Ben Carson wishes Jews could have defended ‘selves, so condemned for “anti-Semitism”

Dennis Prager notes, re the American left becoming unhinged in their hatred of Ben Carson:

New York Daily News headline: “2016 contender Ben Carson defends remarks criticizing victims of Oregon shooting.”

It was a grotesque libel.

But even that libel might have even outdone by the reaction to Carson’s comments about the Holocaust and guns: “The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”

Those comments were actually labeled anti-Semitic.

Now, while “greatly diminished” is debatable, the general view strikes me as simple common sense: Why wouldn’t it have been a good thing if many Jews in 1930s Europe had had weapons? Of course it would not have prevented the Holocaust, but it might have saved some lives; and just as important, it would have enabled armed Jews to die fighting rather than to die unarmed and with no ability to fight.

In The Washington Post, David Kopel of the Cato Institute, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law at the University Denver Sturm College of Law, cited the diaries of Jews who died in the Warsaw Ghetto. They expressed unalloyed joy at being able to kill some of their Nazi tormentors, and deep regret about not having been armed and been able to fight back sooner than they did.

But even if one believes that Carson and Kopel are wrong, how could one characterize Carson’s comments as “anti-Semitic” or “blaming the victims [the Jews]”? How could one label statements expressing the wish that the Jews of the Holocaust had been armed “anti-Semitic”? Yet, among others, a contributing editor to the Forward, a leading Jewish newspaper, wrote that these remarks were “profoundly anti-Semitic, immoral and disgusting.” And Carson was attacked by prominent Jews in Time and by the Anti-Defamation League. More.

But, Dr. Prager, can I catch up with you a minute?

Did you think that progressives really care whether Jews live or die? Jewish people’s fate is useful to the progressive’s quest for power only as a talking point.

General rule: Abuse by progressives does not need evidence-based content.* An imam can be yelling hatred of Jews in a downtown mosque, and that is treated as “religion” or “culture,” not anti-Semitism.

But Carson is “anti-Semitic” because he thinks Jews should defend themselves and not wait for progressives to decide whether they are allowed to live.

That said, the progressive knows perfectly well that many Jews will vote for progressives anyway, sealing their own fate, and blaming others for what happened.

Christians do the same thing. It’s a cognitive problem: Traditional people don’t tend to understand that the progressive wants only power. He will adopt any perspective, no matter how illogical, that advances that goal.

* Note: I learned this in another venue, in connection with the curious history of the term “creationist.” It came to mean just anyone who questions a popular but probably crackpot theory in science.

Yes, I was surprised too. But once I observed that these puzzling turns of invective are a general trend under a progressive establishment, understanding became easier.

See also: KKK, oops sorry!, religion prof goes after Carson