Schmutzwerfer und linke Extremisten, die unter dem Deckmantel des Journalismus ihre Propaganda verbreiten, müssen in ihre Schranken gewiesen werden!“ Mit diesem Satz endet ein Blogbeitrag, in dem auch ein Foto eines unserer Reporter gepostet wurde, das nicht im Zusammenhang mit CORRECTIV oder der Recherche steht. Was die AfD unter dem zitierten Satz versteht, lässt sie offen.
Will noone rid me of that meddlesome priest?
Solche unverhohlenen Drohungen und Aufwiegelungen gegen Journalisten sollten doch auch ein Parteiverbotsverfahren befeuern, oder?
The revelation last week has caused an uptick in demonstrations against the AfD and fascism in Germany. Many people are now demanding that the government should initiate a case to ban the AfD at the constitutional court. A case to ban a political party can only be initated by the federal government, the federal parliament, or the federal council.
However multiple high ranking politicians has argued against forbidding the AfD, claiming to “fight them with arguments” instead. Calls like this came from Friedrich Merz, the leader of the conservative/right wing populist CDU, Markus Söder, the head of the right wing populist CSU, Christian Lindner, head of the liberal party FDP and current minister of Finance. CDU and FDP voted together with the AfD in 2020 to make the FDP candidate prime minister of Thuringen for one day, despite the FDP having barely 5%, which is the minimum for a party to sent delegates to a parliament in Germany. The subsequent government crisis lead to the AfD now being the strongest political force in Thuringen, according to election polls. CDU and FDP also worked together with the AfD on the local level before. Among other things they limited the amount of refugees a city would house and cut funding to organizations, who help and represent victims of hate crime.
The head of the AfD in Thuringen Björn Höcke lost a defamation lawsuit, because the court ruled, that “fascist” is a factual description of him, rather than an insult. Multiple state organizations of the AfD are considered proven to be far right extremists by the interior intelligence, as well as the youth organization of the party. All of the party is considered to be suspect of being far right extremists.
Germany is facing the risk of a another fascist power grab, yet parties that claim to be liberal and conservative refuse to defend the democracy against them, likely hopeing for their own power options under a fascist government, as well as being worried of backlash for having helped the AfD by repeating and strenghtening their political positions and topics.
While you didn’t state anything incorrect, the debate is more complicated than that. E.g. Habeck from the greens (vice chancellor) said to consider the consequences should such a proposal fail. I think such a failure would have very much the opposite effect and strengthen the AFD and right wing positions in Germany in general. The probability of success needs to be carefully considered before going ahead with the popular request.
The Tagesschau wrote
Bundeswirtschaftsminister Robert Habeck äußerte sich in der Debatte nun aber zurückhaltend und warnte vor den Folgen, sollte ein solches Verfahren scheitern.
We already see tens of thousands protest in the streets. The “silent majority” finally has enough?
As a possible side effect of a failure to ban the party could put the constitutional court in the spotlight, as a target of said majority. It might be not politically correct (for politicians) to criticise court rules, but the people is very well allowed to send a friendly reminder to the judges to do their damn job, l guess.
Occasionally the court gets political in the sense of avoiding ire and loss of trust from the people so they won’t be trying too hard to find reasons to not ban. By their own precedent it’s really a slam dunk case, anyway, what I’m saying is that they’re very very unlikely to use the opportunity to come up with new requirements.
And really the last time they came up with a new requirement the whole republic had a chuckle. “The NPD is unconstitutional but also politically irrelevant, it shouldn’t be banned because it doesn’t have any chance of achieving its goals” is humiliating to the Nazis, they can’t play martyrs, which is ultimately way more effective.
(The political stuff I’m referring to is e.g. not striking the incest law off the book after their ruling on preventive detention. The detention ruling was legally correct and important, but not very well-recieved because old mistakes meant that certain prisoners couldn’t be kept in lockup. The incest law, as-is, can’t be defended in a way that either justifies eugenics if applied equally (disabled folks have a greater chance of producing children with genetic defects than 1st generation incest) or is based on “ew, icky”, which is no basis for law (but how nature avoids incest). Had the cases been further apart they’d likely have struck the law down, simply saying that the state is free to set out to discourage and prevent incest but criminal law is too harsh a measure).
