These last few articles of yours have left me sitting here with open mouth, speechless. Is this Germany? Is this the country where my friends live? Is this the same country I visited several times, and that I came to love? I am not sure what came over it, it cannot be the scamdemic alone. Most Germans seem to have just gone insane, just like a few of my friends here in the US.
Progressivism has become the One True Faith for the globalist liberal classes that control media, academia, culture and most permanent bureaucracies—its potent mix of the Marxist oppressed/oppressor worldview makes them constantly angry and looking for enemies and dissenters to destroy and its post-Christian morality founded on the Parable of the Good Samaritan turns xenophobia/xenophilia into the moral hinge that defines every person and deed, which makes them feel deeply self-righteous with everyone else slightly reeking of sulfurous bigotry.
There is no deprogramming these people, they consider themselves an intellectual and moral elite that deserves to rule the world unimpeded. We will just have to wait til they're finished destroying everything they touch and see what's left in the rubble.
The current crop of elites suck. They're stupid, short-sighted, arrogant, and ruthless. If they were any good at governing I would probably not care to rebel against to their authoritarian leanings. Yes, I suspect that if they're driven out they'll only be replaced by another bunch of ruthless authoritarians. But, please dear God, can the successors at least be competent?
"Fox News host Jesse Watters reports, “Today in Georgia, a judge ruled that election officials have to certify results even if voter fraud is suspected.”
What's even more troubling is that Democrats are also “suing to prevent Dropbox surveillance.”"
They have to throw off the suicidal myths forced on them by the illegitimate victors of the last war. A fight between Europeans must be fought for the interests of Europeans. If it is discovered it was not, ALL of Europe must unite to throw off the occupiers and parasites.
(West-) Germans were eminently emotionally damaged by narratives of being the most evil people in history. And like an abused child they struggle to always please.
So, this is maybe a stupid question, but the powers that be, what do they think banning the AfD would actually accomplish?
If your actual fear is "right wing extremism", that's not an organization. That's an idea. AfD doesn't _create_ that idea, it channels it. In a country where ~30% of the population votes for that, banning their channel doesn't stop the idea. Those people will still think whatever they think, in addition to being galvanized by the repression. I might go so far as to say that attempting to formally ban them is the easiest way to make them _more_ powerful.
I truly do not understand the political game theory here. Do the powers that be sincerely believe that repressing the party will repress the idea? Is this a 4D chess move by actual nazis in power to _strengthen_ extremism? Are they just stupid and myopic? What motivates them?
At base, they are a bunch of myopic and (ironically) conservative people who want to maintain the old postwar party system, which a strong AfD will sooner or later destroy. There was a time when the Greens were given similar treatment, and for similar reasons, but the Green Party was of course never this strong. Present supporters of a ban are mainly Bundestag back-benchers; party leadership (with a few exceptions, like Saskia Esken of SPD, who I think is just genuinely a stupid person) are nervous about it because they recognise all the ways it could fail.
Strategically, their best option is to move forward with plans to deny AfD their public election funding. This would hurt the party badly, while only looking somewhat bad for German DeMOCrACy. I suspect they will do this sooner or later.
> Strategically, their best option is to move forward with plans to deny AfD their public election funding
This kind of policy wonkery is no longer popular in the US, but when I first moved here, one of the biggest political talking points was Citizens United(*). This was the court precedent that, among other things, allowed de-facto unlimited political campaign contributions.
At the time, it was popular amongst uninformed Democrats to say that campaign funding should be more or less banned entirely and replaced with public funding, like they do in Canada. I was aggressively opposed to this, for two reasons, and this surprised people
(In Canada, as I understand it, political contributions are heavily restricted. IIRC, any given candidate is only allowed to raise like $50,000 or some paltry amount like that. Meanwhile, "major" parties (anyone with >5% pop vote) get direct subsidies from public tax revenues, something like $2 for every vote they collect. This is widely seen as removing the corruption of money from politics, and also as a way to mitigate the 'vote spoilage' effect of voting for third parties in a first-past-the-post system)
The first reason is simple and ideological: I don't get tax money from the government to campaign for a promotion at _my_ job, so why the fuck should they?
