MetropoLESS!

[slaytonf]

On December 14, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Dargo said:

And now on a more serious note...

And here's an interesting little note about Frau von Harbou here.

Per the Wiki webpage for Fritz Lang:

Lang was worried about the advent of the Nazi regime, partly because of his Jewish heritage,^[13] whereas his wife and screenwriter Thea von Harbou had started to sympathize with the Nazis in the early 1930s and joined the NSDAP in 1940. They soon divorced. Lang's fears would be realized following his departure from Austria, as under the Nuremberg Lawshe would be identified as a Jew even though his mother was a converted Roman Catholic, and he was raised as such.

I've tried to get my head around this, Dargo.  How someone who wrote one of the great testaments for individuality and humanity, could end up supporting an institution devoted to the individual's annihilation and subjugation to the Great Machine is beyond me.

[Sgt_Markoff]

It was a complex period for intellectuals and artists. Look at what happened to Martin Heidegger and numerous others. It wasn't always clear to people at the time (as it is to us now), what Nazism represented. p.s. Where did his wife end up, I wonder?

[slaytonf]

Oh, I think people knew.

[Sgt_Markoff]

Not as soon as 1940, according to William L. Shirer. It was euphoric at that point.

[slaytonf]

I think there was one person in the upper Elbe valley who may have been unclear, but the rest of the population had no doubt where the 'n' -s were coming from, and headed to.  Seeing as it was the fundamental tenet of their philosophy, and the basis of every single speech made by every single of its adherents, and the theme of everything written by them.

[Stephan55]

10 hours ago, slaytonf said:

Oh, I think people knew.

Yes, and No.
Certainly Adolph knew what his "plan" was. And the insiders early on which supported and sponsored him more than likely knew as well.
Some "knew" and didn't care one way or another, so long as they believed they were either not personally affected, or could possibly benefit by his actions. 
However, for the majority of Germans, European neighbors, and the rest of the world (including the United States) it was a much more gradual awakening of the "truth."

In the beginning, Hitler was but one of a relatively nondescript few radical extremists who believed that Germany was unfairly sold down the river at the end of WW1. That idea certainly met with broad appeal for many Germans (especially those seeking someone to blame for their woes).
And truthfully, Germany was no more responsible for "starting" WW1 than France, Russia or Britain. They merely honored their prewar alliances, as did the others. But because Germany was a major player in the war, and because that war had wrought such incredible devastation, France, Britain, etc. felt that "someone" had to pay reparations, and Germany (who was just as devastated as the others) was unfairly blamed as the "goat."

Wilson's "14 points" were largely ignored at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference (esp. in regards to Germany). And lack of U.S. support for his idealized League of Nations insured that it would be a goner, setting the stage for future international "disagreements" to be settled by conflict of arms, rather than international diplomacy.

The burden of debt certainly stressed a fragile Weimar Republic, making it possible for Hitler to gradually grow in popularity. However the world wide aftershocks of the "Great Depression" hit an already depressed Germany harder than any European nation at that time, granting the Nazi party exponential growth from 1930-1933. 
The "legitimacy" of the NSDAP could no longer be ignored.
Since 1930, Hindenburg, Bruning and the Centre Party made futile efforts to combat the ever worsening situation by issuing a stream of authoritarian "emergency decrees". In contrast, Hitler "promised" that his party would pursue political power solely through "democratic elections," gaining him even more popular support.
In effort to "reign-in" the Hitler "problem," he was reluctantly made Chancellor "under" President Hindenburg in 1932. However the results of the Reichstag fire on February 27, 1933, set the stage for Hitler's total control, and the rest, as they say, is history. 

Hitler was a Nationalist who would use any means at his disposal. However he was not a Democratic Socialist, and he vehemently opposed Communistic Socialism.
He was a master of lies and catered to and was catered by the rich capitalist industrialists who financed him (those who sought financial gain from his type of "rule of law").
And, in the beginning, growing numbers of the German people saw tangible evidence of "improvements" in Germany. The German military industrial complex employed millions, and paid them with uninflated wages.
Germany appeared to be prospering again.
To the masses that were now able to eat regularly, with a return to a semblance of "order," and regain some discretionary spending, Hitler was a savior. He endowed them with a sense of self-worth, national pride and prosperity that they'd almost forgotten.
To many, Hitler was clearly making Germany "Great Again."
Such evidential success made Hitler's form of Total Rule (totalitarianism) easy to ignore by millions of those who refused to either see the potential or very real "dark" side.

