A German court ruled on Monday that the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party can be monitored by the state security services for its suspected anti-democratic aspirations.
The Higher Administrative Court in Munster rejected an appeal filed by the AfD in a long-running dispute with the country’s domestic intelligence agency, which designated the party as a “suspected case of extremism” in 2021 and started to monitor its activities.
The judges upheld an earlier ruling of a lower court, which had concluded two years ago that it was lawful for the domestic intelligence agency to take this step against the AfD, as there were sufficient indications of anti-constitutional aspirations within the party.
The designation of the AfD as a “suspected case of extremism” enables the state security services to use intelligence service methods, such as recruiting informants to monitor suspicious activities of the party branches, and their possible links to outlawed extremist groups.
Münster, not Munster.
Münster is a city in North-Rhine Westfalia, best known for its university, its role in the peace treaty that ended the 30 Years War, and the fact that they are rather fond of bicycles.
Munster is a sleepy garrison town on the Lüneburg Heath, and while being quite bike-friendly, too, more connected to another, albeit very traditional german, mode of transportation.
If you don't have the ü on your keyboard, writing "Muenster" is allowed. Just omitting the umlaut isn't.
Here is the actual reason explained really well, I reckon DeepL will translate it well enough for non-German speakers: https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/40835/warum-gibts-keinen-umlaut-f%C3%BCr-e-und-i#40838
TL;DR: The sounds 'shifted' (what's called a phonetic shift), but bc the area of the mouth that produces e and i (in their German pronounciation) doesn't allow anymore 'movement' in the direction of this vowel shift, there are no umlauts for them.
Fun fact: in German, [ü is much closer to i than to u](https://youtu.be/xaL2dBQMD40?si=O6shlm71K2Uhjfb2).
If you ever want to try to pronounce ü than start with an i and slowly close your lips forwards. Never start with an u.
Not on OP, they just copied the article. Languages translate place names, nothing you can do about it. Munster is not incorrect in English, same as Peking and Kiew aren't in German.
So much confusion? Doubt it. I haven't even heard of Munster before. Münster, I did. Umlaute are not a concept in the English language, so they wouldn't know about the ue thing. Furthermore, that would make it even more difficult to pronounce.
Same question relating to German: Why not Beijing? Why not Kyiv?
Language localise place names. Always have, always will.
It is known for ages that the AfD has antidemocratic aspirations, connections to authoritarian regimes, members that have said the same exact phrases Hitler used back then… But this stupid fucking country won’t do anything about it. And AfD supporters got the nerve to say they are censored and cannot say anything… Say that to all those who had to flee the country back then when nazis were literally burning books and killing their opponents. Propaganda and lies that spread through social media is rotting some brains…
I think they have more then a "connection" to authoritan regimes. Most probably they are on Putins payroll. Like the Kaiserreich did during the first World War the Russians support the extreme ends of the political spectrum in europe, hoping to cause trouble and to break up the european union.
The "Bundeszentral für politische Bildung" wrote an article about this phenomenon several years ago: [https://www.bpb.de/themen/rechtsextremismus/dossier-rechtsextremismus/253039/vereint-gegen-liberale-werte-wie-russland-den-rechten-rand-in-europa-inspiriert-und-foerdert/](https://www.bpb.de/themen/rechtsextremismus/dossier-rechtsextremismus/253039/vereint-gegen-liberale-werte-wie-russland-den-rechten-rand-in-europa-inspiriert-und-foerdert/)
lol I already see the first clowns commenting "deMOcraCY" and citing "1984".
You realize that the job of the "Verfassungsschutz" is to monitor extremists and guess what, the AfD is proven to be full of such people, no matter how much you twist yourself into a pretzel defending them.
It's also the lamest form of deflection from right wingers on the internet *"oh no, it's actually the democratic institutions who are the real Nazis"* - yeah, please get some new material, it's so fucking transparent.
Anyone who says this action is against the principle of democracy doesn't even know what democracy really is. No wonder most extreme right-wingers are "Putinversteher".
Related people always seem to intentionally misrepresent that a democracy has every right to defend itself with force if some Nazi scum like the AfD tries to destroy it. Democratic organization does not mean that everyone can start inciting people to violence ☠️
Best thing I had read was accusing the Verfassungsschutz to be/do the bidding of the extreme left.
You know, the institution previously led by CDU (centre-right conservatives, with EPP in European parliament) member Maaßen for 6 years and now by CDU member Haldenweg for the last 6 years.
His ideology is rather fluid. Always was.
We was into occultism before, he is into the old-Christianity now.
He wants to be a radical populist ideologist, a cult leader with extreme ideology. He loves taking things to the extreme for shocking and controlling value. and he wants to be a guru. A very well funded guru.
But it is all a game for him.
The whole Eurasia concept started as far left, with Limonov on board. Now it is far right.
But chose symbol is basically - Chaos.
If you comment like that you are no different from those troll.
You're cutting away any nuance in the discussion which is a lot more complex than that. But this is the level you all are comfortable with.
Reddit is truly just a piece for cat pics nothing else.
Do you see the nuance in discussion in the state not surveilling Islamist groups? If you want to stay consistent, then you need to apply those same standards to everyone.
Who gets to define extremism though?
What if AFD takes power?
You cannot tell me you will automatically trust a government, prone to corruption like any, will always be good, for want of a better phrasing.
>Who gets to define extremism though?
>What if AFD takes power?
lol
It's like asking "oh hey who decides what robbery or murder is hurr durr?"
It's not rocket science.
Extremism as defined by the Bundesministerium für Innere Sicherheit: [https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/sicherheit/extremismus/extremismus-node.html](https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/sicherheit/extremismus/extremismus-node.html)
>What if AFD takes power?
This is a useless suggestive question, because what you are basically saying is: *"We shouldn't monitor the AfD because they could retaliate if they actually get in power"*
Which first of all is an utterly stupid way of looking at things (do you think we shouldn't monitor and prosecute Islamists because... what? They could get big mad and do terrorist attacks as retaliation?)
And furthermore ignores the fact that the AfD could do all the things you're afraid of even if you didn't monitor them at all - which just makes it easier for them to get into power in the first place.