But the second reason is more important: doing this immediately gives the existing government the power to make or break alternative parties. After all, if you have to fund your campaign out of government money, then you're dependent on the government giving you that money. The government can just say 'lol nope' and starve you of funds, and since such public funding ideas are paired with extreme restrictions on the raising of private political funds, this kills parties. Even if you are naieve enough to believe that such tactics wouldn't be used for blatantly authoritarian suppression of 'unacceptable' parties, I mean, consider human nature. You are someone in power. Someone else comes to you and says "I would like free money in order to fund my attempt to steal your job and make you homeless". Do you give them the money? In just about every facet of human civilization, when this dynamic plays out, the answer is "are you fucking retarded? Of course not"
----
(*) Citizens United, you may remember, was a supreme court ruling which opened the door to unlimited campaign funding. Two things are worth mentioning. The first is that the democrats seem to have done a 180 on this. I recall a few weeks ago hearing a news clip where a democrat (I forget who; maybe Clinton?) was bragging about how their SuperPACs raised a billion dollars for Harris. SuperPACs being legally allowed to do that was _the thing_ that everyone was mad at CU for.
The second is that nobody ever stops to ask what the actual court case was about, and it's extremely important. What actually happened, is that some concerned private citizens made a documentary about how Hillary Clinton was evil, and Hillary Clinton attempted to get them prosecuted for criminal violation of election finance laws, asserting that their producing a critical documentary against her was an in-kind campaign contribution to her opponents and therefore violated laws restricting how much you're allowed to contribute to a campaign. This forced the supreme court to set a precedent outlining the exact specific line in political avocacy where it stops being "concerned third parties innocently using their free speech rights to express their sincere ideas" (which it is very very illegal to restrict) and starts being "political campaigning" (which is heavily restricted in certain ways).
To repeat: the actual court case, which even conservatives appear not to know, was about Hillary Clinton abusing lawfare to silence critics.
And a good thing for them that the Court ruled the way it did, or the news media would be facing issues regarding in-kind donations to the Harris campaign...
Cute that you think laws would ever be enforced fairly.
You know, the same precedent in Roe v. Wade which made abortion restrictions unconstitutional also made vaccine requirements unconstitutional. That's why we have never, not once, in the history of this country, ever had any kind of vaccination requirements until Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Roe v. Wade said that, despite it not being written in law anywhere ever, you have a constitutionally protected right to privacy.
That right to privacy extends to a right to privacy in your private medical decisions between you and your doctor.
Having an abortion is a private medical decision between you and your doctor. Any regulation against this would necessarily infringe on that right to privacy, because if it didn't, it would be unenforceable
Therefore, any regulation against abortion is a violation of this right to medical privacy.
Unlike the AfD, a full implementation of the Green wish list would invoke a sudden and horrific collapse of civilization. If anyone should be banned...
We have a kind of the same movement working in the liberals' minds here in the US. They can put up with old school "go along" Republicans but these uncouth MAGA Republicans all need to be in prison.
So, you ban AfD but you can't ban the people as easily and they will continue to convert others to their cause and the ban works in their favor. When they regain power and ban your party, the first ban provides the president to allow the second one.
The great thing about progressive authoritarianism is it's lack of reflection of its own internal pretzel logic. The ultimate end for the modern progressive is a mixture of multiculturalism and identitarian socialism which if enacted purely would result in its adherents all being murdered as godless infidels.
'the best Germany of all time, where our rulers govern not to solve present problems, but to beat back the phantom past, and they are going to keep us mired in this dark and hopeless political timewarp'
There's the problem right there. Germany needs to imagine What Can Be, Unburdened by What Has Been.
These are the same people who in the not too distant past would have sneered derisively at countries who banned political parties of an opposing stripe. They would have called them “tin pot dictatorships” and basked in their own righteousness.
I mean, they would have been correct. The baffling thing is how they can't see it here. Every time I think I'm being too cynical about the world, something like this comes along.
They are - correctly, IMO - fearing the 'Farage Effect', because that's what he did with his speeches in the EU Parliament before Brexit, to huge effect as history showed. That's not to say that Ms Weidel or Mr Höcke et all are on the same level as Nigel Farage, far from it.
And all right-thinking people KNOW that that evil politicians, (the ones that disagree with me), should never, never be allowed to "directly address the people", lest they contaminate them with impure thoughts.
Wow. She obviously doesn’t give a frig about totally disenfranchising the majority-sized voter bloc that just so happened to vote for AfD.
The twists and turns and tangles they get themselves into attempting to justify their hold on power is literally head spinning!
What it ironically all boils down to is how very much they viscerally hate so-called democracy, only the patina of it, because it so irritatingly gets in their way, and they’d go full authoritarian in a heartbeat if they could get away it - which is exactly what they appear to be trying to do with such a move as this, all the while “appearing democratic”.