A few intellectuals saw the writing on the wall and early on either made vain efforts to change what was happening, or chose to leave Germany.
Other potential victims were either unable at the time, or later prevented from doing so.
Many no doubt never fathomed that a nation as intellectually advanced as Germany could ever be persuaded to wallow into such end result degradation. For too many they only really knew, once it was too late.

It is difficult to believe that the people of the town of Dachau were oblivious of the atrocity within their midst. Likewise the persons of Munchen, a mere 10 miles away. The SS surely didn't conceal their activities behind a curtain, did they?
And surely the Wehrmacht must have been aware of what was happening back home, right?
However the U.S. clearly refused to believe the stories of such "camps" until their liberators provided undeniable evidence of the ongoing atrocities.
And though millions of Germans were card carrying members of the NSDAP, many eventually did so because it became the only recognized party of the state, and not joining was a mark of disloyalty, while others joined because it was the expedient thing to do.
And though every German family was required to have a copy of Mein Kampf on prominent display within their household, how many actually read it?
Most American families own a bible, but how many have actually read it through (cover to cover), and how many of those that have share a uniform understanding of it?

Then, as now, most people only choose to listen, hear, see, and understand that which they selectively choose.

Though the substance of Hitler had been clearly outlined (by himself, no less) in 1925, it was not an easy read. Long and poorly written, only those truly dedicated (or wishing a greater understanding) could and would wade through it's two volumes. 

So to say that "People Knew," though true, should be far from an implied "blanket" statement. 
As too few apparently really knew (or cared), and too many claimed that they did not (until it was too late).
And there is a body of revisionists today that claim such evils never occurred at all. While others that do not deny it, support that it was "right" then, and should be "right" again.

Adolf Hitler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Third_Reich

[Sukhov]

3 hours ago, Stephan55 said:

Yes, and No.
Certainly Adolph knew what his "plan" was. And the insiders early on which supported and sponsored him more than likely knew as well.
Some "knew" and didn't care one way or another, so long as they believed they were either not personally affected, or could possibly benefit by his actions. 
However, for the majority of Germans, European neighbors, and the rest of the world (including the United States) it was a much more gradual awakening of the "truth."

In the beginning, Hitler was but one of a relatively nondescript few radical extremists who believed that Germany was unfairly sold down the river at the end of WW1. That idea certainly met with broad appeal for many Germans (especially those seeking someone to blame for their woes).
And truthfully, Germany was no more responsible for "starting" WW1 than France, Russia or Britain. They merely honored their prewar alliances, as did the others. But because Germany was a major player in the war, and because that war had wrought such incredible devastation, France, Britain, etc. felt that "someone" had to pay reparations, and Germany (who was just as devastated as the others) was unfairly blamed as the "goat."

Wilson's "14 points" were largely ignored at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference (esp. in regards to Germany). And lack of U.S. support for his idealized League of Nations insured that it would be a goner, setting the stage for future international "disagreements" to be settled by conflict of arms, rather than international diplomacy.

The burden of debt certainly stressed a fragile Weimar Republic, making it possible for Hitler to gradually grow in popularity. However the world wide aftershocks of the "Great Depression" hit an already depressed Germany harder than any European nation at that time, granting the Nazi party exponential growth from 1930-1933. 
The "legitimacy" of the NSDAP could no longer be ignored.
Since 1930, Hindenburg, Bruning and the Centre Party made futile efforts to combat the ever worsening situation by issuing a stream of authoritarian "emergency decrees". In contrast, Hitler "promised" that his party would pursue political power solely through "democratic elections," gaining him even more popular support.
In effort to "reign-in" the Hitler "problem," he was reluctantly made Chancellor "under" President Hindenburg in 1932. However the results of the Reichstag fire on February 27, 1933, set the stage for Hitler's total control, and the rest, as they say, is history. 