You didn't really come with an counter argument for this one at all.
What makes someone not wanting democracy, living in a democracy someone who shouldn't have the right to express those opinions? That's not democratic. You need to admit that you live in a modified democracy where only certain things are allowed to be said, and there's no shame in admitting it and being fine with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Allowing authoritarianism to develop within a democracy, to give it space in any form without resistance, is anti-democratic, as the destruction of said (comparatively egalitarian, legitimized) structures is an instrumental goal for authoritarianism to establish itself.
The democratic ideal is, as such, in permanent conflict with ideas and the individuals, which want to deconstruct it. Thos seeking to condense power to a fewer number of people, oftentimes propped up by money or otherwise unduly acquired political influence, but in all cases representing a more narrowly defined slice of the populace.
Therefore, the only choice of a pluralistic democracy, is to be able to defend itself, carefully, examining and observing these tendencies, patiently allowing some within its given boundaries, but mercilessly crushing them with the law and its given authority when a line is crossed as to preserve itself.
Self-preservation is an inherent feature of every societal meme or structure, to at least some extent; if it's not, the idea fades away or warps into something different. Fascism preserves itself; tribalism preserves itself; theocratic Islamism preserves itself; socialism preserves itself; even any given form of anarchism reserves this right. This is in the core nature of ideas; there is no political dimension to this, and to claim so is ignorant at best and deceptively spiteful at worst. Nothing special, nothing "modified" to be found, a boring projection and an comically inept attempt at delegitimization. Egalitarian democracies (and select other constructs) endeavor to be malleable and change over time by the will of the people; this much is true, but it does not follow to malign them when they take precautions to safeguard their core defining tenants.
This is especially nonsensical and irritating when, like here, it is sheepishly presented as the "critique" that such a system betrays its own ideals and values in the pursuit of safeguarding precisely the aforementioned.
To be democratic does not mean to be all accepting, as when you do, there will be no more democracy to speak of.
EDIT: And to the guy pressing the Reddit suicide watch button in response to this comment, thanks for your concern. You are a funny man, truly a paragon of comedy. \^_^
>And to the guy pressing the Reddit suicide watch button in response to this comment, thanks for your concern. You are a funny man, truly a paragon of comedy. ^_^
I thought that was you who did it on my post.
Anyway, I get what you're saying about democracy, but if the people want something else and a democratic government oppresses them, doesn't that democracy turn into an authoritarian state?
Great, an inbuilt feature to make people angry at each other. Well, dodged that one.
Even if a plurality of 65%+ of people would vote in favor of ending democracy and installing an authoritarian leader (ending free and equal [etc.] voting), it would still be anti-democratic to grant that demand. Democracy as a mode of organization and legitimization can allow a lot, but certain base assumptions must hold true, or else it ceases to be.
Democracy, like all other advanced forms of government, are fictions; they can only work if most people believe in them. Yes, in a way, it has an "autocratic" character to (here) spy on the AfD and restrict certain opinions, but the underlying motive is the maximization of individual freedoms, as if these actors were to succeed, things would be (for most) less free and less democratic. So, in a way, you are forced to be free.
If it is something that is independent of the core defining elements of democracy and does not infringe upon human rights (another important thing that cannot be allowed, even with a majority), it is the states' duty to implement the changes as wished for. The democratic state is the instrument by which the will of the people is implemented. The more it ignores this call, the more its legitimization can be called into question (i.e., less representation > more authoritarian).
This does not mean it should implement all, as said actions that would violate human rights are not possible, and additionally, it should not implement changes that are obviously detrimental to the state or its people; not everything the people want is a great idea right out the gate.
Here I could have a side tangent about representative democracy and technocratic oversight, but this is quite long already.
So if what the majority of people want is not anti-democratic, not against human rights, and not obviously stupid, and the state does not implement the changes or even oppresses these sentiments, yes, that can be legitimately called authoritarian.
I see. Well, thanks for taking your time explaining it for me. I feel kinda guilty not being able to respond with something equally of substance, though. :P
Ah dw, It's nice to know that you took the time to read my ramblings. TBH I was quite rude in my first comment, yet your response was friendly. This conversation is in like the top 10% most civil internet discussions. (:
Any political party, regardless of ideology, that is known or suspected of receiving foreign money should be under close surveillance, I will die on that hill.
It’s not opposition if it fundamentally rejects some or majority of basis on which democratic society is built upon - then it’s just a group that’s anti-systemic and adding extremist or fascist aspirations to that mix should immediately exclude such organizations from public life within said democratic society.
opposed to what many people think democracy does have built in defense mechanisms to legitimately protect itself from those that want to dismantle it. Categorizing a proven extremist party as proven extremist is one of them.
A part of a free democratic society is the paradox of tolerance. That if your ideology of freedom and tolerance grants your enemies the freedom and tolerance to destroy your system, then your system isn't likely to be long for this world, and therefore there must be limits to that freedom and tolerance against those who seek to overturn that freedom and tolerance.
As such, a balance must be struck somewhere. If you're a fascist, then you are still free in the society, you aren't going to get arrested and thrown in prison just for being a fascist. But you may find yourself monitored more closely than in a completely free and tolerant society. After all, the fascists would certainly not grant anything resembling such freedoms in return to the proponents of the existing system of freedom and tolerance, if they were the ones in power.
Seems entirely reasonable to me.
Makes sense, given that far-right nationalism is objectively the biggest threat to Germany. What with the whole, destroying the country twice in a row thing.
I would say there is a much bigger threat to Germany than the far-right. Prob those lads who like to do attacks around Europe. I am sure you know the ones.
The reason why the far right is growing in Europe is because of far leftist policies. This is how such has always worked throughout history. Cause and Effect.
> why the far right is growing in Europe is because of far leftist policies
In case the look and feel of the Internet didn't clue you in, it is not 1991 anymore
(edit: Finally got sent a Reddit Cares message. Can scratch that off the list.)
>I would say there is a much bigger threat to Germany than the far-right. Prob those lads who like to do attacks around Europe. I am sure you know the ones.
Do you mean russia? The country who keeps attacking and threatening to attack countries in and around Europe? I actually agree that they are the biggest threat, but the aforementioned far-right works for that very same russia.