Is Mr Wanderwitz the long-lost cousin of Mr T Walz?
Could the MSM scribbler Eva Ricarda Lautsch GmbH try banning herself?
I note the West is now on the mantra 'protect democracy'. Oddly the people writing or saying that do not think democracy applies to all citizens - only the ones they like. See Kamala Harris LLC.
'It is true that a party ban is an authoritarian measure, but it is an authoritarian measure of a constitutional state. The Federal Constitutional Court only imposes it if the strict legal requirements are met. And the decision to initiate a party ban proceedings is taken democratically – in the Bundestag, in the Federal Council or by the democratically elected federal government.'
I cannot fathom how a person could be so un-self-aware as to not grasp the hypocrisy of this position. I hope she actually gets it and just doesn't care, instead of not being able to see the implications of her position. Oi.
Zeit political commentary consists mostly of bad faith arguments. They know what their doing, the readership doesn't.
The long-time editor was Josef Joffe who had to go after he tipped off his Warburg banking buddy regarding investigations, next co-editor was Yasha Mounk who famously stated on German television that there were an ongoing experiment to transform European mono-ethnic into multi-ethnic societies.
The goyim won't fleece themselves, somebody's got to do it.
At what point will the powers that be realize the AfD is legitimate? 30% of the vote? 40%? What sort of gymnastics would they engage in to disenfranchise 60% of the voters, and would it be antidemocratic to do so?
even if the AfD won 90% of the vote they'd be illegitimate in the eyes of progressives—you are either one of them or a dangerous crypto-fascist. they recognize no other options.
Law? We are clearly entering a state of lawlessness in many Western & Anglophone nations.
Witness world wide breach of the Nuremberg Code during the 2020 'Flu not even an epidemic.... (excess deaths that year make that clear, as does the fact that in the UK the govt stupidly released figures on how many died FROM Covid, not the PCR fraudulently derived "with Covid"
Under 10k in the 21 months from Feb 2020 to Dec 2021
In general, this outcry by 'real democrats' of the ruling Berlin Class, left-wing media like die Zeit included, provides a striking example of projection, a well-known ploy used by left-wingers: accuse the opponent of that what you yourself are doing or plan to do, to make the public look at them and not at you.
If it weren't becoming more clear that, thanks to unlimited immigration, mostly illegal, the government is already on the way of doing this, one would wonder if they're taking Bertold Brecht's advice, give en on the occasion of the Uprising on June 17th 1953 in East Germany, where he wrote:
"Wäre es da - Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung - Löste das Volk auf und - Wählte ein anderes?"
[Transl: Would it not in that case - Be simpler for the government - To dissolve the people - And elect another?"]
Btw: under the former editors of Die Zeit - Marion Gräfin Dönhoff and later former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt - such rubbish would not have seen the light of day, nor would that lady even have been employed ...
> In any case, the two parties that have been banned in the Federal Republic of Germany so far – the KPD [i.e., the Communist Party of Germany] ... dissolved into insignificance when they were banned in the 1950s.
Yes, banning the KPD in the 1950s made it so that nobody else ever since then in Germany has ever supported any communist idea ever. A perfect solution!
Good point - communist worldview ideas coming from the Green party sound so much nicer.
AfD should change their name to the "Saving the Democracy Party" - if for no other reason than to enjoy headlines "How best can we save our democracy from the Saving the Democracy party?"
It clearly wasn't competently done anyway, since that KPD offshoot -- Antifa -- is still quite strong in Germany. Which was precisely as if the powers-that-be had banned the NSDAP but not the Sturmabteilung.
Antifa isnt an KPD offshoot, or if it was, it isn't anymore. Antifa is clearly, at least now, the successor to Operation Gladio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio that's why they only ever act to enforce the US' will on European states
Antifa was literally founded by the KPD in 1932, by the head of the KPD, Ernst Thälmann. The "antifaschistesche" in "antifascist action" is the same one in the Communist built "antifaschistesche schutzwand" -- "The Antifascist Protection Rampart" -- which the rest of the world just called "The Berlin Wall".
They even still use the same bloody logo, just mirror image. Given that everyone I've ever talked to who had sympathy for Antifa was somewhere between "very left" and "hard left", if it's actually a right-wing false flag organization, they're doing an amazing job of hiding that. Or have utterly lost control of it.
I don't, but that's what the article you linked was claiming. Still, if it's a hard left descendant of the explicitly Stalinist 1930s KPD, I think that I can safely claim that a terrible job was done outlawing the KPD in the immediate postwar years.
