonymous Coward”

golgo-13-top-secret-episode

If an HR department at any publicly traded corporation discovered that, under your real name, you had written(or merely even faved) tweets critical of Jews, blacks, immigrants, women, gays, trans etc. you’d be fired in two seconds. One of the problems with unchecked, transnational capitalism is that desire for money literally trumps everything. Big companies will sell out their own local communities, their people’s culture and even the security of the nation for a few bucks. Corporations care more about dollars than anything. Even when companies engage in diversity initiatives and philanthropic endeavors, these too are ultimately driven by profits. Though some people in the company may genuinely care about said causes on some level, the gestures themselves are still essentially just shrewd public relations stunts, designed to give the company a positive image and act as a force field to deflect any SJW criticism. A company will not knowingly associate their brand with anything or anyone that could even potentially be controversial. I myself was once denied a job at a solid ad agency on the basis of a few mild tweets(on my real account) that were uncovered in the final stages of the hiring/interview process. Lately I’ve been inclined to stick with more entry level positions where my visibility would not be high enough in a company to draw attention to any of my political activism. The current company I work for enforces a policy that “an employee should not take public political stands.” Note: they’re talking about any public political stands(ie “Obamacare sucks!”) to say nothing of the the controversial HBD and anti-democracy stuff we advocate for.

Anissimov argues that the problem the Right faces right now is anonymity:

The main problem that the neoreactionary Right faces right now is anonymity. Three years ago it was not enough people. Now, many, many new people are joining, but the vast majority are doing so under the cover of anonymity.

It is somewhat strange that he would be advocating these 1000s of people should boldly shed their anonymity, given that just recently he declared NRx to only be about 8 people, with the rest being merely fans. Why would anyone risk their job, just to publicly be part of a “fan club” or something which has declared itself not even seeking to be a popular movement. If it’s just a secret, small group of intellectuals engaged in a school of thought…why not just keep it a secret, who cares? What’s in it for the rest of us, “the fans?”

In my view, the problem with the new right isn’t that too many of us are anonymous. If 5000 reactionaries went public with their real names, then those people would be fired from their jobs the moment any one of their employers made the connection. All it takes is one SJW to locate your Linkedin account and fire off an email to your employer, and bam! you’re toast. No corporation will stick their neck out for a racialist. Let us not forget people like John Derbyshire were even fired from “conservative” publications, because they felt his(mild by comparison to some of ours) opinions were damaging to National Review’s image. We’ve even seen the likes of Roosh V get in on the PC thought policing act when it comes to protecting his profitable e-book brand.

Rather, the real issue is that we lack our own institutions.

This is where my friends and I work now. Be sure and let our bosses know how offended you are by our politically incorrect opinions.

This is where my friends and I work now. Be sure and let our bosses know how offended you are by our politically incorrect opinions.

Imagine if the entire company you worked for was run by and staffed throughout with “neo-nazis”, secessionists, monarchists, daughters of the confederacy, ethnonationalists or whomever. In such a scenario, if the SJW mob came after you, your bosses ideally would laugh their asses off. Again though, this brings us back to the issue of capitalism and it’s associated PC pressures(just look at all the problems SeaWorld has had.) Would such an organization survive all the bad crimethink PR in the present US environment? Would they stand by you? Maybe, maybe not.

So when should one go public? Financial independence should be the condition for using your real name. If you need to work for a company to pay your rent or support your family, you probably have to stay anon. It should be the goal of every new rightist to be able to reach a state of financial security when he can say whatever we wants and remain largely unscathed by any attacks from the outrage brigade. Anonymity, like other covert operations can be incredibly effective. One of the things that so frustrates SJWs is that they can’t stop anonymous people from commenting on current events, which is why they’re trying to force companies like Google, Yahoo etc to make people use their real name in comment sections.

Would the Vietcong have been successful had they come out and told everyone who they were before the Tet Offensive? And don’t say “but The Tet Offensive was actually a military failure.” Yes, I’m aware of that. From a propaganda standpoint it was an important psychological victory, though. I like the concept of our own metaphorical “Tet offensive” where we pick a date two or three years from now, a day of the rabbit so to speak, when out of nowhere thousands upon thousands of us come out using our real names, sending shock waves throughout the media. In the meantime we would slowly prepare and work toward being financially independent by that date.

Most of us would like to use our real names. It would be beneficial to me for sure. We just need to buy a little time. If for some reason we get doxxed and outed before we’re ready, the only thing to do at that point is just to “rock it” and charge full speed ahead.