I’d say the biggest risk isn’t losing the case, it can be made sufficiently water-tight as what yardsticks the court will use to judge are known, it’s not a new area of law, the biggest risk is banning the party and then failing to address the concerns of the precariat whose legitimate feelings of betrayal and abandonment the AfD’s electoral successes are based on.
I definitely have my issues with Waga Zarenknecht but big picture, yes, by and large that’s the exact kind of representation the precariat needs, a thing Die Linke never managed because a) just as the SPD, where they’re in government (or close to) they’re bound to the labour aristocracy and b) they lacked focus.
failing to address the concerns of the precariat whose legitimate feelings of betrayal and abandonment the AfD’s electoral successes are based on.
A lot of those “legitimate feelings” are fabricated by the AfD. Fake news, as some orange ex- and likely future president of the USA would call them.
For the rest, I don’t see any politician having the guts to tell people the truth, that climate change, foremost, costs a lot of money and sacrifice. “Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei”, and everybody will have to get used to a more frugal way of life. We need somebody willing to make a “blood, sweat and tears” narrative popular. I guess the majority of the people is ready, but the politicians are some years or decades behind on that matter.
A lot of those “legitimate feelings” are fabricated by the AfD.
There’s a fucking reason I said legitimate and not just feelings. The AfD didn’t cause precarious employment relations, it wasn’t the first to agitate against welfare recipients, it didn’t cause the lack of affordable housing, it didn’t come up with Hartz IV and unconstitutional sanction regimes. It didn’t set the policy of the established parties since reunification. 30% of the workforce are in precarious employment, not counting the unemployed mind you, about 12% never know anything else. More are afraid of landing there.
What the AfD did is direct those feelings in directions that suit them and not address the actual issues (according to their programme they even want to make it worse).
For the rest, I don’t see any politician having the guts to tell people the truth, that climate change, foremost, costs a lot of money and sacrifice.
No it doesn’t. Maybe from the rich when we finally get around to taxing private planes out of existence but not in general. Making sure that there’s proper public transit means not only that people don’t need to buy a new car, they can get rid of their old one, investing in district heating would mean that people don’t need to buy heat pumps and generally make building cheaper. A lot of climate measures have the opportunity to save money and simultaneously make the life of the precariat better. More vacation days means people won’t be annoyed if you tell them to take a train and ferry to Mallorca. I diagnose you with lack of political imagination.
That addresses the precariat. To address capital there’s another equation: Not investing now will mean magnitudes more of economical damage down the line. We literally can’t afford to do nothing.
Which is distinctly different, from the statementsade bei CDU/CDU, FDP and FW.
I disagree with this argument though. Nobody that feels aligned with the positions of the AfD or is fenerally against democracy will not vote them necause they might be illegal. Instead i often see and hear the argument their positions are legitimate as theyd otherwise be forbidden.
They simply do not derive their voting potential from people who care for rational consideration. The AfD works by emotionalizing and deceiving.
So it wont get much worse if the court case should fail. Also it is not something that was empirically observeable with other failed cases of forbidding parties in Germany.
On the other hand it might very well be too late after this years elections as the AfD could take over state governments, have enough power in many muncipal governments and in the Bundesrat (federal council) to block everything from moving forward. They do not lose politically from things not working. Instead they win even more and can radicalize even more. Also if they take power over state polices, prosecutors and the interior intelligence, it will be impossible to collect more evidence on their fascist and anticonstitutional activities.
What we see now is similiar to the appeasement we saw in the 30s. It is weak minded politicians reluctant to take action. But this doesnt work with fascists. There is never enough for them. They will always become more radical, more violent and more powerhungry.
have enough power in many muncipal governments and in the Bundesrat (federal council) to block everything from moving forward.
Nah it doesn’t work that way, they’d need a majority both in the council and parliament and be in government to block things as any of the three can initiate proceedings on their own. Municipalities don’t get a say at all.
I meant they can block the passing of laws. They can kill civil society actors by denying funds on the muncipal level, like organizations against hate crime or artists, museums and other institutions that are critical of fascist politics. They can stack muncipal administrations, police, and state executive branches with their own people.
If they gain power in the states, they can block some federal legislation, fuck up state legislation and of course they will always blame it on the federal politics.
If they gain power in the muncipalities, they can effectively block the implementation of federal and state legislation and create fascist control on the local level.
