GER politics thread

[mapuc]

They, AfD. have to clean up in their own homeland. No doubt there are a few percentage who has neonazis standpoints in the parti. A huge majority does not, thank God.

The Swedish right wing party Sweden Democrats did the same in the 90's and beginning of the 2000.

Before changing name they were called BSS=Bevara Sverige Svensk=Keep Sweden Swedish. They made a huge clean-up throwing out non-wanted elements(especially those with neonazis standpoint)

Markus

[Skybird]

I think its not just "a few percentages", but we probably talk about 20-25% of the AfD politicians being Nazis, and 5-15% of their voters being indeed Nazis. These are values concluded on grounds of statistical and descriptive research projects of the past ten years.

For fanatical Reds and Greens of course everybody voting the AfD or working in it, is a Nazi, since these people only differentiate between very left/woke/green/red, and Nazi. Centrists are Nazis. Conserbvatoves are Nazis. Patriots are Nazis.

For some militant vegans, even carnivores are Nazis. There is fake science publishing fake studies that try to "prove" that consuming red meat turns you into a warmongering Nazi. Völlig plemplem. Ballaballa. Gaga. Dont eat a vegan diet - it eats your brain.

[Skybird]

The adventurous argument against the AfD: Anyone who speaks of a historical people is an extremist


[Tichys Einblick] Neither the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's classification of the AfD as "right-wing extremist" comes as a surprise – nor does it surprise the central idea behind it: the concept of "people." The agency's narrow focus is bizarre and deeply contradictory.

The domestic intelligence agency's classification of the entire AfD as "certainly right-wing extremist" comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's influence on key political debates. The agency, subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior, has long sought not only to observe but also to directly intervene in the public debate. Very few are familiar with the report in which the agency classifies Germany's strongest party as "certainly right-wing extremist," apart from a few hand-picked journalists who leaked details months ago. But the central argument is well known, and it is not surprising.

The extremism classification is based on the AfD's allegedly unconstitutional use of the concept of "people" when it insists that Germans have a historically and culturally derived identity. According to this doctrine, anyone who sees any categorical difference between native Germans and immigrants with a German passport is outside the constitution. This is true even if a party derives no political demands from this, such as a legal disadvantage for naturalized citizens. There is no such passage in the AfD's platform.

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution's argumentation is already evident from the agency's report on the book "Kulturkampf um das Volk. Der Verfassungsschutz und die nationale Identität der Deutschen" (Culture Struggle for the People. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the National Identity of the Germans) by political scientist Martin Wagener, whom the agency accuses of being anti-constitutional. In his work, published in 2021, the scientist addresses the question: How does the country change when, as a result of forced immigration, primarily from Islamic countries, more and more people live in the Federal Republic who derive their identity from sources other than a personal connection to German culture and history? National identity, he argues, is not limited to citizenship; It develops in a long historical process, and under certain circumstances, it could also collapse again.

The central thesis of "Kulturkampf um das Volk" is that with Angela Merkel as Chancellor, the transformation of a developed cultural nation into a multicultural one began – and this against the will of the majority of the native citizens. Secondly, Wagener criticizes the interpretation of the concept of "people" by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and politicians. The domestic intelligence service, the political scientist argues, sees anyone who associates "people" with a historically derived, i.e., developed, culture as an enemy of the constitution. Evidence for both can be found, even completely independent of Wagener's book. At the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania CDU state party conference in February 2017, for example, Merkel uttered the key phrase: "The people are everyone who lives in this country."

This is precisely what the Basic Law, in Article 116, already defines differently – and continues to do so today. Aside from the definition of a nation's people by nationality, few people in real life ignore the differences between long-established citizens and newcomers. When the Federal Government's Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Ferda Ataman, spoke of 'potatoes,' she wasn't referring to herself, even though she also holds a German passport, but rather, to use another expression, 'ethnic Germans.' Many Turks and Arabs with German citizenship also refer to the same section of society, to which they do not consider themselves, when they use the phrase 'Almans.' That citizenship can, but does not necessarily, mean cultural ties for immigrants was demonstrated by the example of a naturalized Turkish woman whom Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited during his election campaign: Despite having lived in Germany for decades, she spoke and understood virtually no German.

Wagener addresses precisely this problem: What does it mean when more and more people live in this country who do not consider themselves Germans and do not want to become so? The author neither assumes that migrants can adapt to German culture, nor does he in any way call for immigrants with German passports to be disadvantaged compared to long-established residents. He also does not develop an ethnic, but rather a cultural, concept of the people. Rather, he deals with the changes in the country through migration, but also through social policies such as those shaped by Merkel. According to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution,The professor already meets the criteria for extremism.