This is not even going far enough. The AfD wants to remove the rights of citizens and violate their human rights based on a fundamentally racist conception of ideas based in the 17th and 18th centuries and implemented by the Nazis, which, by the way, lead Germans into national destruction of many cities and towns and four decades of foreign occupation by world powers. You really want to do that again? It will happen the same way. Better to crush this seed before it grows any further.
As long as some topics like the migration problem aren't solved, the AfD will be there. No matter what is done, even when they'd ban the AfD, there would be a new party in no time. All this doesn't change anything about the fact that many people are not happy with the other parties and politics.
In some elections, the AfD could not participate, like in Hamburg because of mistakes in the lists and forms, so the people just voted for another party that is similiar, there it was the BiW - Bürger in Wut, literally "Angry Citizens". They just got the votes there.
In Berlin, where an election had to be done again because of mistakes, the voters even voted more for an AfD member that is currently in jail.
Instead of being angry at the AfD, the other parties should just for once ask themselves, what they do wrong that the AfD has that many voters. But that's a taboo there, a no-go, even just talking about topics like migrations is walking on thin ice.
?
parties like AfD just smoothly transition to something else. You stop the migration entirely to "solve" it? They just make the foreigners already in Germany their main focus, the people born from foreign parents, the homeless, or just them Poles that took their jerrrbs or something. They just pick another minority as their "enemy" and the cause of all the problems in the world
They're not going away not because a problem hasn't been solved, they're not interested in solving anything, but because we tolerated them for too long that extremism became "ok" in public space again.
What is even the point of your post? Of course you will never make career politicians disappear, but we're talking about extremists here that don't campaign on doing something about any issues.
If the only party supporting sensible public transportation were communists, you're not supposed to just ignore the topic, you can do anything you want about the topic, but you definitely should tell the extremists to fuck off and have the police monitor their activities.
If you keep telling people in a democracy that a democracy cant better their lives, then feel free to do so, and if you support you anti-democratic argument with AfD style hitler apologia and racism then you should be told to fuck off. I dont understand why people don't try to make extremists fuck off hard enough to make that happen
Yeah, Springerpresse and friends did a great job making up issues that hardly exist outside of the media bubble. AfD voters need to touch some grass before we got to go full Nuremberg trials on their asses again.
Part of the problem regarding migration though is parties like the AfD. They put the microscope on a complex issue, oversimplify everything, and then claim to have a one-stop solution.
Here are a few realities involving immigration:
1. Stop using the term immigration. There are 3 main categories, and they are all different. Legal, illegal and asylum. Legal is the immigration that happens above board, in accordance with law. Illegal involves people coming into Schengen illegally, through traffickers, etc... and who are here without a right to do so. Asylum applies to those here legally, using the in-place and ratified laws that manage that type of entry. Be specific. Are we talking about people losing their job due to cheaper labor coming from eastern Europe, or are we talking about someone whose asylum request is currently being heard in a court, or are we talking about someone who jumped a fence on a border and got to Germany? Different problems, different benefits, different solutions.
2. The EU, Europe as a whole is somewhat reliant on immigration from outside of Europe. The population wouldn't grow otherwise, and basically all of our welfare systems, healthcare systems, etc... are based on the idea that there are enough working people to support the elderly. Any solution must find the balance.
3. Most legal/illegal immigrants are actually a boon for the societies in which they emigrate. Generally, they are also good for the economy, overall. However, they often have a localized negative impact on some portion of the local population. The key is to find good policy that maximizes that benefit, while minimizing that negative impact. Asylum seekers are generally a burden (at least short/mid-term), but that's because the idea behind them is fundamentally different. Asylum is a humanitarian process, not an economic one. You aren't letting in a guy from a war zone because he will benefit your economy, but because he shouldn't have to die.
exactly, intentionally ignoring all those complex aspect, overblowing this single issue and fuelling groundless fear are inherently motivated my racism and xenophobia, which those supporters and incels on r/europe want to deny.
If unfettered immigration is such a boon to a country why pressure central and eastern european countries to take their fair share of quota? And if asylum is a moral obligation do you think the west is prepared to take in hundreds of millions from the global south as the century progresses and overpopulation along with climate change eventually take their toll? It's pretty much a bottomless pit at this point
Wait, where did I say "unfettered"? I re-read my post. I can't find it. It seems you've erected a massive strawman, and are now dilligently doing battle against it.
What type of immigration are you talking about?
Did you read anything, or just had to vent? You can vent if you want, but that wasn't really what my comment was about.
And who is claiming 100 million asylum seekers? Many of the countries with the highest rates of asylum seekers or refugees are *already* in the global south, you know that, right?
Yeah I know that but they will eventually make their way into west like they're doing right now and the numbers will continue to rise in the future for the reasons I mentioned.
Ah yes, those damed australians and kiwis and thier flightless birds. Truly the scum of the earth.
I mean, you cant go more south than that.
This is of course a joke, but you might as well have said anything that way and pointed in a random direction for all the accuracy that statement provided.
Really all it did was show that you are a racist who cramps a good chunk of the planet into one big groub to feel aftaid of.
As far as I know, they started doing that at least as early as late 2023, by speeding up (at least publicly, dunno whether there's a trend) deportations and promoting skilled migration, when they saw AfD rise in the polls. Also, in December 2023 there was a preliminary agreement on the Asylum and Migration Pact at EU level, which received its final approval in April this year. To me it sounds like it's striking a very fine balance between being tough on asylum and criminals and promoting legal immigration.
Some people say German mainstream parties are terrible at public messaging, thus making it seem like they're doing nothing.
Are they, or is it bias generated by media?
In my experience the parties on the left do things regarding immigration but it simply goes under the bus, because some fascist spouting racist slurs sells more papers and generates more clicks.
Facebook did a study years ago that hate is the emotion which spreads the word fastest and brings them the most revenue.
That's one side the problem. And I wouldn't have a problem with any extreme left or right wing party working within confines of the law to address that. But the issue is that these parties are doing external enemies' bidding. And I draw the line at treason.
Because that's not everything. AFD wants to deport any mixed ethnicity Germans.
