Here's one on "Hate" from Cyber Cyclone Giwer - and keep in mind that the Giwer style is quirky:
"In my incessant ramblings on the internet on this holocaust thing much has become clear. One of the most recent, always sensed but not in focus, is hatred.
I look at myself, I look at most of us and notice we were born after the end of the war in Europe. Regardless of their deeds, the Nazis never did a thing to me. I never met Hitler.
Hate? If I had not been raised in the immediate post war era and TV being new and programs on it saturating it ,I doubt I would have any interest in it.
But if anyone was a prime candidate in their formative years to absorb "hate" from knowledge of the war, it was me. Me and literally millions of others who had the TV diet of war stories.
But what we observe in people who were also born after the end of the war, (is) an obvious cultivated hatred against people they never met - people who could not possibly have harmed them.
Think about that a minute. It is so common a feature of our experience we come to accept it. That is was I was doing until it came into focus.
I had it (in) a vague sort sympathetic "I can understand" category. But I have taken it out of that category to examine it. It is not understandable. It is in fact incomprehensible.
This has nothing to do with whether or not their holocaust occurred or was lesser or even if it were greater. The issue is the same - regardless. It is not comprehensible.
It is a jewish tradition at best.
Not only do they recite every real and imagined slight over 3500 years and claim they are the most put-upon people in the world, they in fact take it personally.
And then a line came to me; free association perhaps. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me.
Jaw drop time. The idea is that old.
And how very "godlike" of them!
For most people, I would say, there are only two possible causes of this hatred - either they instilled it in themselves or their parents instilled it is them. One or the other party would be unbalanced - it is just a matter of deciding which one. (Admittedly a case could also be made that the parents are simply malicious)
For our friends who love to hate there is a third possibility - the tribe. Indoctrination, so to speak. That does not make it any more comprehensible or saner or nicer.
Reparations
What do we call people who can not get themselves on their feet financially after 53 years? Holocaust survivers.
It comes as a wonderment that people, who were not even born at the time or who were at most children, are so eager to make amends for things they did not do. We can bandy about "guilt" forever but it does not really apply.
We have accepted by its commonness that their tribal attitude is an acceptable way of looking at things. I can go into a long Libertarian lecture here - condemning the collective, extolling individual responsibility - but that is not the heart of the question.
The heart of it is letting the other side determine the foundations of the exchange. For example, if you ever debate a creationist, there are things you can not say. One of them is that you believe in evolution. Do that, and you have given them the grounds of faith.
The same goes for matters of extortion. Never can group terms be permitted into the conversation. Switzerland's first problem was allowing the term Swiss into the conversation. "There will be a full investigation into the actions of the individuals involved. . . " should have been the ***only*** response.
False concepts have to be found and rejected. A solid foundation has to be adopted first.
Calling it extortion - while bold and long overdue - allowed it to become a collective matter: group against group, Swiss against Jews. It legitimized (the Jews') unspoken assumption upon which it is all constructed - that jews can be viewed as a group instead of individuals. They want it that way.
But in admitting their terms, the Swiss have permitted their country to be considered as a competing group. (The Jews) were given the terms of the exchange in their favor.
"Herr John Smith did X - therefore the Swiss did X."
It is only a tactic, not a mindset.
One needs to hold a strong position regarding individual responsibility - and never deviate, never get involved in even discussing collective matters.
The folks in Switzerland have waffled in this matter. On one hand they publish the names of dormant accounts (after a law was passed to permit this otherwise violation of their banking laws.) That is the way to do it. That is banks-to-individuals - the way it is done the world over.
But then they offered a "group" settlement to people not even parties to the matter. That is not the way banks work. That is using the paradigm of the extortionists.
(Matt Giwer)
Thought for the Day:
"I heard on the BBC this morning (Central European Time) that Switzerland gave in and agreed to pay the "Holycause" survivors $1,250,000,000.00. In a glorious moment of victory Sen. Alfonse Damato (spelling?) proclaimed:
"We'v'e reached an historic agreement with the Swiss Banks that will bring moral and material justice to those who have suffered for so long and bring closure on these issues around the world and in Switzerland."