Hitler was a Nationalist who would use any means at his disposal. However he was not a Democratic Socialist, and he vehemently opposed Communistic Socialism.
He was a master of lies and catered to and was catered by the rich capitalist industrialists who financed him (those who sought financial gain from his type of "rule of law").
And, in the beginning, growing numbers of the German people saw tangible evidence of "improvements" in Germany. The German military industrial complex employed millions, and paid them with uninflated wages.
Germany appeared to be prospering again.
To the masses that were now able to eat regularly, with a return to a semblance of "order," and regain some discretionary spending, Hitler was a savior. He endowed them with a sense of self-worth, national pride and prosperity that they'd almost forgotten.
To many, Hitler was clearly making Germany "Great Again."
Such evidential success made Hitler's form of Total Rule (totalitarianism) easy to ignore by millions of those who refused to either see the potential or very real "dark" side.

A few intellectuals saw the writing on the wall and early on either made vain efforts to change what was happening, or chose to leave Germany.
Other potential victims were either unable at the time, or later prevented from doing so.
Many no doubt never fathomed that a nation as intellectually advanced as Germany could ever be persuaded to wallow into such end result degradation. For too many they only really knew, once it was too late.

It is difficult to believe that the people of the town of Dachau were oblivious of the atrocity within their midst. Likewise the persons of Munchen, a mere 10 miles away. The SS surely didn't conceal their activities behind a curtain, did they?
And surely the Wehrmacht must have been aware of what was happening back home, right?
However the U.S. clearly refused to believe the stories of such "camps" until their liberators provided undeniable evidence of the ongoing atrocities.
And though millions of Germans were card carrying members of the NSDAP, many eventually did so because it became the only recognized party of the state, and not joining was a mark of disloyalty, while others joined because it was the expedient thing to do.
And though every German family was required to have a copy of Mein Kampf on prominent display within their household, how many actually read it?
Most American families own a bible, but how many have actually read it through (cover to cover), and how many of those that have share a uniform understanding of it?

Then, as now, most people only choose to listen, hear, see, and understand that which they selectively choose.

Though the substance of Hitler had been clearly outlined (by himself, no less) in 1925, it was not an easy read. Long and poorly written, only those truly dedicated (or wishing a greater understanding) could and would wade through it's two volumes. 

So to say that "People Knew," though true, should be far from an implied "blanket" statement. 
As too few apparently really knew (or cared), and too many claimed that they did not (until it was too late).
And there is a body of revisionists today that claim such evils never occurred at all. While others that do not deny it, support that it was "right" then, and should be "right" again.

Adolf Hitler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Third_Reich

It should also be noted thay Hitler didn't run on exterminating anyone. He ran on ficing the economy, getting back at France and England for the defeat of Germany in WWI and for fighting against "corrupt" politicians. These were all things even moderate Germans supported at the time. 

[TomJH]

On 12/12/2018 at 9:34 PM, Sgt_Markoff said:

mr6666 said:

o_0

Oops

You might throw Movie Madness into that warned group instead, Sarge. Maybe you got your m's confused when you included Mr6666.

[Sgt_Markoff]

Very likely so. One of my biggest gaffes since I've been here.

[Sgt_Markoff]

3 hours ago, Stephan55 murmured:

Quote

And there is a body of revisionists today that claim such evils never occurred at all. While others that do not deny it, support that it was "right" then, and should be "right" again.

It is very frustrating to me that right here in the neighborhood where I reside, I must confront these loons fairly frequently. Very dispiriting.

I can assure you that what makes the task of schooling these louts in history & civics is made immeasurably harder by the advent of the internet. Now that all information has been converted into 'media', it is all suspect, questionable, debatable, and suspicious. Previously, you could take someone by the arm and lead them to a library and all the books there could settle an argument. Not so, nowadays. The internet is the biggest boost ever to conspiracy-theorists and just plain unhinged persons.

[Stephan55]

3 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

It is very frustrating to me that right here in the neighborhood where I reside, I must confront these loons fairly frequently. Very dispiriting.

I can assure you...

It's good to know that you are on the "right" side of things, Sarge.
Try not to dispair, keep up the good work, and stay the good fight!

[Dargo]

23 minutes ago, Stephan55 said:

It's good to know that you are on the "right" side of things, Sarge.
Try not to dispair, keep up the good work, and stay the good fight!

Uh-huh, but while you're doing all that Sarge, don't forget to also keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars.

(...hmmm...ya know come to think of it, I do believe I once heard Metropolis was one of Casey Kasem's favorite movies too!) 

[Stephan55]

3 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

It is very frustrating to me that right here in the neighborhood where I reside, I must confront these loons fairly frequently. Very dispiriting. ...

