AfD has f'd up views on many things. I wouldn't even be surprised if they would vote for it, as soon as they are in a position of power. However in its current state, they would hurt themselfs with a chat control law. So yes, your a right. I would also not expect them to vote for it.
AfD is consistently the pro-choice and pro-personal-freedom party in Germany. They are the only party advocating for an unrestricted American-style free speech and against all kinds of government mandates that other mainstream political parties are pushing.
You may disagree (or agree) with many of their other views, but as an opposition party, they are precisely the corrective Germany and Europe need to keep the power-hungry elites in check.
As an American currently in Germany, the food situation is soooo much better here and they would do well to not allow incorrect or misleading labels on consumer products. I understand what you’re saying about censorship, but this is a pretty weak example, IMO. We had something similar in the US with attempts to ban the word “milk” from “almond milk” [0]. Are there other examples that are more egregious?
It’s not misleading in any way for consumers though. The consumer protection agency in Germany explicitly stated that no consumers have been confused so far (https://www.wiwo.de/100160889.html). The vegan/vegetarian sausages such as the soja sausage, which Konrad Adenauer invented more than 100 years ago, are in a completely different section and shelf in the supermarket and clearly marked as vegetarian. This law is a clear example of the government banning people from calling their products what they are and it is the opposite of free speech.
I dont understand that view : peanut butter, coconut milk, cacao butter and plenty, plenty others exemples exist probably since languages apparition. A vegetal burger shouldn’t be called beef burger obviously but we all know what almond milk means. The misleading argument isn’t serious but an attempt to block a cultural changes some don’t like or profit from.
Also, in regards to the “cow corpse flesh” comment, I think we (particularly Americans) are far too detached from the fact that eating meat is downstream from killing an animal. If we had more appreciation for that fact, perhaps we would be eating more plant-forward meals. Whether or not that would lead to a decrease in obesity or other co-morbidities would be interesting to test.
I wouldn't assume this to be their position were they already in power. They however need votes to get into power to implement that takeover. Parties like this inherently need to run on a (deceptive) populist platform for the plan to work.
While you can force law abiding people to give up their encryption because it's against the law there's no way to prevent encryption from being used by people that are already violating several laws...
However, for the same reason, it's in everybody else's best interest that an organisation that might be taken over by fascists not have access to a panopticon.
I think that "everybody else" include literal fascists. Nazi's Gestapo had serious issues with Wernher von Braun to the point Hitler had to be bothered. East Germany's Stasi had more personnel per capita than Russian KGB had. They would know that a secret police in a German state isn't a great idea regardless of ideology.
Had Hitler not able to stop Gestapo from sending von Braun to a death camp, not only history of spaceflight would have been delayed by decades, but the associated reputational bonuses to postwar Germany as "genius tech nerds that made a gross mistake" had been way lower. Not having the panopticon and just keeping freedom of speech and privacy as they are removes that type of risk. No way that serious neo-Nazis wouldn't think about that.
> No way that serious neo-Nazis wouldn't think about that.
Unless Germany's serious neo-Nazis are especially wiser than America's equivalent far-right groups (which have played the political game well enough to achieve significant power already), I am not sure current evidence supports this supposition.
"Der Verfassungsschutz belegt Bestrebungen gegen das Demokratieprinzip in der AfD. Auf allen Ebenen der Partei wird demnach die demokratische Nachkriegsentwicklung der Bundesrepublik diffamiert sowie der Staat und die Parteien verunglimpft. „Gewichtigen Teilen der Partei“ geht es „nicht mehr um eine scharfe kritische Auseinandersetzung in der Sache“. Stattdessen soll das Vertrauen in die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung „von Grund auf erschüttert“ werden, damit „die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung als Ganzes fragwürdig erscheine“.
Der Verfassungsschutz belegt Bestrebungen gegen das Rechtsstaatsprinzip in der AfD. In der Partei wird demnach die Gewaltenteilung abgelehnt, das staatliche Gewaltmonopol infrage gestellt und sich auf ein vermeintlich legitimes Widerstandsrecht berufen. Einerseits ergeben diese Aussagen laut Gutachten „kein verfestigtes Bild innerhalb der Gesamtpartei“. Andererseits wäre die Verwirklichung der „menschenwürdewidrigen und diskriminierenden Vorstellungen letztlich nicht ohne eine Verletzung des Rechtsstaatsprinzips umsetzbar“."