How can anyone even come up with the construction to classify a scientist as a security risk because of a book? "A comprehensive review of Mr. Wagener's publication 'Kulturkampf um das Volk – Der Verfassungsschutz und die nationale Identität der Deutschen'," it states, "has shown that, based on the publication, there are actual indications of Mr. Wagener's efforts against the free democratic basic order. These arise from an ethnic-descendant concept of the people, which contradicts Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law." The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's paper casts a dim light on the agency not only because of the arrogance it contains, but also because of the quality of its argumentation.

Article 1 of the Basic Law, like other fundamental rights, is a citizen's right of defense against the state. An individual citizen cannot violate it. Not even as a professor. Secondly, the state itself uses the "ethnic-descendancy-based concept of ethnicity," which, according to the Cologne authorities, places anyone in the extremist camp simply by using it. For example, when the government provides funds to the communities of Russian and Romanian Germans to cultivate German culture and offers Russian Germans the opportunity to resettle in the Federal Republic. After all, they are not German citizens, but ethnic Germans.

There is even a Federal Commissioner "for Resettlement Issues and National Minorities" named Natalie Pawlik – based at Faeser's office. The "Federal Institute for Culture and History of the Germans in Eastern Europe," founded in 1989, could not have existed without an ethnic concept of ethnicity, which, incidentally, is not at all in conflict with German citizenship law. They each refer to different fields of meaning. This is precisely what Wagener's study is about. Minister of State for Culture Claudia Roth hastily renamed the institute the "Federal Institute for Culture and History of Eastern Europe" in September 2023. According to its own reasoning, the institute would also have to assume that Roth and the institute were engaging in anti-constitutional activities until at least 2023, and that his superior even continues to do so today.

How does the VS book reviewer justify his accusation of anti-constitutional activity beyond the mere assertion that anyone who assumes the existence of a historical-cultural concept of "people" is thereby violating the Basic Law? This is where things get seriously adventurous. "Furthermore," the intelligence officer notes, "Mr. Wagener advocates in his book the thesis of a steadily declining subset of the German people in relation to the new multicultural German nation, as well as a transformation of the German cultural nation into a nation of will. His statements in the work thus draw parallels to the 'Great Replacement' narrative widespread among the New Right, according to which the ethnic and cultural composition of European peoples is being dissolved and replaced by non-European immigrants."

The official also sensibly does not deny that the ratio between native Germans and non-European immigrants, and thus also the ethnic and cultural composition, is changing, and that this has accelerated since 2015. Wagener, again, mentions nothing of a "great replacement"; he simply bases his considerations on the factual basis of demographic change, which anyone can read about at the Federal Statistical Office. The reviewer's maneuver, therefore, is to say that the obvious and undisputed fact described by the political scientist has a "parallel" to a term used by the "New Right."

The professor and author also never demands—nor does the AfD, see above—that naturalized immigrants be given less favorable legal treatment. Since this idea does not appear in the book, the reviewer notes that Wagener "ultimately" declares immigrants to be "second-class citizens." "Parallel," "ultimately." Our federal reviewer never provides any definition of "New Right," no matter how vague. Six context-free (and completely extremist-free) quotes from the book suffice as evidence.

And there's another twist: Exactly what Wagener outlines in his allegedly anti-constitutional work is also described by integration researcher Naika Foroutan, who holds a chair at Humboldt University, in her term "post-migrant society." This does not mean that migration to Germany has ended, but rather the transition to a neo-tribal society in which Germans with German ancestors are just one group among many others. In an interview with Stern magazine about her book "Es würde einmal deutsch" (It would once be German), Foroutan explained in 2023: "In a society in which one in three families has migrant ties and one in four children has a migrant background, German ancestry as a reference category is becoming increasingly vague... We need a post-migrant narrative that breaks down the binary definition of migrants and natives and describes the shared, diverse whole behind it, parts of which already exist and continue to develop. Quite apart from the fact that by 2036, almost half of the population in Germany will possibly have migrant backgrounds themselves—at least among young people. So, core German society is changing."

Foroutan also weaves the phrase "white fragility" into her speech, the derogatory term for anyone who might not wholeheartedly welcome changes of this kind. In terms of content, this largely coincides with Wagener's analysis. The two books differ essentially in that Wagener does not consider these processes inevitable and does not see any social improvement in their unaltered continuation. For the migration scholar, who, like Wagener, distinguishes between the "core German society" and the others, the transformation of the old Germany into a new state, which she advocates, fulfills a historical determinism.