 
Whenever I feel "down-and-out" and ready to "quit" I try to remember and draw inspiration from one of my favorite poems, by my favorite poet. 
 

The Quitter

When you're lost in the Wild, and you're scared as a child,
    And Death looks you bang in the eye,
And you're sore as a boil, it's according to Hoyle
    To  c*o*c*k*  your revolver and . . . die.
But the Code of a Man says: "Fight all you can,"
    And self-dissolution is barred.
In hunger and woe, oh, it's easy to blow . . .
    It's the hell-served-for-breakfast that's hard.

"You're sick of the game!" Well, now, that's a shame.
    You're young and you're brave and you're bright.
"You've had a raw deal!" I know — but don't squeal,
    Buck up, do your damnedest, and fight.
It's the plugging away that will win you the day,
    So don't be a piker, old pard!
Just draw on your grit; it's so easy to quit:
    It's the keeping-your-chin-up that's hard.

It's easy to cry that you're beaten — and die;
    It's easy to crawfish and crawl;
But to fight and to fight when hope's out of sight —
    Why, that's the best game of them all!
And though you come out of each gruelling bout,
    All broken and beaten and scarred,
Just have one more try — it's dead easy to die,
    It's the keeping-on-living that's hard.

The Quitter, by Robert Service
https://allpoetry.com/The-Quitter

[Sgt_Markoff]

I was thinking this weekend that I might pen a short story.

Imagine that "for the purposes of more efficient database management", a new public/private initiative is announced between the Social Security Administration, Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and all the ISPs and cellular providers.

In short, it simply requires all of us to adopt usernames and passwords as our *official* names.

Minimum 8 characters, including one capital, one numeric, and one special character; enabling "single sign-on" to all government services and all our favourite 'apps'.

IRS, HUD, and DOE endorse the idea immediately. HUD says it will assist in preventing housing discrimination. DOE says that with uniform children names, it can deliver a higher level of individualized education to each child.

HHS says it will use the new system to re-organize the nation's outdated healthcare delivery. The IRS chimes in too--it will reduce their workload processing tax refunds.

The idea gets full approval from Homeland Security and other LEA. "Standardized usernames" for everyone would make immigration and border control so much easier and aid the 'War-on-Terror'.

TSA, Customs, and Immigration all echo the enthusiasm: generation of passports and VISAS would become a snap. "Permanent identity cards" would enable 'greater ease of travel' for millions of people.

The FBI of course, insist that with this new tool in their arsenal, they can greatly combat more forms of cyber-crime, including child trafficking, etc.

Google, Apple, and Microsoft put their combined weight behind the plan. They warn that their server-farms are increasingly struggling with keeping track of complicated family-names like 'Abramowitz', 'Schemerhorn', and 'Schimmelmacher'. Are these antiquated traditions really needed anymore?

At first, the public is reluctant to embrace the idea, and public-relations agencies work diligently to alter the old mindset. Celebrities and sports stars already known by nicknames like "J-Lo" and "DJ Jazzy Jeff" are enlisted to show how 'cool' it is.

Finally, what turns the trick is the long-awaited stance of Amazon's CEO, St Steve Bezos, He likes it, claiming that Amazon can streamline user-account maintenance across the entire digital realm; resulting in significant savings per user.

Steve makes the theme of "What's in a name anyway?" the theme of his annual Amazon stakeholder's conference in Phoenix, AZ. Televised via Youtube worldwide, Steve emphasizes the pragmatism from the podium.

Do personal names really matter now that so many of us lead virtual lives? Why can't everyone agree to make things easier for our nation's over-burdened IT sector and simply adopt concise, fixed-length name-keys like 'Logan-5' or 'THX-1138'? Is it really so much to ask? Really wouldn't it be kind of --fun? For instance, he himself would be Bezos-1, which "his whole company already calls him anyway".

Finally, the CSDL (Coalition for a Simpler Digital Lifestyle) sets a date: five years from today, you will not be able to sign-on to the net without choosing a secure, database-friendly username... which also identifies you in real life.

-------------------------------------------------

So I thought about writing this as a story, and then I dismissed it. No one today reading this idea would 'react' with the horror that I expect them to react with.

 

[Sgt_Markoff]

The 'Poet of the Yukon', Robert W. Service! One of my favorite poets for sure. A national treasure.

[Sgt_Markoff]

nanoseconds ago, Dargo soliloquized:

Quote

Uh-huh, but while you're doing all that Sarge, don't forget to also keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars.