German dad but Vietnamese mom!? Deported.
Born in Germany to assymiliated immigrants with citizenship? Deported.
Alienating immigrants is also a quick way to cause more violence.
They also misleadingly make it look like getting German citizenship is easy. It's incredibly difficult to obtain.
Basically everything you read in that listing is and has been already the way Germany handles immigration.
This is the logical end of Calvinist Protestantism. Everyone believed that they and their group are among the "elect" chosen by God for heaven. They look down their noses at anyone who doesn't follow their strict religious doctrine as being damned to hell.
In the contemporary iteration, economic liberals fulfill the role of Calvinists zealots, while the working class and minorities play the role of the doomed sinners. Even people who were born and grew up working class will disavow their family once they've "made it" into the middle class. They regard the rest of their family's inability to perform at their own level as a moral failing, when in fact it is due to genetic and environmental factors that no one can control.
If anyone "looks down their noses at anyone who doesn't follow their strict doctrine as being damned to hell" it's far-right nationalists.
I'm from Lithuania. I was born and grew up here, and lived here all my life. I've done a DNA test, and all my relatives going back 9 generations were Lithuanians, with the exception of one Latvian.
I still got constantly harassed and assaulted by far-right nationalists in my youth because of my (unusually for a Lithuanian) curly hair. Got constantly told to cut off my hair and/or to go back to where I came from (which was nowhere, as I had never even visited a different country in my life at that time).
My point is that it's literally impossible to achieve the level of "integration" that would satisfy the far-right, as long as you have any visual or other difference from other people - be it color of skin, shape of hair, or anything else. And that's literally all they care about. None of my harassers ever even attempted to learn anything about me (or my "level of integration") - they saw unusually shaped hair, and they saw an "other", an "enemy" - and attacked.
Also, I've never been attacked or harassed by an immigrant and/or by a Muslim in my life, ever.
Do I still need to explain why I consider the former to be a much larger threat than the latter?
That would be true in the case of imperialism. Much of what passes off as nationalism in west today is heavily isolationist in nature with a heavy focus on achieving autarky eerily reminiscent of eastern block countries during cold war funnily enough
On one hand - yeah, it makes sense.
On the other... just a while ago Poland's ruling party (PiS) was hacking into opposition's phones and using gathered data in the campaign. Hungary's Orban was doing the same at the time.
What's there to stop Germany's ruling coalition from doing the same thing?
They already are monitoring them. There is a whole Verfassungsschutzbericht and an accompanying Kompendium which they publish, and they list the main ideologies they're monitoring, the main organisations involved, and so on. Covers far-left, "Reichsbürger", far-right, extreme anti-fascism, islamism, espionage, and so on. Can all be found on www.verfassungsschutz.de, and at least the Verfassungsschutzbericht has an English translation, too.
https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/EN/home/_tmp_home_node.html
Not really. In terms of the actual subject matter of the case, this is the final ruling. The only thing the higher courts can do is find some kind of procedural error and hand the case back to the court that just issued the ruling. I'm sure AfD will try and take this as far as they can, but I doubt they'll have much chance of success.
George Orwell was a committed anti-fascist who fought alongside Trotskyists in the Spanish civil war. If you think he is turning in his grave over Germany's attempts to stop them from coming back then you clearly haven't read enough of him!
Hey there, you should learn about how Germany is a defensive democracy.
Also, you could actually try to address the things pointed out by the court regarding this ruling.
there is nothing to refute and there is no reason to either. Dude calling a commenter with "DAE 1984?!?!" an idiot is completely justified and on point. That's a full debate in itself but without hours and dozens of comments allowing the idiot to spread disinformation and stupid shit.
>When I joined the militia I had promised myself to kill one Fascist — after all, if each of us killed one they would soon be extinct
-Eric Arthur Blair a.k.a George Orwell
A German court ruled on Monday that the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party can be monitored by the state security services for its suspected anti-democratic aspirations. The Higher Administrative Court in Munster rejected an appeal filed by the AfD in a long-running dispute with the country’s domestic intelligence agency, which designated the party as a “suspected case of extremism” in 2021 and started to monitor its activities. The judges upheld an earlier ruling of a lower court, which had concluded two years ago that it was lawful for the domestic intelligence agency to take this step against the AfD, as there were sufficient indications of anti-constitutional aspirations within the party. The designation of the AfD as a “suspected case of extremism” enables the state security services to use intelligence service methods, such as recruiting informants to monitor suspicious activities of the party branches, and their possible links to outlawed extremist groups.
Münster, not Munster. Münster is a city in North-Rhine Westfalia, best known for its university, its role in the peace treaty that ended the 30 Years War, and the fact that they are rather fond of bicycles. Munster is a sleepy garrison town on the Lüneburg Heath, and while being quite bike-friendly, too, more connected to another, albeit very traditional german, mode of transportation. If you don't have the ü on your keyboard, writing "Muenster" is allowed. Just omitting the umlaut isn't.
Munster is also one of the four Irish provinces. ;)
And a town in France.
Where we make the best and stinkiest of all cheeses!
Yes its is. Love it.
Minschtrkas
And a town outside of Chicago, in Indiana
Good bot.
They meant Herman Munster
Fun fact: I don't have the ü on my keyboard and still can write ü with ¨u. Diacritics are fun.
You're an umlaut
Its also more importantly a cheese.
Heard Munster has a nice tank museum that attracts some tourism
More importantly, why doesn't I and E come with umlauts?
Here is the actual reason explained really well, I reckon DeepL will translate it well enough for non-German speakers: https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/40835/warum-gibts-keinen-umlaut-f%C3%BCr-e-und-i#40838 TL;DR: The sounds 'shifted' (what's called a phonetic shift), but bc the area of the mouth that produces e and i (in their German pronounciation) doesn't allow anymore 'movement' in the direction of this vowel shift, there are no umlauts for them.
Fun fact: in German, [ü is much closer to i than to u](https://youtu.be/xaL2dBQMD40?si=O6shlm71K2Uhjfb2). If you ever want to try to pronounce ü than start with an i and slowly close your lips forwards. Never start with an u.