Advertisements

Reactionary Pinball

1960s alice pinball art via eclectix2

Sometimes I feel a bit like a reactionary hitchhiker. Basically, when one increasingly finds he has very little common ground with mainstream political movements, his nostalgic trips down memory lane may eventually lead him to embark on a journey down “reactionary road.” This highway has many possible lanes and exits. He might find himself heading in the direction of the paleoconservatives’ front porch or the neoreactionaries’ castle, perhaps the libertarians’ weed farm, or the traditionalists’ homestead, the manosphere’s “No Ma’am” meet up, the radfem free bleeders’ pool party, or even the neo-nazis’ Antarctic base. Essentially, one metaphorically “hitchhikes” from one ideological group to the next, with each of them only willing to take him part of the way where he wants to go, and he never may never quite reach that sanctuary where the other escaped runners are waiting for him. Yet, that analogy doesn’t always work… because each group doesn’t necessarily incrementally get you closer to the group where you ultimately fit in. Of course, some people hitchhike with no destination in mind. They just want to go on a mind expanding journey and see where it takes them. For those that have an idea of what they’re looking for though, it can be disheartening. You just kind of bounce around like an idiosyncratic pinball, occasionally hitting spots where the machine lights up briefly(finally! these guys mostly believe the same things I do,) only to be blasted off in the other direction after dealbreaker ideological incompatibilities are uncovered.

So you might ask…why do you need to belong to a group or share a belief system with anyone at all? Well, you don’t of course…unless you want to actually organize with like-minded people and do something.

gorgar

Reactionary Priorities

It’s unrealistic to believe it’s necessary to find people who agree with us 100% on everything in order to align ourselves with them. So it is sufficient to find people who are with us on our “top priority” issues. For me, I can narrow it down to two: ethnonationalism and futurism (atheism being a distant third.)

Allow me to offer up my own unique “reactionary pinball” trajectory as an illustration of this disillusioning dilemma:

It’s basically a given that as a racially conscious person and an isolationist, I don’t have a place in the republican or democratic parties. I’m an atheist, and a mild feminist so I don’t belong with the paleoconservatives. Though I sympathize with certain MGTOW criticisms about the nature of females, my race realism, mild feminism and dislike of barbarism disqualifies me from the manosphere(I sorta have grown to hate them actually.) Since I oppose warm body democracy, open borders and an unrestrained free market, I’m sure as hell not a libertarian. I also have no desire for what Heinlein called “back to nature cults.” I’m not interested in “homesteading,” homeschooling or living some kind of neo-Amish lifestyle out on the range. Beyond thinking that children should be raised by two heterosexual parents and that transgenderism shouldn’t be celebrated or encouraged, I’m not much of a hardcore traditionalist. I’m fine with kids watching Saturday morning cartoons etc. as long as they get off their asses, exercise and socialize every once in a while.  I’ve concluded that I don’t reject enough of modernity to be a neoreactionary. I’m not willing to dismiss every civilizational experiment humans conducted after the French Revolution as a failure. Hell, I even like a lot of mid century modern art(Gasp! talk about abstract horrorism!)and no, I don’t mean dumb stuff like “numbered cans of shit” or that girl who lays eggs out of her vagina…but I enjoy paintings like this.  Also, despite the trike, they don’t really want nationalists and constantly talk trash about them, parroting nearly every SJW cliche about nationalists being uncouth, white trash, skinheads, etc. It’s also hard to see why anyone would want to expend energy engaging with a movement only to be disrespectfully thought of as merely “fan club” members rather than lower hierarchy contributors. Moving on from that… Given what I’ve said up until now you might be wondering if I’m a communist. Well, although I do prefer communist music and aesthetic, I’m not a communist because I don’t care much about equality(economic, racial or otherwise) and I don’t care for the heavy handed thought policing and labor camps that go along with it. Also, contemporary communism is incompatible with my pro-white racial views. The Communist Party USA, like most of today’s leftist movements is fiercely dedicated to promoting diversity, radical feminism, open borders, the fight against global warning, and almost every other SJW cause under the sun. Practically the only ideological spot left for this ball to roll into is European nationalism/fascism. Yet even the neo-nazis and “White” nationalists are becoming overwhelmed with radical Christians and traditionalists. Based on a few of the tweets I’ve been seeing, some neo-nazis are becoming as prudish as Islamic fundamentalists. I’m also not really into Hitler or Nazi nostalgia(though I’ll admit it’s growing on me a bit.) The Italian Futurism and Fascism movement would have been my scene, but those dudes are long dead, and I can’t travel back in time. The nationalist parties which appear to be gaining popularity in Europe look awesome, but I don’t live there. The ideal kind of soft fascism I’d be looking to support would be a more space oriented variant, somewhat in the vein of Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers.