Also as education is handled on state level, they can rearrange the teaching of history, ethics, religion and other subjects, to follow their ideology.
Even if a banning procedure is initiated then, it is much more difficult to get rid of them and repair the damage they have done by then, than if the government would act now.
While that may be right, what good is it to have the concept of a well-fortified Democracy with laws aimed to prevent exactly what’s happining right now and then not use it! The whole “The NPD shouldn’t be banned, because it’s to insigificant” and “The AfD can’t be banned because it’s to big” arguement is so bloody stupid.
If a party does break laws, and I’d say the AfD does so plenty, then they should be banned. Everything else makes a mockery of the whole state. Not to mention that it’s also very dangerous.
To quote Erich Kästner:
“The events from 1933 to 1945 should have been combated by 1928 at the latest. Later it was too late. We must not wait until the fight for freedom is called treason. We must not wait until the snowball has turned into an avalanche. You have to crush the rolling snowball. No one can stop the avalanche. It will only stop when it has buried everything underneath it.”
It’s high time to fight the AfD with the necessary vigor now! And that requires all parties to stand together. But of course the fucking conservatives again play right into the hand of the Facists.
The villa is located on Lehnitzsee not far from Potsdam, a 1920s building with a tiled roof and a view of the water. The first guests arrive the evening before. A white SUV from Stade rolls into the yard, the band Frei.Wild blasts out of the window: “We, we, we, we are creating Germany.”
Many guests arrive the next Saturday morning, heading across the parquet floor towards a white-covered table with around 30 plates, each with a folded napkin.
Many have received personal invitations that basically contain everything important: there is talk of an “exclusive network” and a “minimum donation” of 5,000 euros, which is recommended for participation. Collecting money is a “core task of our group,” said the letters from the “Düsseldorf Forum,” as the group calls itself. And it seems that she is pursuing this goal: collecting donations from wealthy people and entrepreneurs who secretly want to support right-wing extremist alliances. “We need patriots who actively do something and personalities who support these activities financially,” the invitation says. At the meeting in the villa, the organizers would announce a “neutral account” and the amount could also be paid in cash.
But what should you donate to?
The first indication of this is in the invitation, signed by the organizers Mörig, the dentist, and Limmer, the former Backwerk partner. In another invitation letter, which is available to CORRECTIV, Mörig wrote: There is an “overall concept, in the sense of a master plan”. He will be introduced by a speaker who he proudly announces: “None other than Martin Sellner” will speak – the long-time face of the right-wing extremist Identitarian movement. Anyone who took part in the weekend knew what it would be about. Act 1. Scene 2 – A master plan to get rid of immigrants
Sellner, author and a leading figure in the New Right, is the first speaker at the meeting. Mörig announces him and says that Sellner has the master plan. Mörig quickly comes to the point that is supposed to be about today: “remigration”.
In the introduction, the organizer gives Sellner’s thesis particular weight: Everything else - the attitude towards corona measures and vaccinations, the situation in Ukraine and Israel - are all points of contention on the right. The only question that brings them together is the question of remigration: “whether we as a people still survive in the West or not”.
The majority of the lectures and discussions on this day will revolve around this central point, “remigration”.
Sellner takes the floor. He explains the concept in the course of the lecture as follows: There are three target groups of migration who should leave Germany. Or, as he says, “to reverse the settlement of foreigners.” He lists who he means: asylum seekers, foreigners with the right to remain - and “unassimilated citizens”. In his view, the latter are the biggest “problem”. In other words: Sellner divides the people into those who should live unmolested in Germany and those to whom this basic right should not apply.
Basically, the thought games on this day all boil down to one thing: people should be able to be pushed out of Germany if they supposedly have the wrong skin color or origin - and, from the point of view of people like Sellner, are not sufficiently “assimilated”. Even if they are German citizens.
That would be an attack on the Basic Law – on citizenship and on the principle of equality. The right-wing radical concept of remigration Act 1, Scene 3 - No objections from the AfD - despite the discussion about a ban
In terms of content, there is no fundamental criticism of the idea of the “master plan” in the group; there are many supportive questions. There are only doubts about its feasibility.
Silke Schröder, for example, a real estate entrepreneur and member of the board of the CDU-affiliated German Language Association, wonders how this should work in practice. Because as soon as a person has an “appropriate” passport, this is “an impossibility”.