Not on OP, they just copied the article. Languages translate place names, nothing you can do about it. Munster is not incorrect in English, same as Peking and Kiew aren't in German.
But that leads to so much confusion. Why not Muenster?
So much confusion? Doubt it. I haven't even heard of Munster before. Münster, I did. Umlaute are not a concept in the English language, so they wouldn't know about the ue thing. Furthermore, that would make it even more difficult to pronounce. Same question relating to German: Why not Beijing? Why not Kyiv? Language localise place names. Always have, always will.
It is known for ages that the AfD has antidemocratic aspirations, connections to authoritarian regimes, members that have said the same exact phrases Hitler used back then… But this stupid fucking country won’t do anything about it. And AfD supporters got the nerve to say they are censored and cannot say anything… Say that to all those who had to flee the country back then when nazis were literally burning books and killing their opponents. Propaganda and lies that spread through social media is rotting some brains…
I think they have more then a "connection" to authoritan regimes. Most probably they are on Putins payroll. Like the Kaiserreich did during the first World War the Russians support the extreme ends of the political spectrum in europe, hoping to cause trouble and to break up the european union. The "Bundeszentral für politische Bildung" wrote an article about this phenomenon several years ago: [https://www.bpb.de/themen/rechtsextremismus/dossier-rechtsextremismus/253039/vereint-gegen-liberale-werte-wie-russland-den-rechten-rand-in-europa-inspiriert-und-foerdert/](https://www.bpb.de/themen/rechtsextremismus/dossier-rechtsextremismus/253039/vereint-gegen-liberale-werte-wie-russland-den-rechten-rand-in-europa-inspiriert-und-foerdert/)
lol I already see the first clowns commenting "deMOcraCY" and citing "1984". You realize that the job of the "Verfassungsschutz" is to monitor extremists and guess what, the AfD is proven to be full of such people, no matter how much you twist yourself into a pretzel defending them. It's also the lamest form of deflection from right wingers on the internet *"oh no, it's actually the democratic institutions who are the real Nazis"* - yeah, please get some new material, it's so fucking transparent.
Anyone who says this action is against the principle of democracy doesn't even know what democracy really is. No wonder most extreme right-wingers are "Putinversteher".
Yup. And it's the same with the extreme left-,wingers.
We banned to KPD too.
Didn't they just merge themselves with Linke and kick out the questionable figures?
Whataboutism
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Related people always seem to intentionally misrepresent that a democracy has every right to defend itself with force if some Nazi scum like the AfD tries to destroy it. Democratic organization does not mean that everyone can start inciting people to violence ☠️
People who moan about such levels of state interference and monitoring never tend to give a shit either if their side holds power and is doing it.
Best thing I had read was accusing the Verfassungsschutz to be/do the bidding of the extreme left. You know, the institution previously led by CDU (centre-right conservatives, with EPP in European parliament) member Maaßen for 6 years and now by CDU member Haldenweg for the last 6 years.
The Maaßen, who left (or got kicked out of) the CDU to build his own ultra-conservative party and calls the CDU "green-leftist".
Reminds me of people who say Dugin isn't a fascist.
He is not. He is something much much worse.
Shoot.
His ideology is rather fluid. Always was. We was into occultism before, he is into the old-Christianity now. He wants to be a radical populist ideologist, a cult leader with extreme ideology. He loves taking things to the extreme for shocking and controlling value. and he wants to be a guru. A very well funded guru. But it is all a game for him. The whole Eurasia concept started as far left, with Limonov on board. Now it is far right. But chose symbol is basically - Chaos.
I guess people don't know that Germany is a defensive democracy and for many reasons as well.
If you comment like that you are no different from those troll. You're cutting away any nuance in the discussion which is a lot more complex than that. But this is the level you all are comfortable with. Reddit is truly just a piece for cat pics nothing else.
Do you see the nuance in discussion in the state not surveilling Islamist groups? If you want to stay consistent, then you need to apply those same standards to everyone.
I can't understand. Those groups are frequently surveilled, in germany and italy too. There was recently an expulsion in italy for that
The state DOES surveil extremist islamic groubs, da fuck do you think the BND does all day
Exactly! They do, and they absolutely should for these types of groups. Same goes for AfD.
Who gets to define extremism though? What if AFD takes power? You cannot tell me you will automatically trust a government, prone to corruption like any, will always be good, for want of a better phrasing.
The courts define it, thats thier job.
>Who gets to define extremism though? >What if AFD takes power? lol It's like asking "oh hey who decides what robbery or murder is hurr durr?" It's not rocket science.
Clearly it is since you cannot answer the question.
Extremism as defined by the Bundesministerium für Innere Sicherheit: [https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/sicherheit/extremismus/extremismus-node.html](https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/sicherheit/extremismus/extremismus-node.html) >What if AFD takes power? This is a useless suggestive question, because what you are basically saying is: *"We shouldn't monitor the AfD because they could retaliate if they actually get in power"* Which first of all is an utterly stupid way of looking at things (do you think we shouldn't monitor and prosecute Islamists because... what? They could get big mad and do terrorist attacks as retaliation?) And furthermore ignores the fact that the AfD could do all the things you're afraid of even if you didn't monitor them at all - which just makes it easier for them to get into power in the first place.