This means that for the procedural controllers in the Ministry of the Interior, the intelligence service, and the university itself, the content of a scholar's work is not important for the verdict of unconstitutionality – it is solely and exclusively the respective precedent. Those who, like Foroutan, welcome the transformation of society receive invitations to panel discussions and funding for their projects from the Federal Ministry of Research. Those who are skeptical of the same thing are no longer allowed to enter their lecture hall, must fear for their professorship, and, on top of that, are branded a security risk for a recklessly fabricated violation of Article 1 of the Basic Law. As if one had to worry about the safety of the students should Wagener ever be allowed to return to the lecture hall. Because he's not allowed there, since the BND, which includes the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, revoked his security clearance due to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's report on his book. So, he still retains his professorship – but is no longer allowed to enter his lecture hall.

Incidentally, the legal action against the AfD could unfold in a similar way: Possibly, with the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's report in hand, the German government will try to cut off the opposition party from state party funding for the time being.

However, the Federal Constitutional Court will also decide on this.

[Skybird]

The video embedded on thsi site.

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...in-Faeser.html

European and constitutional law expert Prof. Volker Boehme-Neßler assesses the domestic intelligence service's decision and speaks of a political maneuver. He calls the agency's approach of acting not as a co-operative but as a final judge, while wanting to keep its "evidence" secret, scandalous.

This is a truly insidious and malicious stunt that the Red Faeser is pulling two days before she's removed from office and thrown on the trash heap of history. Faeser is responsible for allowing the Domestic Intelligence Service to behave like this; she appointed its chief, knowing full well that he wasn't content with merely working for the government, but rather that he described the agency's mission as actively re-educating the German people. I despise this woman even more than little Annalena the Big Mouth.

BTW, legally the decision by the Verfassungsschutz is irrelevant and does not have any pratcical consequences. It just throws fuel into the fire, and that is the only purpose of this exclusively political manouver. They also want to intimidate some people sympathising with the AfD. It will hardly work.

[Skybird]

An assault on the German democracy from within.

[Catfish]

Just like they did (right) with the NPD back then. Of course a party should not be forbidden just because it has the destruction of the current democracy as the final goal. The NPD was not forbidden then, and the Afd it will not be forbidden now.
Pity, somehow

[Dargo]

Do you really need to get out the box of crayons to draw out that this is precisely to protect a democracy, this is in the constitution as checks and balances!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Just like they did (right) with the NPD back then. Of course a party should not be forbidden just because it has the destruction of the current democracy as the final goal.

Show me where that is in their statutes.



They talk of and use an ethnic and history-based understanding/term of "people" (ethnischer Volksbegriff). And that alone is not hostile to the constitution at all. Its a fact dictated by reality.



On the other hand you have a socialist union of parties led by the SPD and Greens nutheads that turned it into law that if you talk in public of a historically grown identity of the German people, you can be sued and persecuted (no joke), can even be thrown into jail. The socialists want to enforce, by every brutal and oppressive means necessary, that the Germans get erased as a cultural, history-formed, ethnic, sociological entity, an get replaced by a bureaucratic formality: you are German you have a German ID. Or in the words of Merkel: There is no historical German people, the people are those who are inside German borders. In these or quite similar words she once expressed it.



No identity. No history. No culture.


Not even men and women anymore. Just bodies with and without a penis, and a piece of paper with a federal eagle stamp on it. That is "German" today.


Wait. Not even the differentiation between beings with and without penisses is anymore, because gender radicals say that there can be females with penisses and without, like there cna be men with penisses and without. And that we should, only differentiate between menstruating and non-menstruating drones humans.



Thereis not even different nuances in skin pigmentation anymore, it seems. And if you say that in India they have a strong IT sector and that many Indians are good in comptuer sand mathematics, that is racist.



We are all equal, we are all the same, we are all featureless and absolutely identical and the one can be completel replaced with the other since there is no differece at all. That is: JUSTICE!


Cloned drones.


Thats the sort of insane nutheads we are dealing with. Needless to remind of that these are the same idiots who criminalses you if you do not recognize the correct gender title of a human claiming by self-identification he/she/whatever is this or that. A man dressing in women's clothing and you refusing to adress him with "Frau Soundso" and not letting him use the ladies' bathroom and so forth - can bring you into jail for up to two years. German mental asylum, 2025 A.D.



So tell me, who is the bigger danger to the constitutional order here: Weidel and the misbehaving AfD, or Faeser and the braindead SPD?


Its revelaing and a sign of how hopeless it is that when you tlak plain reaosn and point at undeinable reality laid out before you eyes, you get legally persecuted for rejecting to parrot lies and insane delusions of some man-hating, sadistic psychopaths who belong into a psychiatric high-security facility, and certainly not into a parliament.