Is that a "Now, Voyager" reference? Awk!

[Stephan55]

18 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

So I thought about writing this story and then I dismissed it. No one today reading this idea would 'react' with the horror that I expect them to react with.

I think you are right about that.
While I was reading my thoughts were along the line of the advantages of an extra layer of protection against ID fraud that a users individual "security code word" would provide for all their accounts.
Of course my mindset was that it would not be a "fixed" across-the-board word, but one that the user would frequently change to keep a head of the fraudsters.
It was a classic example of me seeing only what I wanted to see in that post, and momentarily overlooking the Orwellian implications. 
Still, might make a good dystopian story along those lines. If you ever decide to flesh it out post a preview here.
You could start an "off-topic" thread and post installments.
 

[Sgt_Markoff]

Thanks. Well as I hinted, the goal is a proper 'audience reaction' and it just isn't there anymore. What people are casually allowing today surpasses even what I just ruminated on, above.

[Dargo]

11 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

nanoseconds ago, Dargo soliloquized:

Is that a "Now, Voyager" reference? Awk!

Close I suppose to Bette's now famous line in that movie, but no Sarge, that was radio announcer and voice over artist Casey Kasem's old radio show signature sign-off line.

(...and why MY "signature" parenthetical addendum included his name) 

[Stephan55]

15 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

What people are casually allowing today surpasses even what I just ruminated on, above.

It's like the "Lobster in the Pot," or an experiment we did in H.S. with a live frog placed in a kettle of cool water. 
The burner was turned on, and the water gradually got warmer and warmer, until it began to boil.
The frog just sat there allowing itself to be cooked alive.

Different experiment with the same pot, but the water was already boiling when a different frog was introduced. That frog felt the heat right away and instantly tried to escape, in some instances successfully leaping out of the kettle. 

Cruel experiment to be sure, but as a lesson in the dangers of complacency it was something that I never have forgotten.

[Dargo]

10 minutes ago, Stephan55 said:

It's like the "Lobster in the Pot" or, an experiment we did in H.S. with a live frog placed in a kettle of cool water. 
The burner was turned on, and the water gradually got warmer and warmer, until it began to boil.
The frog just sat there allowing itself to be cooked alive.

Different experiment with the same pot, but the water was already boiling when a different frog was introduced. That frog felt the heat right away and instantly tried to escape, in some instances successfully leaping out of the kettle. 

Cruel experiment to be sure, but as a lesson in the dangers of complacency it was something that I never have forgotten.

Yeah, we students over at Gardena High had heard you guys over at Aviation High could be cruel like that.

(...but it's good to now know this wasn't just a vicious rumor)

[Stephan55]

1 minute ago, Dargo said:

Yeah, we students over at Gardena High had heard you guy over at Aviation High could be cruel like that.

(...but it's good to now know this wasn't just a vicious rumor)

Yeah, well you can blame one of our biology teachers for that one.
I still remember his name. But I won't mention it here, just in case he's still around.

[Dargo]

1 minute ago, Stephan55 said:

Yeah, well you can blame one of our biology teachers for that one.
I still remember his name. But I won't mention it here, just in case he's still around.

Oh, don't worry about THAT!

(...word definitely got to us there was this one teacher if you ever got transferred over there to steer clear of Frank "Frog-Killer" Kowalski's class, alright)

[TomJH]

32 minutes ago, Stephan55 said:

Yeah, well you can blame one of our biology teachers for that one.
I still remember his name. But I won't mention it here, just in case he's still around.

They say that many psychopaths start off by torturing animals. That frog boiling professor of your's sounds like he might make it into the news yet.

[slaytonf]

1 hour ago, Stephan55 said:

It's like the "Lobster in the Pot," or an experiment we did in H.S. with a live frog placed in a kettle of cool water. 
The burner was turned on, and the water gradually got warmer and warmer, until it began to boil.
The frog just sat there allowing itself to be cooked alive.

Different experiment with the same pot, but the water was already boiling when a different frog was introduced. That frog felt the heat right away and instantly tried to escape, in some instances successfully leaping out of the kettle. 

Cruel experiment to be sure, but as a lesson in the dangers of complacency it was something that I never have forgotten.

The only recorded instance I have encountered of this actually happening.  I considered it myth.

Bytheway, isn't that Norman Bates as your avatar?