> It is true that a party ban is an authoritarian measure, but it is an authoritarian measure of a constitutional state. The Federal Constitutional Court only imposes it if the strict legal requirements are met. And the decision to initiate a party ban proceedings is taken democratically – in the Bundestag, in the Federal Council or by the democratically elected federal government.
The Nazis were democratically elected and enjoyed broad popular support. The above seems an unwise line of reasoning.
If you take it as axiomatic that Democracy is a legitimizing function (I do not, but that would be a reasonable thing for pro-democracy people to do), then by definition, anything that comes out of the democratic process must necessarily be moral.
The point I'm making is that anyone who truly believes that needs to take a deep, long think about what their position would be when their mortal enemies win democratic elections
Dude, I couldn't get people with TDS to understand that back when Trump was actually still in office.
"So, wait. You hate the cops, the military, and the commander in chief -- Donald Trump -- and you *also* want those people to have all of the guns. I am not at all certain that you have thought this position through in a thorough fashion."
I am utterly convinced that left wing gun control is motivated by two instincts.
1) Sublimated racism. They are scared of black people with guns, but they are so hyped up on anti-racism that they can't _say_ that, so instead they just want to ban guns, and leave the quiet part quiet
(in fact, I think this explains a _lot_ of what rank and file liberal voters think and say. Consider that 'good schools' and 'property values' are both euphemisms for 'make it too expensive for ghetto blacks to live here')
2) Blatant "fuck you republican" culture war. They don't actually care about guns. They just know that we do, and they hate us, so they want to take them away. This is why gun control debates always center around 'fun' guns like rifles even though >97% of all gun violence is with pistols.
Your fear of the Greens is well founded. Under their rule, Germany has both the most expensive and the most polluting electricity generation in all of Europe.
Their windmills and solar fields have been so effective that they have to pay the Swiss to take all of the excess electricity they generate in the summer. This allows the Swiss to store water in their reservoirs until winter and release it in times of electricity shortages. Then, they sell that power to Germany at extremely inflated prices, because the German solar fields and bird blenders are producing nada.
A brilliant bunch of Greenies you've got there. You have my deepest sympathy.
I'm at a loss for words, eugyppius. Thankfully, you are not!
Couldn't have said it better!
Exactly. I couldn't believe there had to be a whole article on this. Flabbergasted.
These last few articles of yours have left me sitting here with open mouth, speechless. Is this Germany? Is this the country where my friends live? Is this the same country I visited several times, and that I came to love? I am not sure what came over it, it cannot be the scamdemic alone. Most Germans seem to have just gone insane, just like a few of my friends here in the US.
Progressivism has become the One True Faith for the globalist liberal classes that control media, academia, culture and most permanent bureaucracies—its potent mix of the Marxist oppressed/oppressor worldview makes them constantly angry and looking for enemies and dissenters to destroy and its post-Christian morality founded on the Parable of the Good Samaritan turns xenophobia/xenophilia into the moral hinge that defines every person and deed, which makes them feel deeply self-righteous with everyone else slightly reeking of sulfurous bigotry.
There is no deprogramming these people, they consider themselves an intellectual and moral elite that deserves to rule the world unimpeded. We will just have to wait til they're finished destroying everything they touch and see what's left in the rubble.
TOP COMMENT! That perfectly sums up so many annoying little Hitlers and Stalins I know that cannot see what UTTER AND TOTAL COMEDIES THEY ARE.
AGREE!
thanks!
Of course it's Germany. Authoritarian govenment is just fine there, as long as the branding follows the proper guidelines.
Authority is not what is bad. A strong authority can be a great good. What matters is for whose sake the authority is being weld.
The surest way to be ruled by your enemies is to make an enemy of authority itself.
The current crop of elites suck. They're stupid, short-sighted, arrogant, and ruthless. If they were any good at governing I would probably not care to rebel against to their authoritarian leanings. Yes, I suspect that if they're driven out they'll only be replaced by another bunch of ruthless authoritarians. But, please dear God, can the successors at least be competent?
Well basically all of the science of economics disagrees.
If you want authority (fiat) running unimpeded you'll get it - good and hard.
Fiat currency is worse than market currency.
Fiat bread is worse than market bread.
How about setting aside some time for the Mises University courses? It's free! It CAN open an ENTIRE NEW WAY OF SEEING THE WORLD.
{...follows the proper guidelines...} 👍👍👍✡✡✡ !!!
Much the same idiocy is happening in the UK and the US.
Maybe least successfully (esp if Trump wins) in the US.