The intention is crystal clear and George Orwell masterfully exposed it, altjhiugh already Lernin before him described the importance of decosntructing the reality people bas eon so that they are shalen and unfounded and can be reprpogrammed and controlled easier and better. Controlling the language means controlling the th8inlingm but to even control the mere ability itself to think.



https://kickapooclark.weebly.com/upl...eak_orwell.pdf

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the
world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other
modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted
once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought
diverging from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far
as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact
and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly
wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at
them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but
chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of
unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.

[Dargo]

The proof is in the Verfassungsschutz investigation. The Verfassungsschutz has been investigating the AfD for three years. The service concludes that the party has an ethnic popular concept that is inconsistent with the free democratic legal order because it aims at exclusion and unequal treatment of certain population groups. Those groups' human dignity is violated, and that violates Article 1 of the constitution. Specifically, the AfD, for example, does not see German citizens with migration backgrounds from Muslim countries as equal members of the German people ethnically defined by the party

This exclusionary understanding of the people is the starting point and ideological basis for continuous agitation against certain people or groups of people, with which they are defamed and belittled across the board and irrational fears and rejection of them are fuelled. This can be seen in the large number of ongoing anti-foreigner, anti-minority, anti-Islam and anti-Muslim statements made by leading party functionaries. In particular, the ongoing agitation against refugees and migrants encourages the spread and deepening of prejudices, resentment and fears towards this group of people. The devaluation of the aforementioned groups of people is also reflected in the generalised use of terms such as ‘knife-wielding migrants’ or in the general attribution of an ethnocultural tendency towards violence by leading members of the AfD.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dargo

Do you really need to get out the box of crayons to draw out that this is precisely to protect a democracy, this is in the constitution as checks and balances!

Again, a history-based and ethnic understanding of the term "people" is not hostile and dangeorus for the dmcrtaic order or the constituional order of the mGerman state.



Not. At. All.



The commenting by legal experts and consutrutonal experts her ein German thus is utmost condmening - for the Verfasusngsschutz which ahs been turned by Faerser into the private secret police of the potlicla elft in Germany.



The big danger here is not what the AfD is - wrongly accused of. I am far more alarmed by the SPD and Faeser. Its a coup against the constitutional self-understand of the German state.



Its clear what iut is about. Its about gettign rid of a politcal opposition that is the only opposition that is left to left-extrneist authoritarianism and powerpotlical calculations by the SPD and Greens. Because the CDU does not exist anymore, is only an empty echo form times long gone and over.



Heck. so many things that a Helmut Schmidt, a Helmut Kohl, a Konrad Adenauer said that today would bring them to the gallow, metaphrically, owuld destroy therio potlvial ascreers form one day to the next, would se them gegting persecuted, sanctioned, penalised.


Dieses Land ist eine einzige große Irrenanstalt. Totale kollektive Degeneration als oberste Staatsräson. Wie kann man dafür, für diese wilde
Entschlossenheit zur totalen Selbstzerstörung, noch anderes empfinden als bloß grenzenlose Verachtung? Soviel Hirntodheit ekelt mich nur noch an.

[Dargo]

If the AfD is wrongly accused of ... they can go to court and correct that.

Edit:Oops, they have done that and failed. A higher regional court in Germany in 2024 ruled in an appeal brought by AfD. According to the Münster court, the qualification is appropriate and does not violate the constitution or European law.

The court finds that there is sufficient evidence that the AfD pursues goals that are contrary to the human dignity of certain groups and to democracy. There are reasons to suspect that at least part of the party wants to give German citizens with a migration background a second-class status.

A year ago, it came to light that leading AfD members had a consultation with neo-Nazis about deporting millions of people from Germany. In addition to people from migrant backgrounds, people working for refugees should also be deported from the country. The proposal was reminiscent of the Nazis' Madagascar plan. During the interwar period, anti-Semites in several Western European countries proposed deporting Jews to Madagascar. But dream on they are the saviours. If it looks like a duck, shytes like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[Catfish]

Central argument is the definition of "ethnic", right. We saw before where this leads to, some eighty years ago. And what Putin thinks about it now

[Dargo]

Correct and Russian Übermensch thinking is standard in that country for centuries.

[Skybird]

You both must fall back to rethoricla disctraiton, becasue you hav eno case nor argument.



A “deutsche Volkszugehörigkeit" in the implicit sense of an ethnic definition based on historical descent in an ethnic-historical sense is also mentioned in Article 116 of the Basic Law, where it refers to the returning refugees and displaced persons of German descent ("Flüchtling oder Vertriebener deutscher Volkszugehörigkeit") after the Second World War, which can only be explained in ethnic-historical terms, since at that time uncontrolled and non-discriminatory mass immigration to Germany had not taken place at all.