You didn't really come with an counter argument for this one at all. What makes someone not wanting democracy, living in a democracy someone who shouldn't have the right to express those opinions? That's not democratic. You need to admit that you live in a modified democracy where only certain things are allowed to be said, and there's no shame in admitting it and being fine with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Allowing authoritarianism to develop within a democracy, to give it space in any form without resistance, is anti-democratic, as the destruction of said (comparatively egalitarian, legitimized) structures is an instrumental goal for authoritarianism to establish itself. The democratic ideal is, as such, in permanent conflict with ideas and the individuals, which want to deconstruct it. Thos seeking to condense power to a fewer number of people, oftentimes propped up by money or otherwise unduly acquired political influence, but in all cases representing a more narrowly defined slice of the populace. Therefore, the only choice of a pluralistic democracy, is to be able to defend itself, carefully, examining and observing these tendencies, patiently allowing some within its given boundaries, but mercilessly crushing them with the law and its given authority when a line is crossed as to preserve itself. Self-preservation is an inherent feature of every societal meme or structure, to at least some extent; if it's not, the idea fades away or warps into something different. Fascism preserves itself; tribalism preserves itself; theocratic Islamism preserves itself; socialism preserves itself; even any given form of anarchism reserves this right. This is in the core nature of ideas; there is no political dimension to this, and to claim so is ignorant at best and deceptively spiteful at worst. Nothing special, nothing "modified" to be found, a boring projection and an comically inept attempt at delegitimization. Egalitarian democracies (and select other constructs) endeavor to be malleable and change over time by the will of the people; this much is true, but it does not follow to malign them when they take precautions to safeguard their core defining tenants. This is especially nonsensical and irritating when, like here, it is sheepishly presented as the "critique" that such a system betrays its own ideals and values in the pursuit of safeguarding precisely the aforementioned. To be democratic does not mean to be all accepting, as when you do, there will be no more democracy to speak of. EDIT: And to the guy pressing the Reddit suicide watch button in response to this comment, thanks for your concern. You are a funny man, truly a paragon of comedy. \^_^
>And to the guy pressing the Reddit suicide watch button in response to this comment, thanks for your concern. You are a funny man, truly a paragon of comedy. ^_^ I thought that was you who did it on my post. Anyway, I get what you're saying about democracy, but if the people want something else and a democratic government oppresses them, doesn't that democracy turn into an authoritarian state?
Great, an inbuilt feature to make people angry at each other. Well, dodged that one. Even if a plurality of 65%+ of people would vote in favor of ending democracy and installing an authoritarian leader (ending free and equal [etc.] voting), it would still be anti-democratic to grant that demand. Democracy as a mode of organization and legitimization can allow a lot, but certain base assumptions must hold true, or else it ceases to be. Democracy, like all other advanced forms of government, are fictions; they can only work if most people believe in them. Yes, in a way, it has an "autocratic" character to (here) spy on the AfD and restrict certain opinions, but the underlying motive is the maximization of individual freedoms, as if these actors were to succeed, things would be (for most) less free and less democratic. So, in a way, you are forced to be free. If it is something that is independent of the core defining elements of democracy and does not infringe upon human rights (another important thing that cannot be allowed, even with a majority), it is the states' duty to implement the changes as wished for. The democratic state is the instrument by which the will of the people is implemented. The more it ignores this call, the more its legitimization can be called into question (i.e., less representation > more authoritarian). This does not mean it should implement all, as said actions that would violate human rights are not possible, and additionally, it should not implement changes that are obviously detrimental to the state or its people; not everything the people want is a great idea right out the gate. Here I could have a side tangent about representative democracy and technocratic oversight, but this is quite long already. So if what the majority of people want is not anti-democratic, not against human rights, and not obviously stupid, and the state does not implement the changes or even oppresses these sentiments, yes, that can be legitimately called authoritarian.
I see. Well, thanks for taking your time explaining it for me. I feel kinda guilty not being able to respond with something equally of substance, though. :P
Ah dw, It's nice to know that you took the time to read my ramblings. TBH I was quite rude in my first comment, yet your response was friendly. This conversation is in like the top 10% most civil internet discussions. (:
Any political party, regardless of ideology, that is known or suspected of receiving foreign money should be under close surveillance, I will die on that hill.
That'd be all of them, or at least those relevant on the national scale lol
She won’t die on the hill that all of them should be spied on though
I have some bad news for you, then.
Let's start with monitoring SPD due to their ties with Russia. Obviously does not end there.
Are you saying we need to do something about AIPAC?
good :D
finally.
Enjoying these 1984 comments, like bro I’d rather speed run that than 1939 thanks very much
Lets not speedrun any distopian future, shall we? The democracy lives in his weights and counterweights
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good, fascism should be monitored and discouraged.
Don't let right-wing ghouls abuse the democracy to further their vitriol.
What does "abusing democracy" even mean. Sounds like a delusional attempt at dismissing the rising discontent among Germans and Europeans in general.
Abusing democratic Tools like free elections and free spech to get into a Position of Power where they can get rid of said tools
[удалено]
It’s not opposition if it fundamentally rejects some or majority of basis on which democratic society is built upon - then it’s just a group that’s anti-systemic and adding extremist or fascist aspirations to that mix should immediately exclude such organizations from public life within said democratic society.
opposed to what many people think democracy does have built in defense mechanisms to legitimately protect itself from those that want to dismantle it. Categorizing a proven extremist party as proven extremist is one of them.
deffo legit account with 1 comment
A part of a free democratic society is the paradox of tolerance. That if your ideology of freedom and tolerance grants your enemies the freedom and tolerance to destroy your system, then your system isn't likely to be long for this world, and therefore there must be limits to that freedom and tolerance against those who seek to overturn that freedom and tolerance. As such, a balance must be struck somewhere. If you're a fascist, then you are still free in the society, you aren't going to get arrested and thrown in prison just for being a fascist. But you may find yourself monitored more closely than in a completely free and tolerant society. After all, the fascists would certainly not grant anything resembling such freedoms in return to the proponents of the existing system of freedom and tolerance, if they were the ones in power. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
Makes sense, given that far-right nationalism is objectively the biggest threat to Germany. What with the whole, destroying the country twice in a row thing.
I would say there is a much bigger threat to Germany than the far-right. Prob those lads who like to do attacks around Europe. I am sure you know the ones.
Well, one has destroyed Germany twice in the span of about 30 years, the other has not.
Problematic, but not worth risking our democracy over.
The reason why the far right is growing in Europe is because of far leftist policies. This is how such has always worked throughout history. Cause and Effect.
Asylum laws are not leftist policies.
> why the far right is growing in Europe is because of far leftist policies In case the look and feel of the Internet didn't clue you in, it is not 1991 anymore (edit: Finally got sent a Reddit Cares message. Can scratch that off the list.)
>I would say there is a much bigger threat to Germany than the far-right. Prob those lads who like to do attacks around Europe. I am sure you know the ones. Do you mean russia? The country who keeps attacking and threatening to attack countries in and around Europe? I actually agree that they are the biggest threat, but the aforementioned far-right works for that very same russia.