This is not an obstacle for Sellner. He answers: You have to put a “high pressure” on people to adapt, for example through “tailor-made laws”. Remigration cannot be done quickly; it is “a decade-long project”.
The AfD members present also have no objections, on the contrary. AfD member of the Bundestag Gerrit Huy emphasizes that she has been pursuing the outlined goal for a long time.
When she joined the party seven years ago, she “already brought a remigration concept with her”. For this reason, the AfD no longer argues against dual citizenship. “Because then you can take the German one away again, they still have one.” As Huy puts it, immigrants with a German passport are supposed to be lured into a trap
The AfD parliamentary group leader in Saxony-Anhalt, Ulrich Siegmund, is also in the room. He will appear later to solicit donations. He is powerful in his party, also because his regional association has high approval ratings. His sales argument, in keeping with the spirit of the “master plan”: the streetscape needs to change and foreign restaurants need to be put under pressure. It should be “as unattractive as possible for this clientele to live in Saxony-Anhalt”. And that can be done very easily. His comments could have consequences in the next election.
CORRECTIV sent some of the participants questions about the meeting afterwards. Among other things: Looking back, what do you think about the central statements made there?
AfD member of the Bundestag Gerrit Huy did not respond to our questions by the time of going to press, nor did AfD politician Roland Hartwig or the party’s federal executive committee.
Ulrich Siegmund from Saxony-Anhalt had the media law firm Höcker write what they usually write: You are not allowed to quote from their answer, but your client is being accused of false things. Among other things, he was not there as a member of parliament for the AfD, but as a “private person”. In its answer, the law firm leaves open how Siegmund views the concept of “remigration”. He simply states that he does not want to “unlawfully expel” people.
And Gernot Mörig distances himself. He “remembers” Sellner’s statements “differently.” He writes to us: If he had consciously perceived such statements, they “would not have gone without objection from me” - especially with regard to the unequal treatment of German citizens.
The AfD feels that it is on the road to success; the current shift to the right is inspiring the party. According to recent surveys, it would be the strongest force in federal states such as Saxony and Thuringia with more than 30 percent - well ahead of the CDU, SPD and the Greens. At the same time, however, the party is under pressure. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution rates the AfD in Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt and Saxony as right-wing extremist. Most recently, he classified the Junge Alternative (JA) in North Rhine-Westphalia as a suspected case. The reasons given were proximity to the Identitarian Movement, a “national-ethnic understanding of the people”, and “to make people with a migration background look contemptible”.
A ban on the party is being discussed more frequently these days. Over 400,000 people signed a petition for this, and the CDU politician Marco Wanderwitz, in turn, is gathering supporters in the Bundestag who would like to support a motion for a ban with him.
The AfD itself takes a stand against this and presents itself to the outside world as a democratic force: “As a party based on the rule of law, the AfD is unconditionally committed to the German people as the sum of all people who have German citizenship,” it says on its website. Immigrants with a German passport are “just as German as the descendants of a family that has lived in Germany for centuries” and: “There are no first or second class citizens for us”.
The statements at the meeting were different: At least the AfD politicians represented there freely professed their nationalistic ideals, unobserved from outside; There are no significant differences to the positions of extremist right-wing ideologists. Act 1. Scene 4 The utopia of the Nazis
Outside the snow crumbles into gray slush. But according to sources, the group is in a good mood; for them it is a good time. Organizer Gernot Mörig says he is usually a pessimistic guy. But on this day he feels hopeful. And that has, among other things, to do with the “master plan” of the right-wing thinker Sellner.
One idea is a “model state” in North Africa. Sellner explains that up to two million people could live in such an area. Then you have a place where you can “move” people. There are opportunities for training and sport there. And everyone who supports refugees could go there too.
What Sellner designs is reminiscent of an old idea: in 1940, the National Socialists planned to deport four million Jews to the island of Madagascar. It is unclear whether Sellner has the historical parallel in mind. It may also be a coincidence that the organizers chose this villa for their conspiratorial meeting: just eight kilometers away from the hotel is the house of the Wannsee Conference, where the Nazis coordinated the systematic extermination of the Jews.