Yes, it makes us feel insane. But it is real. And we must help each other "fight" this craziness.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand too.
Mostl of the western nations appear to be affected. Still I keep being told this is an "awakening"
The Anglosphere, plus the rest of the West.
"It will...", as my dear departed Gran would have said "... end in tears"
And quite possibly blood on the streets.
It is already beginning to dawn on people that the policies don't appear to be working
As the son of a vicar I knew way back was wont to say
"Let us earnestly hope and pray that it is so..." 😊
Absolutely.
Part of the genocidal attack on all white nations, by our eternal adversary.
Along those lines: "In the DSA League, Germany is the EU's Censorship Champion"
https://edv1694.substack.com/p/in-the-dsa-league-germany-is-the
Just wait till the Democrats fix the election again...
https://vigilantfox.news/p/something-stinks-about-the-upcoming
"Fox News host Jesse Watters reports, “Today in Georgia, a judge ruled that election officials have to certify results even if voter fraud is suspected.”
What's even more troubling is that Democrats are also “suing to prevent Dropbox surveillance.”"
They have to throw off the suicidal myths forced on them by the illegitimate victors of the last war. A fight between Europeans must be fought for the interests of Europeans. If it is discovered it was not, ALL of Europe must unite to throw off the occupiers and parasites.
"Is this Germany?"
Are we talking about the same country? The one that went to war twice with the whole world?
"Hello, I have a PhD in court history, let me explain why when I piss on you it's actually just raining."
Me, too...
(West-) Germans were eminently emotionally damaged by narratives of being the most evil people in history. And like an abused child they struggle to always please.
So, this is maybe a stupid question, but the powers that be, what do they think banning the AfD would actually accomplish?
If your actual fear is "right wing extremism", that's not an organization. That's an idea. AfD doesn't _create_ that idea, it channels it. In a country where ~30% of the population votes for that, banning their channel doesn't stop the idea. Those people will still think whatever they think, in addition to being galvanized by the repression. I might go so far as to say that attempting to formally ban them is the easiest way to make them _more_ powerful.
I truly do not understand the political game theory here. Do the powers that be sincerely believe that repressing the party will repress the idea? Is this a 4D chess move by actual nazis in power to _strengthen_ extremism? Are they just stupid and myopic? What motivates them?
At base, they are a bunch of myopic and (ironically) conservative people who want to maintain the old postwar party system, which a strong AfD will sooner or later destroy. There was a time when the Greens were given similar treatment, and for similar reasons, but the Green Party was of course never this strong. Present supporters of a ban are mainly Bundestag back-benchers; party leadership (with a few exceptions, like Saskia Esken of SPD, who I think is just genuinely a stupid person) are nervous about it because they recognise all the ways it could fail.
Strategically, their best option is to move forward with plans to deny AfD their public election funding. This would hurt the party badly, while only looking somewhat bad for German DeMOCrACy. I suspect they will do this sooner or later.
> Strategically, their best option is to move forward with plans to deny AfD their public election funding
This kind of policy wonkery is no longer popular in the US, but when I first moved here, one of the biggest political talking points was Citizens United(*). This was the court precedent that, among other things, allowed de-facto unlimited political campaign contributions.
At the time, it was popular amongst uninformed Democrats to say that campaign funding should be more or less banned entirely and replaced with public funding, like they do in Canada. I was aggressively opposed to this, for two reasons, and this surprised people
(In Canada, as I understand it, political contributions are heavily restricted. IIRC, any given candidate is only allowed to raise like $50,000 or some paltry amount like that. Meanwhile, "major" parties (anyone with >5% pop vote) get direct subsidies from public tax revenues, something like $2 for every vote they collect. This is widely seen as removing the corruption of money from politics, and also as a way to mitigate the 'vote spoilage' effect of voting for third parties in a first-past-the-post system)
The first reason is simple and ideological: I don't get tax money from the government to campaign for a promotion at _my_ job, so why the fuck should they?
But the second reason is more important: doing this immediately gives the existing government the power to make or break alternative parties. After all, if you have to fund your campaign out of government money, then you're dependent on the government giving you that money. The government can just say 'lol nope' and starve you of funds, and since such public funding ideas are paired with extreme restrictions on the raising of private political funds, this kills parties. Even if you are naieve enough to believe that such tactics wouldn't be used for blatantly authoritarian suppression of 'unacceptable' parties, I mean, consider human nature. You are someone in power. Someone else comes to you and says "I would like free money in order to fund my attempt to steal your job and make you homeless". Do you give them the money? In just about every facet of human civilization, when this dynamic plays out, the answer is "are you fucking retarded? Of course not"
----
(*) Citizens United, you may remember, was a supreme court ruling which opened the door to unlimited campaign funding. Two things are worth mentioning. The first is that the democrats seem to have done a 180 on this. I recall a few weeks ago hearing a news clip where a democrat (I forget who; maybe Clinton?) was bragging about how their SuperPACs raised a billion dollars for Harris. SuperPACs being legally allowed to do that was _the thing_ that everyone was mad at CU for.