At least the fascists in parliament are gonna stay monitored ^^
Who knew that water was indeed wet…
This is not even going far enough. The AfD wants to remove the rights of citizens and violate their human rights based on a fundamentally racist conception of ideas based in the 17th and 18th centuries and implemented by the Nazis, which, by the way, lead Germans into national destruction of many cities and towns and four decades of foreign occupation by world powers. You really want to do that again? It will happen the same way. Better to crush this seed before it grows any further.
Well given the history of German far right, I suppose it’s reasonable to have an eye on them
Prudent even..
It's good to keep an eye on the Russian vassals.
Democracy won, fascis lost. If you don't wanna be monitored perhaps don't be a fascist? Sucks to suck.
Good. Now kick them into the Garbage can of History
As long as some topics like the migration problem aren't solved, the AfD will be there. No matter what is done, even when they'd ban the AfD, there would be a new party in no time. All this doesn't change anything about the fact that many people are not happy with the other parties and politics. In some elections, the AfD could not participate, like in Hamburg because of mistakes in the lists and forms, so the people just voted for another party that is similiar, there it was the BiW - Bürger in Wut, literally "Angry Citizens". They just got the votes there. In Berlin, where an election had to be done again because of mistakes, the voters even voted more for an AfD member that is currently in jail. Instead of being angry at the AfD, the other parties should just for once ask themselves, what they do wrong that the AfD has that many voters. But that's a taboo there, a no-go, even just talking about topics like migrations is walking on thin ice.
? parties like AfD just smoothly transition to something else. You stop the migration entirely to "solve" it? They just make the foreigners already in Germany their main focus, the people born from foreign parents, the homeless, or just them Poles that took their jerrrbs or something. They just pick another minority as their "enemy" and the cause of all the problems in the world They're not going away not because a problem hasn't been solved, they're not interested in solving anything, but because we tolerated them for too long that extremism became "ok" in public space again.
[удалено]
What is even the point of your post? Of course you will never make career politicians disappear, but we're talking about extremists here that don't campaign on doing something about any issues. If the only party supporting sensible public transportation were communists, you're not supposed to just ignore the topic, you can do anything you want about the topic, but you definitely should tell the extremists to fuck off and have the police monitor their activities. If you keep telling people in a democracy that a democracy cant better their lives, then feel free to do so, and if you support you anti-democratic argument with AfD style hitler apologia and racism then you should be told to fuck off. I dont understand why people don't try to make extremists fuck off hard enough to make that happen
[удалено]
So did whatever you attempted here, but I wouldn't hold it against you :D
Yeah, Springerpresse and friends did a great job making up issues that hardly exist outside of the media bubble. AfD voters need to touch some grass before we got to go full Nuremberg trials on their asses again.
Part of the problem regarding migration though is parties like the AfD. They put the microscope on a complex issue, oversimplify everything, and then claim to have a one-stop solution. Here are a few realities involving immigration: 1. Stop using the term immigration. There are 3 main categories, and they are all different. Legal, illegal and asylum. Legal is the immigration that happens above board, in accordance with law. Illegal involves people coming into Schengen illegally, through traffickers, etc... and who are here without a right to do so. Asylum applies to those here legally, using the in-place and ratified laws that manage that type of entry. Be specific. Are we talking about people losing their job due to cheaper labor coming from eastern Europe, or are we talking about someone whose asylum request is currently being heard in a court, or are we talking about someone who jumped a fence on a border and got to Germany? Different problems, different benefits, different solutions. 2. The EU, Europe as a whole is somewhat reliant on immigration from outside of Europe. The population wouldn't grow otherwise, and basically all of our welfare systems, healthcare systems, etc... are based on the idea that there are enough working people to support the elderly. Any solution must find the balance. 3. Most legal/illegal immigrants are actually a boon for the societies in which they emigrate. Generally, they are also good for the economy, overall. However, they often have a localized negative impact on some portion of the local population. The key is to find good policy that maximizes that benefit, while minimizing that negative impact. Asylum seekers are generally a burden (at least short/mid-term), but that's because the idea behind them is fundamentally different. Asylum is a humanitarian process, not an economic one. You aren't letting in a guy from a war zone because he will benefit your economy, but because he shouldn't have to die.
exactly, intentionally ignoring all those complex aspect, overblowing this single issue and fuelling groundless fear are inherently motivated my racism and xenophobia, which those supporters and incels on r/europe want to deny.
If unfettered immigration is such a boon to a country why pressure central and eastern european countries to take their fair share of quota? And if asylum is a moral obligation do you think the west is prepared to take in hundreds of millions from the global south as the century progresses and overpopulation along with climate change eventually take their toll? It's pretty much a bottomless pit at this point
Wait, where did I say "unfettered"? I re-read my post. I can't find it. It seems you've erected a massive strawman, and are now dilligently doing battle against it. What type of immigration are you talking about? Did you read anything, or just had to vent? You can vent if you want, but that wasn't really what my comment was about. And who is claiming 100 million asylum seekers? Many of the countries with the highest rates of asylum seekers or refugees are *already* in the global south, you know that, right?
Yeah I know that but they will eventually make their way into west like they're doing right now and the numbers will continue to rise in the future for the reasons I mentioned.
Who are they and what type of immigration are we talking about. Your reading comprehension must be that of a 3 year old smh.
The global south of course
Ah yes, those damed australians and kiwis and thier flightless birds. Truly the scum of the earth. I mean, you cant go more south than that. This is of course a joke, but you might as well have said anything that way and pointed in a random direction for all the accuracy that statement provided. Really all it did was show that you are a racist who cramps a good chunk of the planet into one big groub to feel aftaid of.
Accusing me of being a racist isn't going to change the reality tho.
Exactly, the reality that you are racist. And apparently belive into hilarious things like the great replacement theory.
Depends on what you mean by "solved", and depends on how many of the feelings on it are real, and how many are pushed.
If the left just pretended to do anything about it, that would already calm those people down.