Sellner throws in another combat term from the right-wing extremist vocabulary: the so-called “ethnic choice”. He has already secured the domain for it. Sellner says: “It’s not just that the strangers live here. They vote here too.” “Ethnic vote”, which means that people with a migration background would primarily vote for “migrant-friendly” parties.
the elections themselves, but makes Germans strangers in their own country. According to the definition of the Federal Statistical Office, 20.2 million people have an “immigration history”, meaning they have immigrated themselves since 1950 or are the children of these immigrants.
It becomes clear how the strategies of right-wing extremist actors and groups intertwine: Sellner supplies the ideas, the AfDers take them up and carry them into the party. In the background, others take care of networking: wealthy people, middle-class people, middle-class people, and debates always revolve around one question: How can a unified ethnic community be achieved? Act 2, Scene 1. Influencer serving the eviction master plan
It’s now about the practical details, the next steps: Mörig, who later describes himself as the “sole organizer” in response to questions from the editorial team, speaks of a committee of experts that will develop this plan - the expulsion of people with a migration background, including German citizens should. From an “ethical, legal and logistical perspective” – a racist plan in a legal guise. Mörig already has one member in mind: Hans-Georg Maaßen, the former head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
Maaßen is a frequent topic on this day. According to several reports, the former constitutional protection officer is planning to announce the founding of his own party in January; the people in the room already know this; They bring up the new group several times at the conference.
But participants don’t seem to be taking this planned party very seriously. They are more concerned with their own plans, and they should be ready when “a patriotic force in this country has taken responsibility,” said Mörig.
The discussion is about how the idea of remigration should become a political strategy. Sellner says: To do this, “metapolitical, pre-political power” must be built up in order to “change the climate of opinion.” An active approach must support the coming right-wing government in Germany even after the election.
If you follow the content of the lectures, that practically means: money should also flow. In influencer projects, in propaganda, in action movements and university projects. That’s one side, the building of a right-wing extremist counter-public.
The other is the weakening of democracy, which means casting doubt on elections, discrediting the Constitutional Court, suppressing other opinions, and fighting public media. Act 2, Scene 2. As if the power had already tipped
One speaker follows the other, each lecture lasting about an hour. In between, lunch is brought and a waitress seems annoyed by the number of guests she has to serve.
In the afternoon Ulrich Vosgerau steps forward. He is a lawyer and was a member of the board of trustees of the AfD-affiliated Desiderius Erasmus Foundation and represented the AfD before the Federal Constitutional Court in the dispute over funding for the foundation.
The constitutional lawyer talks about postal votes, it’s about processes, about voting secrecy, and about his concerns about young voters of Turkish origin who are unable to form an independent opinion. In response to CORRECTIV questions, he later confirms this sentence. But he doesn’t want to be able to remember the idea of expatriating citizens in Sellner’s lecture.
Vosgerau considers the suggestion that a sample letter could be developed before the coming elections to cast doubt on the legality of elections to be conceivable: the more people take part, he agrees, the higher the probability of success. When he closes there is applause.
Others here also speak as if the balance of power had already been tipped. Apparently they believe they are on the verge of a breakthrough. Mario Müller, a member of the Identitarian Movement, a repeatedly convicted violent criminal and currently a research assistant to AfD member of the Bundestag Jan Wenzel Schmidt, also spoke in this style during his lecture on this day. Act 3, Scene 1. The Mörig Clan
Through the lattice windows of the country house a view of the company present opens up. The hall exudes old-fashioned splendor, a spinet in the corner, a grandfather clock on the wall, and many of the guests wear shirts and jackets.
The times seem good to them, the plans have been drawn up, at least in broad outline. But everything depends on money, Gernot Mörig knows that. In the 1970s, Mörig served as federal leader of the “Association of Home Loyal Youth,” a right-wing extremist association with a blood-and-soil ideology. Their 2009 spin-off “Heimattreu deutsche Jugend” was banned because of their neo-Nazi agenda. The “German youth loyal to their homeland” was so right-wing extremist that even Andreas Kalbitz, former head of the AfD in Brandenburg, was expelled from the party: he had previously been a guest at one of the group’s camps.
It was Mörig who selected the guests and specified the program
has. It was he who wrote about the “master plan” in his letter and asked for donations from those invited. He says that guests can “discreetly” hand over cash donations and conference contributions to his wife on site. He later says: The money he collects will be used to support smaller organizations, such as Martin Sellner.
