Christianity asserts as its ideals Love and Forgiveness but has, for twenty centuries anticipated Luther’s admonition to “exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people.” What likelihood, with the Holocaust so recent a result of the “love” that any Jews will survive the next effort at a final solution to the West’s Jewish Problem? For more than a year Philosopher” and I have debated this question, and after a year he and I remain distant; not to the likelihood of another Holocaust (we both agree that is not a distant event) but how the Jewish people might address its imminence. What appears below is my latest response to a man both highly intelligent survivor of the Holocaust and a die-hard believer in the “goodness” of Mankind: 

Our differences, “Philosopher,” are honest and based on different starting points in history. You believe, as do I, that the Enlightened Rationality reflects an ideal which, if realizable, would revolutionize human society. But in the end the ER, and its 19-20th Century granddaughter Marxism, was also a dead end. Not that the ideal does not continue, which it does. Just that 99%+ of human kind are unable, or interested in seeing the world beyond the Present. This is a very real “conceptual” barrier. But there is another barrier also at play:   We (humankind) are psychologically and emotionally perhaps several million years behind our “intellectual” evolution. You conceive a future of world peace and technological innovation not tied to capitalist profit. And I have always credited this to you. From Day One. You have a good head and heart to match. You are an Idealist. Your experience of the Shoah provided you an appreciation of the Goodness of Man. My experience of the Holocaust, in relative security a continent away, leaves me far more cynical. That I happen also to  be in a profession that deals with human frailty, sometimes subsuming my own prejudices to the  needs of my clientele, also gives me a different perspective than that of your own.

That said, and again we share in a desire for the “Ideal,” I find your starting point in our discussion untenable. Your ER, and its more recent humanist manifestation in Marx-Engels are proven by history unachievable. Reflections of the best of Human Nature they fail the test of applicability and survivability, and so wound up in the “dust bin of History.” Had the ER beat the odds of human nature and survived I am yet unconvinced but would hope that would have included the Oneness of Mankind, the end of Christendom’s Jewish Problem. It didn’t and their Solution, and our Problem, stares us yet in the face.

I assure I did not ignore the paragraphs you remind of below. I too am aware that the German High Command was aware of the end at the same time Roosevelt and Churchill still were thinking the war would end against them. Etc.

As for your “Jihad” suggestion, I grant you an original thinker, and appreciate its potential tactical possibilities. Strategically, even if practicable, whatever benefit we gain this decade and/or the next will evaporate as swiftly as the offered alliance accepted by Spanish Jewry with the Catholic monarchy to evict the Moors. And the reward was the Inquisition.

To compare Israel training and, presumably arming a Jewish “resistance” in the US is light-years beyond Pollard, “Philosopher.” And as a thought that Israel would have both means and opportunity to arm what would, in the eyes of the US be a fifth column needs no further discussion.

But back to reality: The Jewish Problem is eternal and transcendental. It no more depends on its Christian sources than does America’s history of negro slavery inspire the poverty and prejudice experienced by Afro-American today; no more than does the terrible crime continuing today against Native Americans depend on the “Indian Wars.” These are prejudices, pre-judgments outside of Reason: fantasy-based. And a Rational response to structural cultural bias is fight or flight. And what chance a relatively tiny minority, be it Black, Indian or Jew against the machinery of a great nation-state?

I do appreciate, sympathize with your position, “Philosopher” and would, did I feel it achievable, join you. But I don’t, and this remains at the bottom of our differences.