And then there were Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, who spoke the obvious, but today would get crucified for their words :


https://youtube.com/shorts/uco0TTXqPtQ?feature=shared

https://youtube.com/shorts/nYCp8MWveGQ?feature=shared


And finally, I would like to point out that the reasons put forward by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution are contrived and in some cases demonstrably false, and at the same time the authority claims that it does not have to disclose its alleged further “evidence”. Both are massively criticized by lawyers and constitutional specialists and described as untenable, lawsuits are being prepared, and if things go according to plan, which is no longer a matter of course in these times, these lawsuits will be successful. Once again. It is not the first time that pro-government circles and the media have asserted lies as facts in order to achieve mass appeal, knowing full well that the legal correction that follows will do little to contain the agitationally engineered damage.

What follows now will be less of a party ban and more of an attack on party funding, because this will require evidence of the defendant's deeds that prove beyond doubt his hostile attitude towards the constitution and the basic constitutional order. This will be very difficult, as the AfD adheres very strictly to the provisions of the Basic Law - in contrast to the other parties, which ignore precisely those provisions that, for example, affect the rights and duties of the state towards the people, disregard them, hand them over to foreign international authorities and thus transform the democratic processes, the checks and balances, into ceremonial, hollowed-out alibi performances without any substantive relevance and circumvent the will of the three-dimensional majority of the population. The parties commit one micro-coup d'etat after the other, and then justify it with arbitrarily imposed moral concepts, which are then presented as being overruling to the law and the constitution. This is also called arbitrary justice.

All this ^ and much more like it is the reason why more and more people are turning to the AfD, at least start to sympathize with them. The united political left leaves them no other choice - except resignation. The political left as a principle is now considered to have no alternative in Germany. This was the self-justification principle of the GDR dictatorship against its own citizens. "Never again Nazis!", some shout. Where are those who shout “Never again GDR!” ? “Never again socialism!" ? The GDR 2.0 is doing better and better than ever, it's in good health and extremely proper. Its a shame.






So again, to conclude: the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has provided NO EVIDENCE for anything, and refuses to do so. Its president is a Faeser puppet, who had already made a name for herself by overstepping her authority and abusing her office and was criticized after Faeser discredited her conservative predecessor and forced her out of office. This authority is now a danger to democracy from within, and something like a party's own political secret police with a messianic sense of mission and a self-declared mandate to educate the masses. Its current activities make a mockery of the task for which it was once founded, namely to protect the validity of the constitution, just as the Federal Constitutional Court was supposed to protect the citizens from an overreaching government. Both actors have changed sides. Those mainly responsible for this current conspiratorial coup d'etat: the SPD, supported by the Greens, and Nancy Faeser.

It would be so easy to belittle the AfD, which are in fact rude, boorish loudmouths and for the most part not very good at their jobs. Simply govern and make decisions in a better and more responsible way, and stop playing politics against the people and against the majority of the population. But that would be against the socialist authoritative agenda and the EU centralist planned economy and the preparation of the great reset.


Liberty dies by inches.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dargo

If the AfD is wrongly accused of ... they can go to court and correct that.

Edit:Oops, they have done that and failed. A higher regional court in Germany in 2024 ruled in an appeal brought by AfD. According to the Münster court, the qualification is appropriate and does not violate the constitution or European law.

A year ago, it came to light that leading AfD members had a consultation with neo-Nazis about deporting millions of people from Germany. In addition to people from migrant backgrounds, people working for refugees should also be deported from the country. The proposal was reminiscent of the Nazis' Madagascar plan. During the interwar period, anti-Semites in several Western European countries proposed deporting Jews to Madagascar. But dream on they are the saviours. If it looks like a duck, shytes like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

What you hide is that it is now - in fact altready since longer time - proven that the story was a lie, a plot. All court sentences on the matter where against the authors of these fraudulent claims. The media network behind this "story" is known for being corrupt and fraudulent and manipulative. They have a long record of trials at court held against them that they have mostly lost. The lawyer Steinhöfel in the one video I linked has defeated them many times. They are part of a bigger left-woke green-red network of - state-financed! - NGOs that have covered the country like a big spider's web that suffocates everything and everyone beneath.



The claims made in the story you refer to - were found to be not true. I said that repeatedly already.

Thats why agitation and yelling louder and as the first one, works: once out of the mouth, lies cannot be caught and locked up again. Ask Donny, he knows.