This means: Everyone in the room who paid money as agreed is financing the Identitarian Movement and also Sellner himself. That’s what Mörig says. But he wants more.
It shows a list of supporters who supposedly want to pay money or have already paid; also those who are not there: Christian Goldschagg, founder of the fitness chain Fit-Plus and former partner of Süddeutscher Verlag. He later wrote to CORRECTIV that he had “not transferred any amount for this event or the project you described” and had nothing to do with the AfD. Also: Klaus Nordmann, a medium-sized businessman from North Rhine-Westphalia and major AfD donor. In response to questions from the editorial team, he then wrote that he had not donated 5,000 euros and did not feel compelled to do so.
Mörig names more names. Alexander von Bismarck, descendant of the former Reich Chancellor, is sitting in the room.
Mörig, the former “federal leader”, is very open about names. He brags about who has already transferred a “high four-digit sum as a donation” or is still going to do so. So far the donations have been made through the private account of his brother-in-law, a banker. He now asked him to think of something else.
He says that some people in this area would be more comfortable handing an envelope over to his wife. Apparently he wants to organize the donations even more professionally and announces that “next time they will probably have an unregistered association” through which transfers can be made. Act 3, Scene 2: An AfD politician advertises for a direct donation of millions
The AfD politician Ulrich Siegmund, parliamentary group leader from Saxony-Anhalt, also apparently needs money. Siegmund openly solicits donations at the meeting: He is already thinking about the elections and the election advertising that he would like to send out, preferably directly into the mailboxes.
Siegmund says he would like everyone to be written to at least once. Classic radio and television advertising is needed. But he also wants more: he needs 1.37 million euros – “in addition to what is provided by the party”. This could also represent an attempt to funnel money directly to him bypassing the party coffers - as a direct donation this would not necessarily be illegal.
Party donations are “of course by far the cleanest thing,” says Siegmund. “Nevertheless,” there are “absolutely legal ways to make donations.” He makes a suggestion to go through “agencies” and “personnel stories.” His request: to discuss something like this in a one-on-one conversation “in order to find the best path individually.” Act 3, Scene 3: Alice Weidel’s right hand
The fact that parts of the AfD are closely networked with neo-Nazis and the New Right is nothing new. So far, however, the party has blamed the problem on individual local or state associations.
A representative of the highest level of the party is also present at the secret meeting in the hotel: Roland Hartwig, former AfD MP and personal assistant to AfD leader Alice Weidel - and, according to several AfD insiders in the Bundestag, a kind of “unofficial general secretary of the party Political party”. Someone who has influence in the background on the highest decision-making levels of the party.
In front of the guests, Hartwig confessed to being a fan of the new-right activist Sellner, whose book he was reading “with great pleasure.” He also refers to the “master plan” previously discussed and referred to by Mörig. Hartwig then goes on to say that the AfD is currently planning a model lawsuit against public broadcasting and a campaign that will show how luxuriously equipped the stations are.
The project that Mörig’s son presented at the meeting should also be seen in the context of Sellner’s lecture: Arne Friedrich Mörig wants to set up an agency for right-wing influencers. Hartwig holds out the prospect that the AfD could co-finance the agency. According to Hartwig, the goal is to influence the elections, especially among young people: “The generation that has to turn the tide is there.” This plan aims to have young people on platforms like TikTok or YouTube with the content are played that are intended to be perceived as normal political theses.
The next step in this project, says Hartwig, will now be to present the project to the federal executive board and convince the party that it will also benefit from it.
Hartwig says a crucial sentence: “The new federal executive board, which has now been in office for a year and a half, is open to this question. So we are ready to put our money where our mouth is and Them
to carry out activities that do not directly benefit only the party.”
One gets the impression that Hartwig, Alice Weidel’s right-hand man, is acting as an intermediary to the AfD’s federal executive committee - in order to convey the plans of this meeting to the party. Hartwig did not respond to our questions later asked about the meeting by press time. epilogue
The evening after, everything is quiet. The hotel looks deserted. Only a slight flickering of the television comes from the junior suite.
What remains are:
A right-wing extremist dentist who exposed his conspiratorial network; a meeting of radical right-wing extremists with representatives of the federal AfD; a “master plan” to expel German citizens based on their “ethnicity”; i.e. a plan to undermine Articles 3, 6 and 21 of the Basic Law. The disclosure of several potential right-wing extremist donors from the upper middle class; a constitutional lawyer who describes legal methods to systematically cast doubt on democratic elections; a state parliamentary group leader of the AfD who wants to organize election donations bypassing the party; and a hotel owner who was able to make some money to cover his costs.