The second is that nobody ever stops to ask what the actual court case was about, and it's extremely important. What actually happened, is that some concerned private citizens made a documentary about how Hillary Clinton was evil, and Hillary Clinton attempted to get them prosecuted for criminal violation of election finance laws, asserting that their producing a critical documentary against her was an in-kind campaign contribution to her opponents and therefore violated laws restricting how much you're allowed to contribute to a campaign. This forced the supreme court to set a precedent outlining the exact specific line in political avocacy where it stops being "concerned third parties innocently using their free speech rights to express their sincere ideas" (which it is very very illegal to restrict) and starts being "political campaigning" (which is heavily restricted in certain ways).
To repeat: the actual court case, which even conservatives appear not to know, was about Hillary Clinton abusing lawfare to silence critics.
And a good thing for them that the Court ruled the way it did, or the news media would be facing issues regarding in-kind donations to the Harris campaign...
Cute that you think laws would ever be enforced fairly.
You know, the same precedent in Roe v. Wade which made abortion restrictions unconstitutional also made vaccine requirements unconstitutional. That's why we have never, not once, in the history of this country, ever had any kind of vaccination requirements until Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Yes, perhaps the sarcasm was not sufficiently thick there. I obviously do not think they would actually be charged with that. 🤪
There's sarcasm happening in this internet? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
Interesting!
Basically, it works like this:
Roe v. Wade said that, despite it not being written in law anywhere ever, you have a constitutionally protected right to privacy.
That right to privacy extends to a right to privacy in your private medical decisions between you and your doctor.
Having an abortion is a private medical decision between you and your doctor. Any regulation against this would necessarily infringe on that right to privacy, because if it didn't, it would be unenforceable
Therefore, any regulation against abortion is a violation of this right to medical privacy.
Unlike the AfD, a full implementation of the Green wish list would invoke a sudden and horrific collapse of civilization. If anyone should be banned...
Even a humble water bear can understand this obvious point. These people must be disingenuous because nobody can be that stupid.
"nobody can be that stupid"?
Albert Einstein famously said, 'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'
Surely thou wouldst not argue with St. Albert.
No, but then my comment was meant to be rhetorical.
Ask her how that party ban worked out in 1924.
We have a kind of the same movement working in the liberals' minds here in the US. They can put up with old school "go along" Republicans but these uncouth MAGA Republicans all need to be in prison.
So, you ban AfD but you can't ban the people as easily and they will continue to convert others to their cause and the ban works in their favor. When they regain power and ban your party, the first ban provides the president to allow the second one.
🎯 I thought the exact same thing as I was reading. No different than the magas over here.
It's that old saying about not knowing history being bound to repeat it.
Don't forget the Streisand Effect.
By "president" I think you meant "precedent".
Your observations are succinctly on target.
The great thing about progressive authoritarianism is it's lack of reflection of its own internal pretzel logic. The ultimate end for the modern progressive is a mixture of multiculturalism and identitarian socialism which if enacted purely would result in its adherents all being murdered as godless infidels.
'the best Germany of all time, where our rulers govern not to solve present problems, but to beat back the phantom past, and they are going to keep us mired in this dark and hopeless political timewarp'
There's the problem right there. Germany needs to imagine What Can Be, Unburdened by What Has Been.
As long as 'what has been' is shrouded in a lie, it will never come to rest.
My comment was a simple Kamala joke.
That slogan sounds kind of DDR, though.
Kamala "Bat Shit Crazy" Harris repeats this a lot.
Marx...
https://jack488.substack.com/p/karl-marx-and-kamala-harris
RFK, Sr. used to say something similar.
Ew. 🤣
🤣🤣
These are the same people who in the not too distant past would have sneered derisively at countries who banned political parties of an opposing stripe. They would have called them “tin pot dictatorships” and basked in their own righteousness.
I mean, they would have been correct. The baffling thing is how they can't see it here. Every time I think I'm being too cynical about the world, something like this comes along.