For now, neo-fascism is where I’m at, though I fully expect to get bounced around some more. Hopefully, I will at least hit some kind of ingroup jackpot bonus before the game tilts from my trying to force it, or I grow tire of playing…and the flippers fail to prevent the ball from going down the drain.

citizen

Neoreactionary Miracles on Ice

Is this even actually Antarctica? Who cares... you get the idea.

Is this even actually Antarctica? Who cares… you get the idea.

“We should deport all racists to Antarctica!” It’s a novel idea, one which I frequently see being floated by social justice howlers that think they’re being clever. Yet, rather than cringing in horror at the prospect of being banished to a life of ice piratry with my fellow blue eyed, diversity contract holdouts, my immediate thoughts are more along the lines of “Cool beans! When does the next ferry leave? You’re seriously not going to follow us this time? C’mon, don’t tease me, bro.” 

Sorry to break the news to anti-white, political correctness enthusiasts, but a great many European descendants are so sick and tired of ethnomasochism, cultural marxism, and miscellaneous SJW crap that they would be highly receptive to the suggestion of forming a remote colony at the South Pole. I love the idea, personally.

What kind of people would want to live in Antarctica, anyway?

Among the inhabitants occupying the outer rings of conspiracy kook circles, it is believed that Hitler and other high profile Nazis  managed to escape to an underground Antarctic fortress at the conclusion of World War II. It has even been claimed that several years later there was a secret war in Antarctica to exterminate the remaining German forces as part of Operation HighJump ,which finally ended when the allies destroyed the Nazi’s base with a nuke in the 1950s. Do you actually believe any of this shit? Me neither.

antartica-ufo

Some even go as far as to speculate that Nazis are still living there, have obtained advanced UFO technology, and are plotting at this very moment to take over the world. There is about as much credible evidence of any of these events taking place as there is of Elvis being still alive and working as a bounty hunter.

elvisdarkfuture

Elvis, alive and well and working as a Sanctioned Op defending the Deep South in Jack Yeovil’s “Dark Future”

Okay, Iet’s divert back from digression for a moment. What SJWs never seem to understand is that regardless of whether or not the environment is great, it’s the people that make or break the place. It is for this same reason, groups flee from resource rich countries with optimal weather, such as Nigeria, preferring to chisel their way into freezertopias like Sweden and Iceland.

When would-be romantic pioneers or even pie in the sky, daydream believers look at Antarctica, they see visions of extravagant ice palaces, the drawbridges of which lead to a techno futuristic viking paradise. When unimaginative PC reptilians salivate at the prospect of exiling thought criminals to that giant frozen landmass in the antarctic circle, all they can envision are a bunch of douchebags they disagree with, huddled together, shivering their privileged, flat white asses off.

1976-logans-run_2065408i

So what exactly would an ideal civilization on Antarctica look like? Given the harsh outside conditions, my guess is that it would have to resemble something like the City of Domes in Logan’s Run(which is not to insinuate that it must aesthetically double for a 1970s shopping mall in Dallas, Texas.) However, it should more practically make use of any existing caverns and underground tunnels, modifying and expanding them structurally into a cohesive living space. The end result being an icily enveloped labyrinth, a large scale version of the hydroponic research station in Saturn 3.

While not quite approaching the uninhabitable frigidity of the cryogenic moons of Saturn… by any human’s definition, Antarctica is still colder than shitballs. This isn’t Jules Verne’s Mysterious Island  where one can survive by hunting giant mutant crabs and camping out on the beach. It’s not The Blue Lagoon, Lord of The Flies, Swiss Family Robinson or even Gilligan’s Island. Without adequate electricity and heat, everyone pretty much just dies right away. Luckily, scientific outposts have already shown us the way in this regard. We can utilize diesel generators,  solar and wind power as primary sources of energy for the colony initially, with a long term goal of building a geothermal and/or nuclear power plant(more on this later.)

