Washington Post Pretends Questioning the Election Results Is Same as Denying Holocaust

AP Photo/Matt York

 

You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

In fact, the only way someone could write an article as ridiculous as this particular piece in The Washington Post is if you have, in the words of Malcolm Muggeridge, been educated into imbecility. Authors Deborah E. Lipstadt and Norman Eisen penned a piece arguing that those who question the results of the presidential election are similar to people who question the holocaust.

As we already know, far-leftists absolutely love Hitler and the Nazis. Whenever leftist activist organizations like The Washington Post want to throw some red meat to their audiences, Nazi Germany becomes a beloved political weapon.

The article, titled, “Denying the Holocaust threatens democracy. So does denying the election results,” contends the Post. The authors claim that President Donald Trump and other Republicans who are challenging the outcome of the presidential race are engaging in similar activity as Neo-Nazis and white supremacists who pretend the holocaust never happened.

The authors didn’t waste any time making false accusations of racism. The article continues:

“Like Holocaust denial, there is an unmistakable racial tinge to Trump’s democracy denial. He and his cohort are openly targeting strongly minority jurisdictions with their false claims, in particular cities with large Black populations — Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta.”

This is an example of how the left typically lies more by omission than commission. The authors bring up the fact that the votes are being challenged in cities with high minority populations, which is true, but doesn’t actually explore why. In fact, they just use the old “if it involves a lot of black folks, it’s racist” motif.

But the reality is that the cities in which there are disparities happen to be these cities, which makes sense given the fact that minorities were far more likely to vote for Joe Biden than whites. So it would not make sense to focus on primarily white cities, would it?

This does not automatically mean that there was enough election fraud to give Biden the election, but the notion that the Trump legal team is specifically targeting these areas because of racism is crazier than a soup sandwich. Of course, the authors know this, but they are counting on their audience to be ignorant enough to buy it.

The article continues with the authors pretending they don’t love making Nazi comparisons before making a Nazi comparison:

“Trump is not, of course, Adolf Hitler, and we unequivocally reject the comparison. But he has adopted the propaganda technique of the big lie. ‘In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily,’ Hitler wrote. ‘It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.’”

So, Trump isn’t Hitler, but he’s definitely Hitler.

Makes sense, doesn’t it? Of course, the authors ignore the fact that the activist media lies to the American public on the daily. They don’t mention the many false narratives perpetuated by alleged news outlets like MSNBC, who brazenly lied to their audience about Russia collusion for years. Couldn’t we say these folks are like Nazis too?

Don’t be silly. Of course we can’t. Because we’re the real Nazis, aren’t we?

After this, the authors then make their central point: Challenging the result of the presidential election through 100% legal channels amounts to trying to destroy democracy. “Denying the results of elections serves anti-democratic political ends, whether it is used by ultraconservative European politicians to rehabilitate the fascist tradition or by haters of Israeli democracy, like many within the current Iranian regime,” they argue.

To support its premise, the article points out that “voting is how the American people express their political will. It underlies the legitimacy of our government — and so of our nation,” and that “Trump has reached a new low with his post-election attacks on voting, the foundation of our democracy, when in fact we just had one of the safest, best and most participatory elections in our history.”

Isn’t there something missing from these passages?

Yes, there is. At no point in this insipid piece of rubbish do the authors actually explain how going through legal avenues to challenge the election is destroying democracy. They never actually explain why questioning the outcome somehow constitutes a “destabilizing assault from within on our nation.”

Instead, the authors push on, laying out tactics the left can use to counter Trump’s arguments regarding the election. They recommend broadcasting “an even larger truth — backed by facts and evidence,” and “spreading the truth far and wide.” The authors also argue for the creation of a “bipartisan civil society commission” to settle the matter once and for all.

But it is Lipstadt and Eisen’s final point that betrays their true objective and that of their colleagues. “Finally, the purveyors of the “big lie” about the 2020 election must be denied respectable platforms in polite national society,” they insist. “We would not allow a Holocaust denier to speak on evening news programs or have free rein on social media.”

And this, dear reader, is the entire reason why The Washington Post is trying to convince us to believe that taking issue with how the election was conducted is tantamount to holocaust denial. It is nothing more than a badly-argued and authoritarian attempt to promote censorship and suppression of views they don’t like.

The authors are right, of course. Holocaust deniers are not typically given a platform. That’s why they want their audience to think conservatives are just like those who pretend the holocaust didn’t happen. It would be clever if their motives weren’t so damn obvious.

As we already know, far-left extremists hate the idea of free speech. Lipstadt and Eisen seem to be trying to put forth this idea because if it gains traction on the left, they can bring about more censorship of right-leaning views. Make no mistake, they won’t stop here. It is probable that they will extend the “holocaust denier” strategy to other issues as well. The question is: Will they succeed?

 

Let me know what you think in the comments below!

Follow me on Twitter and Parler