200 Tagessätze zu 50 €? Also 10.000 € Geldstrafe. Dafür dass er diie Frauen von sich aus beleidigt und attackiert, und dann auch noch verfolgt hat, scheint mir das reichlich milde. Warum gibt es bei solchen Hassverbrechen keine Haftstrafen? Naja, wenigstens zählt er jetzt als vorbestraft, aber das tut einer politischen Karriere in der AfD ja keinen Abbruch.
Ach das ist doch nur ein einzelner. Und überhaupt wurde das alles aus dem Kontext gerissen. Die Partei als Ganzes ist völlig anders. Sieg H… ähhh bis später.
Sind außerdem auch die Systemmedien und der Unrechtsstaat die hier eine Kampagne gegen die arme AfD fahren, muss man wissen.
Ach, irgendwie macht die ganze scheiße keinen Spaß mehr, weil man sich im Grunde sicher sein kann, dass solche “Argumente” bei irgendeinem Stammtisch ausgepackt werden.
Wenn man den Bildungsstand abfragen würde, könnte man ja evtl. nicht mehr das Narrativ des ungebildeten Ausländers fahren, der nur den Sozialstaat ausnutzen kann.
Allerdings ist Point Cloud Matching jetzt keine deutsche Erfindung, sondern wird überall auf der Welt gemacht. Aber da sollte man trotzdem nicht zu viel Technologie nach China schicken. Die chinesische Regierung hat ähnlich wie Russland nämlich leider Ziele die der Gesundheit der Menschen weltweit nicht sonderlich gut tun.
Ich glaube ehrlich gesagt nicht, dass sich Russlands oder Chinas Ziele sonderlich von den Zielen anderer Mächte unterscheiden. Geschweige denn von den Zielen unseres Großen Bruders, dem Möchtegern-Hegemon USA.
Naja. Alle wollen Dominanz, Ausweitung ihres Machtbereiches und globalen Einflusses. Die USA hatte das die letzten Jahrzehnte, und ist jetzt langsam müde und versinkt in interner Unruhe. Bleiben China und Russland die in das Vakuum drängen.
Dass ein fundamentaler Unterschied besteht zwischen einem globalen Hegemon welcher großteils unsere Werte teilt, und einem russischen oder chinesischen, welche in vielen Belangen mit unserem westlichen bzw. Europäischen Wohlergehen unvereinbare Ansichten und Ziele haben, ist doch auch klar.
Ich will nicht in der Machtsphäre Russlands leben müssen, oder mich chinesischen sozialen Normen beugen. Wir leben in Europa, dem multikulturellsten Quasistaat der Erde. Wir glauben an Pluralismus, politischen Diskurs, freie Meinungsäußerung und Toleranz. Das ist fundamental unvereinbar mit russischer oder chinesischer Ideologie.
Insofern bin ich natürlich ganz klar lieber unter der Fuchtel der USA, auch wenn ich natürlich langfristig lieber eine echte politische Union in Europa sehen würde, damit wir ein eigenes ideologisches Machtzentrum bilden können welches in der Lage ist den feindlichen geopolitischen Ambitionen die Stirn zu bieten.
wenn man so die Meldungen und letzten Recherchen betrachtet, müsste man dann aber befürchten, dass man den Tätern entweder die Adresse auf dem Silbertablett serviert oder sie mit der Polizei quasi direkt zu sich einlädt.
Insbesondere wenn man in der Nähe eines gewissen, Frankfurter Reviers sitzen sollte.
In solchen Momenten zeigen sich die wahren Gesichter der Rechtsextremen von AfD und Co. Anstatt zu diskutieren, wird gehetzt. Anstatt sachlich mit der Sache umzugehen, wird gedroht. So was droht jedem, der der AfD nicht wohlgesonnen ist.
Und deshalb brauchen wir jetzt ein Verbotsverfahren! Weil die AfD keinen Diskurs zulassen will, dieses Ziel mit allen Mitteln durchsetzt und sich dadurch gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung wendet, die unser Land so lebenswert macht!
correctiv.org
Hot