From Knockout Game Escape Sanctuary To World Domination Headquarters

Pulsarfiring

The gun on Ice Planet Zero, a sophisticated laser cannon which nearly destroyed the Galactica

Any remotely peaceful and advanced civilization that is predominantly made up of people of European ancestry, will eventually have hordes from the third world trying to get in on the action. So it’s important that our ice colony maintain substantial defense systems. It’s necessary for us to keep these people out, since if we allow them to live among us, the temptation to exploit them would be too great. It’s is a naturally occurring, genetic characteristic of being “white,”(call it the “blaxploitation” gene) which we must be forever conscious of when dealing with others.

Like Afghanistan, the mountains and cavernous regions of Antarctica have built in protective features, but without developing highly advanced technology like force fields and mounted laser cannons, a city of several hundred or a few thousand colonists would not be able to repel any serious military assault or UN approved, forced diversity invasion. So called “neo-nazis” aren’t Palestinians either. Transnational corporations and global institutions have little concern for white children, especially those conceived by parents who don’t hate themselves. Human shields are a tacky defense mechanism anyway, the equivalent of kicking a field goal instead of going for it on 4th down in John Madden Football ’93, but a white human shield is merely a “two for the price of one” coupon at the genocide buffet. Bottom line, military tech research must be pursued aggressively, and if this research is primarily directed toward large scale heat generation, we would potentially have a powerful secret weapon at our disposal:

According to Wikipedia:

Antarctica contains 90% of the world’s ice and more than 70% of its freshwater. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometres of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 metres.

That’s right. All we have to do is threaten to melt a hunk of that sucker, and we could hold the entire world hostage unless they meet our demands. Maybe we can even flood a few insignificant island countries like Haiti or Tuvalu as a demonstration(in the spirit of the G.A.L.A.X.Y. organization) so that everyone will know we mean business. Mwahaha.

How’s that for irony? Banish Saltine-Americans to a harsh existence in Antarctica for demanding their borders not be flooded with third world populations, only to have them end up melting the place into a weapon to flood your bordersIt gets better though, Antarctica has a high enough elevation in most parts so that we could withstand the effects of our own attacks.

Are you starting to warm up to the idea of colonizing Antarctica yet? Are your nipples already getting prematurely hard in anticipation of the cold? Mine, too. Unfortunately, there are some ginormous glaciers in the path of making this Titanic bon voyage. In other words, there are a couple of major obstacles in the way of us doing anything on Antarctica, many more than a couple actually, but the ones I’m going to mention are such showstoppers that they render the others largely moot.

1. Despite their gleeful demeanor when suggesting people they disagree with should move to Antarctica, social justice warriors would in fact, never allow it. Environmentalists don’t care when they import millions of poor people who drive gas guzzling jalopies and pollute the environment, but if they wouldn’t even permit oil drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, do you really believe they’re going to let people whom they perceive to be “neo nazis” put up condos on Antarctica and build power plants there? Get real.

2.  Any important future civilization should be heavily invested in space travel as a means of advancing the interests, survivability and knowledge of man.

The challenge of the spaces between the worlds is a stupendous one; but, if we fail to meet it, the story of our race will be drawing to a close. Humanity will have turned its back upon the still untrodden heights and will be descending the long slope that stretches, across a thousand million years of time, down to the shores of the primeval sea. — Arthur C. Clarke

Well, there are few worse places for setting up a space station than the South Pole. Think about it. Even in the ideal climate of Florida, NASA will abort a launch at Cape Canaveral if there is so much as a mild breeze in the air. I can’t imagine that the Ice Planet Zerolike weather conditions of Antarctica would provide a suitable environment for sending spaceships and satellites into orbit. It’s a no go. The only way I could see us overcoming this problem would involve nesting the space station and launch facility within the interior of a hollowed out volcano, like Blofeld’s impressive Japanese base in You Only Live Twice. Does anyone still have access to the blueprints for that thing?

3. The Antarctic Treaty System. This is the big one, and for our purposes, it bites the big one. Since 1961, Antarctica has been governed by a treaty which essentially limits it to being used for scientific research purposes only, states that land there cannot be claimed or colonized, and explicitly forbids any non research oriented military activity there. Read it and weep:

No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting , supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it’s highly unlikely that signatory countries involved or any of the scientists currently holed up in research stations there would be cool with us creating a  futuristic, ethnonationalist enclave there. If that’s not a boner killer, I don’t know what is. That being said, I’m still optimistic that even this obstacle can be overcome. Perhaps some of those countries can be bribed, if we can manage to get someone wealthy like Peter Thiel on board. Russia did sell us Alaska after all.