One must remember that the Left has long been known to be able to hold completely contradictory positions at the same time. I think Orwell noted this.
'distributing them on YouTube and TikTok. These are addressed directly to the “people”'
Considering the mainstream media won't cover them, this is the only alternative.
They are - correctly, IMO - fearing the 'Farage Effect', because that's what he did with his speeches in the EU Parliament before Brexit, to huge effect as history showed. That's not to say that Ms Weidel or Mr Höcke et all are on the same level as Nigel Farage, far from it.
And all right-thinking people KNOW that that evil politicians, (the ones that disagree with me), should never, never be allowed to "directly address the people", lest they contaminate them with impure thoughts.
Wow. She obviously doesn’t give a frig about totally disenfranchising the majority-sized voter bloc that just so happened to vote for AfD.
The twists and turns and tangles they get themselves into attempting to justify their hold on power is literally head spinning!
What it ironically all boils down to is how very much they viscerally hate so-called democracy, only the patina of it, because it so irritatingly gets in their way, and they’d go full authoritarian in a heartbeat if they could get away it - which is exactly what they appear to be trying to do with such a move as this, all the while “appearing democratic”.
See? Head spinning. 😵💫
This sounds VERY familiar (USA)…..
Is Mr Wanderwitz the long-lost cousin of Mr T Walz?
Could the MSM scribbler Eva Ricarda Lautsch GmbH try banning herself?
I note the West is now on the mantra 'protect democracy'. Oddly the people writing or saying that do not think democracy applies to all citizens - only the ones they like. See Kamala Harris LLC.
'It is true that a party ban is an authoritarian measure, but it is an authoritarian measure of a constitutional state. The Federal Constitutional Court only imposes it if the strict legal requirements are met. And the decision to initiate a party ban proceedings is taken democratically – in the Bundestag, in the Federal Council or by the democratically elected federal government.'
I'm sensing a tautology here.
I cannot fathom how a person could be so un-self-aware as to not grasp the hypocrisy of this position. I hope she actually gets it and just doesn't care, instead of not being able to see the implications of her position. Oi.
Zeit political commentary consists mostly of bad faith arguments. They know what their doing, the readership doesn't.
The long-time editor was Josef Joffe who had to go after he tipped off his Warburg banking buddy regarding investigations, next co-editor was Yasha Mounk who famously stated on German television that there were an ongoing experiment to transform European mono-ethnic into multi-ethnic societies.
The goyim won't fleece themselves, somebody's got to do it.
At what point will the powers that be realize the AfD is legitimate? 30% of the vote? 40%? What sort of gymnastics would they engage in to disenfranchise 60% of the voters, and would it be antidemocratic to do so?
even if the AfD won 90% of the vote they'd be illegitimate in the eyes of progressives—you are either one of them or a dangerous crypto-fascist. they recognize no other options.
I believe they'll only realize it once AfD members in spiffy Hugo Boss suits poke MP7s into their backs and march them into the camps.
(dear Germany: this is sarcasm)
but they do realise.
and they could not care less.....
Law? We are clearly entering a state of lawlessness in many Western & Anglophone nations.
Witness world wide breach of the Nuremberg Code during the 2020 'Flu not even an epidemic.... (excess deaths that year make that clear, as does the fact that in the UK the govt stupidly released figures on how many died FROM Covid, not the PCR fraudulently derived "with Covid"
Under 10k in the 21 months from Feb 2020 to Dec 2021
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandautopsiesfeb2020todec2021
Under 100 aged 50 or under
TWO under the age of 14 (so the jabs will have killed and damaged far more kids than Covid did).
I asked the FOI to update the table contained in the link.
They refused.
This was not a pandemic, nor was it an epidemic, just a nasty 'flu that killed no more than the average annual 'flu epidemic.
'Negative advertising' is good advertising. I believe that move will attract even more voters.
In general, this outcry by 'real democrats' of the ruling Berlin Class, left-wing media like die Zeit included, provides a striking example of projection, a well-known ploy used by left-wingers: accuse the opponent of that what you yourself are doing or plan to do, to make the public look at them and not at you.
If it weren't becoming more clear that, thanks to unlimited immigration, mostly illegal, the government is already on the way of doing this, one would wonder if they're taking Bertold Brecht's advice, give en on the occasion of the Uprising on June 17th 1953 in East Germany, where he wrote:
"Wäre es da - Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung - Löste das Volk auf und - Wählte ein anderes?"
[Transl: Would it not in that case - Be simpler for the government - To dissolve the people - And elect another?"]
