"I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country! Our Military Patriots desperately need FISA 702, and it is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous SUCCESS on the battlefield."
They continue to prove Verhoeven’s point many times over even decades later.
The book and author of the book was serious/not satire and meant everything earnestly at least the time of writing.
It’s objectively not meant to be looked at as satire. Most of the “citizenship requires service” stuff would be amazing from the perspective of smashing this countries geriocracy.
> Director Paul Verhoeven admits to have never finished the novel, claiming he read through the first two chapters and became both bored and depressed, calling it "a very right-wing book" in Empire magazine. He then told screenwriter Edward Neumeier to tell him the rest. They then decided that while both the novel and its author Robert A. Heinlein strongly supported a regime led by a military elite, they would make the film a satirical hyperbole of contemporary American politics and culture: "Ed and I [..] felt that we needed to counter with our own narrative. Basically, the political undercurrent of the film is that these heroes and heroines are living in a fascist utopia - but they are not even aware of it! They think this is normal. And somehow you are seduced to follow them, and at the same time, made aware that they might be fascists." Verhoeven later claimed that many viewers had not caught on to the satirical part. Ironically, diehard Heinlein fans later declared that the filmmakers themselves also completely misinterpreted Heinlein's nature and intentions. They say he was a libertarian who opposed conscription and militarism, and depicted the oligarchy-by-ex-military-citizenry government in the book because it was an example of something that has never been done in real life. He was not advocating it, but was merely speculating that such a system could exist without collapsing.
In a vacuum I think the interpretation Verhoeven had is mostly fine. It only becomes apparently ignorant if you’ve read more of Heinlein’s work, where libertarian themes are pervasive.
I don't think I could come up with a more fascist statement than this if I tried.
He cares about perceptions of him. He cares about power and money.
But past that it's literally... whoever was last in the room with him. Which in this case was obviously Palantir. And 50 days ago was Hegseth.
That would be upsetting if so. I feel the far more frightening thing is he is telling a large swath of people who don't know what they want, what they want. And then delivering that. So it could be literally anything.
The low-brow term for this is "owning the libs", but I believe it's really what's happening. It doesn't matter his personal moral failures or inconsistency, as long as he sets back social progress.
He was elected by a broad coalition of conservative-ish stakeholders, many of whom had very coherent and enunciated goals.