Despite the light-hearted tone of this essay, the idea of escaping a world which no longer values our historical contributions and that has become increasingly hostile to our mere presence, is a real one. The concept of building new civilizations in seemingly uninhabitable far away lands remains a serious proposition. Whether it’s condos on the moon, pyramids on Mars, or golden igloos in the hills of Antarctica, we will find a way to end up somewhere other than the gulag. For those who would be happy to see us go, be careful what you wish for. And to all my creative friends and allies who long to have bizarre celebrations and secure a future for civilized children… 

This dream is for you, so pay the price. Make one dream come true, you know it’s on ice.

Starship Troopers – An Unintentionally Great Film Advertisement for “Fascism”

buenosaires

With few exceptions, movie adaptations of novels rarely do justice to the books they are based on. Offhand, I can think of a handful which were at least somewhat worthy representations of their authors’ original works(“The Outsiders” and “Invasion of The Body Snatchers” come to mind as examples.) Even less common, are instances where the director attempted to mock or satirize the political ideas of a book, yet unwittingly ended up portraying them in an flattering light. Such was the case with Paul Verhoeven’s film version of Robert Heinlein’s classic, “Starship Troopers.”

It is a complete mystery as to why Paul Verhoeven was chosen to direct a film adaptation of a book he didn’t remotely like, and admittedly never even read:

“I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring,…It is really quite a bad book. I asked Ed Neumeier to tell me the story because I just couldn’t read the thing. It’s a very right-wing book.”

So there you have it, a guy directing a film version of a story for which he had zero passion and even a mild disdain for. That’s not to say these types of movies should be made by drooling fanboys, but is it to much to ask that a director should have at least read the book and sympathized with it’s message(at least to a degree.) Apparently it is.

The system in Heinlein’s original novel was a form of “limited democracy”(what progressives would probably take to be “fascism.”) Citizenship and the right to vote were not granted on the basis of being born, but instead needed to be earned through volunteering for Federal service. That didn’t mean they had to become soldiers or join the military, only that they must volunteer for the Federation and serve in some way, thus showing individual sacrifice for the common good. It was a reaction to the suicidal and degenerative nature of 20th century democracies, where “people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.” The message being that a person has to prove through sacrifice for the common cause, that they should have the right to have a say in how they are governed. Heinlein later clarified and expanded on this concept in his 1980 anthology, “Expanded Universe.”

I think I know what offends most of my critics the most about STARSHIP TROOPERS: It is the dismaying idea that a voice in governing the state should be earned instead of being handed to anyone who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 degrees C.

But there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

In the same essay, Heinlein floated some creative ideas on criteria for voting eligibility:

 A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education – e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth – and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. Better luck next election! No lower age limit in this system – smart 12-yr-old girls vote every election while some of their mothers – and fathers – decline to be humiliated twice.

Math isn’t really my strong suit, so I might have had to rely on being laser cannon fodder in the mobile infantry to earn the franchise.

Written in the relatively tranquil 1950’s postwar America, Starship Troopers was prophetic in other ways, such as in predicting with incredible accuracy the patterns of crime we have come to face today:

From Chapter VIII, pp. 90-96:

I found myself mulling over a discussion in our class in History and Moral Philosophy. Mr. Dubois was talking about the disorders that preceded the breakup of the North American republic, back in the 20th century. According to him, there was a time just before they went down the drain when such crimes as murder were as common as dogfights. The Terror had not been just in North America — Russia and the British Isles had it, too, as well as other places. But it reached its peak in North America shortly before things went to pieces.

“Law-abiding people,” Dubois had told us, “hardly dared go into a public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children, armed with chains, knives, home-made guns, bludgeons … to be hurt at least, robbed most certainly, injured for life probably — or even killed. This went on for years, right up to the war between the Russo-Anglo-American Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. Murder, drug addiction, larceny, assult, and vandalism were commonplace. Nor were parks the only places — these things happened also on the streets in daylight, on school grounds, even inside school buildings. But parks were so notoriously unsafe that honest people stayed clear of them after dark.”

Sound familiar to the world we currently live in? “the knockout game,”school shootings, thug gangs, mall riots, flash mobs, etc etc. Heinlein named them all without yet knowing what they would be called.