Btw: under the former editors of Die Zeit - Marion Gräfin Dönhoff and later former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt - such rubbish would not have seen the light of day, nor would that lady even have been employed ...
True, but by contemporary standards, Schmidt is a Nazi, too.
Good Lord! Is he really? It would be easier to ask who all isn't/wasn't one ...
> In any case, the two parties that have been banned in the Federal Republic of Germany so far – the KPD [i.e., the Communist Party of Germany] ... dissolved into insignificance when they were banned in the 1950s.
Yes, banning the KPD in the 1950s made it so that nobody else ever since then in Germany has ever supported any communist idea ever. A perfect solution!
Good point - communist worldview ideas coming from the Green party sound so much nicer.
AfD should change their name to the "Saving the Democracy Party" - if for no other reason than to enjoy headlines "How best can we save our democracy from the Saving the Democracy party?"
I approve. 🤣
Oh, good one!
It clearly wasn't competently done anyway, since that KPD offshoot -- Antifa -- is still quite strong in Germany. Which was precisely as if the powers-that-be had banned the NSDAP but not the Sturmabteilung.
Antifa isnt an KPD offshoot, or if it was, it isn't anymore. Antifa is clearly, at least now, the successor to Operation Gladio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio that's why they only ever act to enforce the US' will on European states
Antifa was literally founded by the KPD in 1932, by the head of the KPD, Ernst Thälmann. The "antifaschistesche" in "antifascist action" is the same one in the Communist built "antifaschistesche schutzwand" -- "The Antifascist Protection Rampart" -- which the rest of the world just called "The Berlin Wall".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
They even still use the same bloody logo, just mirror image. Given that everyone I've ever talked to who had sympathy for Antifa was somewhere between "very left" and "hard left", if it's actually a right-wing false flag organization, they're doing an amazing job of hiding that. Or have utterly lost control of it.
Why do you think the US government would be right-wing?
I don't, but that's what the article you linked was claiming. Still, if it's a hard left descendant of the explicitly Stalinist 1930s KPD, I think that I can safely claim that a terrible job was done outlawing the KPD in the immediate postwar years.
> It is true that a party ban is an authoritarian measure, but it is an authoritarian measure of a constitutional state. The Federal Constitutional Court only imposes it if the strict legal requirements are met. And the decision to initiate a party ban proceedings is taken democratically – in the Bundestag, in the Federal Council or by the democratically elected federal government.
The Nazis were democratically elected and enjoyed broad popular support. The above seems an unwise line of reasoning.
Not to mention it feels circular.
Eeh, not really.
If you take it as axiomatic that Democracy is a legitimizing function (I do not, but that would be a reasonable thing for pro-democracy people to do), then by definition, anything that comes out of the democratic process must necessarily be moral.
The point I'm making is that anyone who truly believes that needs to take a deep, long think about what their position would be when their mortal enemies win democratic elections
Dude, I couldn't get people with TDS to understand that back when Trump was actually still in office.
"So, wait. You hate the cops, the military, and the commander in chief -- Donald Trump -- and you *also* want those people to have all of the guns. I am not at all certain that you have thought this position through in a thorough fashion."
I am utterly convinced that left wing gun control is motivated by two instincts.
1) Sublimated racism. They are scared of black people with guns, but they are so hyped up on anti-racism that they can't _say_ that, so instead they just want to ban guns, and leave the quiet part quiet
(in fact, I think this explains a _lot_ of what rank and file liberal voters think and say. Consider that 'good schools' and 'property values' are both euphemisms for 'make it too expensive for ghetto blacks to live here')
2) Blatant "fuck you republican" culture war. They don't actually care about guns. They just know that we do, and they hate us, so they want to take them away. This is why gun control debates always center around 'fun' guns like rifles even though >97% of all gun violence is with pistols.
That is exactly why some if them behave like they do. They simply expect others to act like them now - and they're terrified.
This, along with CJ Hopkins’ arrest and persecution really doesn’t bode well for this Western democracy or western democracy, in general.
Your fear of the Greens is well founded. Under their rule, Germany has both the most expensive and the most polluting electricity generation in all of Europe.
Their windmills and solar fields have been so effective that they have to pay the Swiss to take all of the excess electricity they generate in the summer. This allows the Swiss to store water in their reservoirs until winter and release it in times of electricity shortages. Then, they sell that power to Germany at extremely inflated prices, because the German solar fields and bird blenders are producing nada.
A brilliant bunch of Greenies you've got there. You have my deepest sympathy.