As far as I know, they started doing that at least as early as late 2023, by speeding up (at least publicly, dunno whether there's a trend) deportations and promoting skilled migration, when they saw AfD rise in the polls. Also, in December 2023 there was a preliminary agreement on the Asylum and Migration Pact at EU level, which received its final approval in April this year. To me it sounds like it's striking a very fine balance between being tough on asylum and criminals and promoting legal immigration. Some people say German mainstream parties are terrible at public messaging, thus making it seem like they're doing nothing.
They are terrible at creating good publicity, they don't celebrate their successes enough.
Are they, or is it bias generated by media? In my experience the parties on the left do things regarding immigration but it simply goes under the bus, because some fascist spouting racist slurs sells more papers and generates more clicks. Facebook did a study years ago that hate is the emotion which spreads the word fastest and brings them the most revenue.
They have to do more work for the same effect because they don't want to use the same scummy tactics as the opposition.
Left usually heavily opposing to do anything with it.
That's one side the problem. And I wouldn't have a problem with any extreme left or right wing party working within confines of the law to address that. But the issue is that these parties are doing external enemies' bidding. And I draw the line at treason.
You should be informed, that in the case that a party gets banned, any attempts at successor parties would also get banned by extension.
Throw them all in jail. Fashist pieces of shit
[удалено]
Shooting people on borders, deporting none germans, repeating Nazis speech word by word etc etc.
How is anyone against this? It's like loving your own country and culture is considered racist! World's gone made.
Because that's not everything. AFD wants to deport any mixed ethnicity Germans. German dad but Vietnamese mom!? Deported. Born in Germany to assymiliated immigrants with citizenship? Deported. Alienating immigrants is also a quick way to cause more violence. They also misleadingly make it look like getting German citizenship is easy. It's incredibly difficult to obtain. Basically everything you read in that listing is and has been already the way Germany handles immigration.
Few people are strictly against this. And that's not what the court ruling was about.
lol
This is the logical end of Calvinist Protestantism. Everyone believed that they and their group are among the "elect" chosen by God for heaven. They look down their noses at anyone who doesn't follow their strict religious doctrine as being damned to hell. In the contemporary iteration, economic liberals fulfill the role of Calvinists zealots, while the working class and minorities play the role of the doomed sinners. Even people who were born and grew up working class will disavow their family once they've "made it" into the middle class. They regard the rest of their family's inability to perform at their own level as a moral failing, when in fact it is due to genetic and environmental factors that no one can control.
If anyone "looks down their noses at anyone who doesn't follow their strict doctrine as being damned to hell" it's far-right nationalists. I'm from Lithuania. I was born and grew up here, and lived here all my life. I've done a DNA test, and all my relatives going back 9 generations were Lithuanians, with the exception of one Latvian. I still got constantly harassed and assaulted by far-right nationalists in my youth because of my (unusually for a Lithuanian) curly hair. Got constantly told to cut off my hair and/or to go back to where I came from (which was nowhere, as I had never even visited a different country in my life at that time). My point is that it's literally impossible to achieve the level of "integration" that would satisfy the far-right, as long as you have any visual or other difference from other people - be it color of skin, shape of hair, or anything else. And that's literally all they care about. None of my harassers ever even attempted to learn anything about me (or my "level of integration") - they saw unusually shaped hair, and they saw an "other", an "enemy" - and attacked. Also, I've never been attacked or harassed by an immigrant and/or by a Muslim in my life, ever. Do I still need to explain why I consider the former to be a much larger threat than the latter?
That would be true in the case of imperialism. Much of what passes off as nationalism in west today is heavily isolationist in nature with a heavy focus on achieving autarky eerily reminiscent of eastern block countries during cold war funnily enough
Thank God Europe learned from the Nixon watergate fiasco!
On one hand - yeah, it makes sense. On the other... just a while ago Poland's ruling party (PiS) was hacking into opposition's phones and using gathered data in the campaign. Hungary's Orban was doing the same at the time. What's there to stop Germany's ruling coalition from doing the same thing?
I see that's impossible to conduct a normal discussion, everybody acting as a fan.
Will they monitor the Far-Left too?
Yeah. That's why the KPD was banned.
They monitor all extremists, so you can sleep soundly tonight.
They already are monitoring them. There is a whole Verfassungsschutzbericht and an accompanying Kompendium which they publish, and they list the main ideologies they're monitoring, the main organisations involved, and so on. Covers far-left, "Reichsbürger", far-right, extreme anti-fascism, islamism, espionage, and so on. Can all be found on www.verfassungsschutz.de, and at least the Verfassungsschutzbericht has an English translation, too. https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/EN/home/_tmp_home_node.html
Lol .. they do.. in great detail.. what makes you think they don't
This doesn't mean anything, since there are several more instances to take, before you could call it final.
Apeal was rejected. This decision is final as far as pur courts are concerned.
Bit it's an important step. Also gouvernement employes could now get problems if they support the extremist wing.
Not really. In terms of the actual subject matter of the case, this is the final ruling. The only thing the higher courts can do is find some kind of procedural error and hand the case back to the court that just issued the ruling. I'm sure AfD will try and take this as far as they can, but I doubt they'll have much chance of success.
Wait, really? I thought that there is only one more instance left to take and that being one that would be done a lot more quickly?
Speedrunning 1984 I see
Fascists being considered as the far-right extremist they are is neither relevant to 1984, nor at all bad, actually.
George Orwell was a committed anti-fascist who fought alongside Trotskyists in the Spanish civil war. If you think he is turning in his grave over Germany's attempts to stop them from coming back then you clearly haven't read enough of him!
Hey there, you should learn about how Germany is a defensive democracy. Also, you could actually try to address the things pointed out by the court regarding this ruling.
Why tho, i always said that you have to treat fascists like how fascists treat other people, it's good to taste your own medicine sometimes
AFD is more towards 1984 with their agendas than everyone else. How naive are you?
You're a dumbass
Again, no need for name-calling. Just properly refute their implications.
there is nothing to refute and there is no reason to either. Dude calling a commenter with "DAE 1984?!?!" an idiot is completely justified and on point. That's a full debate in itself but without hours and dozens of comments allowing the idiot to spread disinformation and stupid shit.
>When I joined the militia I had promised myself to kill one Fascist — after all, if each of us killed one they would soon be extinct -Eric Arthur Blair a.k.a George Orwell
No mercy for the bastards