Verhoeven, in the movie version of Starship Troopers, did not apparently he care for any of Heinlein’s ideas and instead sought to mock them(he says it clearly throughout the DVD commentary.) He also states that the theme of the film is how “war makes fascists of us all.” Curiously, the screenwriter, Edward Neumeier seems more sympathetic to Heinlein’s vision, often sparring with the director and remarking how “it’s actually a society that works pretty well. “There’s no sexism. There’s no racism…later we’ll see that there’s very little crime. In fact they seemed to have achieved the ideal sort of politically correct society, although we sort of question how they’ve achieved it.”

While xenophobes like me who lean toward ethnonationalism and race realism would be skeptical that such a color-blind multiracial society could exist without significant friction, I suppose one could make the case that with forced assimilation and a collective insistence on holding everyone to a high standard(things which pussified western countries seem unwilling to do) it might have a chance to work. This is what millions of open minded whites like myself optimistically assumed would happen, during the post segregation “multicultural window.” In current western societies, people aren’t pressured to adopt a color blind mentality but rather they are encouraged to show racial solidarity and embrace their distinctive native cultures(all except White people of course… who are not allowed to self identify except in a pathetic, self hating, “I’m ashamed to be white” kind of way.) Who knows? Moving on…

When Norman Jewison made “Rollerball” in 1975(a film that seems more relevant now than ever,) one of the main points he attempted to convey was how modern sporting events were becoming disgustingly violent spectacles. Yet he was later appalled by the audience’s reaction to the film, when he realized that they actually enjoyed the violence in the film, with some enthusiastic fans even wanting to start up an actual Rollerball league to play the brutal game.

In the same vein, when one watches “Starship Troopers,” a film intended to mock soft fascism, they might conclude that a limited democracy focused on civic minded citizens might actually be an improvement over our current “warm body,” transnational corporate bureaucracy where anyone idiot with a pulse can vote.

yolo

The film “succeeds” in the endeavor by portraying this system in a fictional, futuristic setting. We are able to see a successful quasi-fascist system in action without all the baggage associated with similar systems in 20th century history. It focuses on the society itself, and how it would work, without the “Jew obsession,” conspiracy theories, creepy Hitler worship, and the promotion of ethnic genocide that tends to instinctively repulse people away from being open to the possibility of a more positive and empowering form of “national socialism.” It exposes them to an idea without activating their kook detector, thus bypassing an ideological force field of preconceived biases.

In the shower scene, one of the female cadets reveals that she joined the service because she wanted to have children, and it was “easier to get a license” if you’re a citizen. This is of course meant to shock us, like “how could a society be so cruel as to make someone need to obtain a license to have a baby?” That’s not the way I reacted though, and I don’t think I’m the only one. Given what we have seen in the last 50 years, does anyone really think that everyone should be allowed to have children? and that in a civilized society, the only criteria necessary to be a parent is the ability to hump a willing partner of the opposite sex? It seems to me the results of that reproductive indifference have been catastrophic. Now I’m not suggesting that we restrict breeding to some high IQ elite subset of the community or create some kind of master race, but is it too much to ask that someone be able to at least read and write at a third grade level? Or that they be screened for drug abuse and given a background check? In our present political system, even asking these types of questions is taboo, and actually suggesting and implementing practical solutions is downright unthinkable. “Warm body” democracy and the fear of electoral backlash from a largely illiterate and uninformed citizenry, has made our governments impotent at nearly every level. That’s one of the reasons people are turning away from democracy and giving other systems a second look.

desiretoknowmore

Starship Troopers isn’t a great film. It’s an above average 90’s action adventure movie and a satirical perversion of Heinlein’s terrific novel. But hey, what can you expect from the director that made “Showgirls?”(even though I actually happen to like “Showgirls” in a weird, nostalgic way.) Yet in attempting to mock fascism, “Starship Troopers” somehow manages to create an advertisement for a society which is in many ways superior to our own. Everyone seems happy. Everyone has a role to play that suits them, and they all sacrifice for the common good while preserving some individual autonomy. Those who don’t wish to be citizens aren’t exterminated but are simply left to do their own thing. Colonel Carl summed up their worldview succinctly when he stated:

“You disapprove? Well too bad! We’re in this for the species, boys and girls.”

My thoughts exactly.

A realistic depiction of our own modern day America would be much more terrifying than anything portrayed in “Starship Troopers,”(with the possible exception of a bug alien invasion.)

Perhaps culture wars make fascists of us all.