"Bei einer Kundgebung in Merseburg (ST) am 25. Mai 2020 konstatierte Daniel Wald (MdL, ST), dass im Zuge der Corona-Maßnahmen eine „Gesundheitsdiktatur“ errichtet worden sei, gegen die er zum Widerstand aufrief:
„Die Not unseres Volkes fordert nicht mehr nur Worte, sondern endlich Taten. Wir sind deshalb keine Verschwörungstheoretiker. Im Gegenteil: Wir sind Verschwörer. Wir verschwören uns als Bürger, als echte Opposition, als ganzes Volk gegen den Komplex aus Systemmedien, Gewerkschaften und Altparteienfilz, die sich unseren Staat schon längst zur Beute gemacht haben. Wir, die AfD, stehen dabei an der Spitze des Widerstands, bis in diesem Volk wieder eine Politik gemacht wird, die im Dienste unseres Volkes steht.“"
There are hundreds of statement verifying their goals of a violent takeover. They don't respect any of the democratic institution. They refer positiv to Nazi germany. They are connected to the literal Nazis of today.
So .. you are saying because modern fascists seldom use the term fascist for themself, they ain't no fascist?
Well, to me it is enough if people subscribe openly to all the main ideology of Hitlers party and that time in general.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck.
Höcke can be officially called a Fascist due to his statements. Was he removed from the party? Or shunned even a little?
Not as far as I am aware.
If a party negates the democratic foundations of the state they are - they do, see the quotes
If they connect with people and organisations who openly call for the nationalistic revolution - they do, see the quotes.
And if the Verfassungsschutz collects all that and labels them "largely radical right extremism" .. then it say exactly what I was saying. Preparation for a violent uprising. Just not in immediate action, otherwise they would be forbidden.
It's not that the so-called "modern fascists" don't use the term, it's that the VS does not even use the term. Not that it matters because it lost any meaning anyway.
Also the AfD does not subscribe to the main ideology of Hitlers party. Did you read the party's program? Where in god's name do you find anything in there that can be compared to the program of the NSDAP? The AfD is in large parts much more liberal than any of the other parties when it comes to the economic side of things. The AfD is also not against immigration per se, as long as it provides a benefit for teh country. Much like countries like Canada do. If you don't believe me, watch some speeches from their members, for instance the one that took place in Hannover a while ago. Don't believe just randomly what some leftist ARD/ZDF journalists want you to believe.
DieLinke on the other hand is a direct follow-up party from the SED. They want to end our capitalistic system and replace it with democratic socialism. That's 1:1 SED.
Anway, coming to Höcke. Höcke is far-right. For sure. Is he extreme? Does he want to use violence? Nope. I don't think so. It looks like people elect him in a demogratic elections. Does he say things that are on the edge? Sure! Is that his right: YES! If you don't like him, then don't vote for him. Attack his arguments with your own arguments. Labelling him fascist is a poor tactic and doesn't mean anything anymore anyway.
And you know. You base your arguments on the Verfassungsschutz. I think its a biased agency that should be removed from power as soon as possible. Same as with most of the judges, especially the radical left judges in Berlin. And I know, I know, you will call this now "anti-democratic" or whatever. Well, in a democracy, it is my RIGHT and my DUTY to critique the powers that be. That also includes the judges. Left wingers did that as well, until they successfully conducted their marche throught the institutions. Now, they LOVE the institutions. Don't believe me? The Greens SUED at the Verfassungsgericht, I think in 1983, AGAINST Germanys entry in the EU. Together with the Republicans. The reason? The EU is anti-democratic. Well, they lost because the Verfassungsgericht was pro-EU back then. However, now they LOVE the EU. Were TheGreens now less democratic than they are now? Were TheGreens "fascists" or "Nazis" or whatever you wanna call them becasue they dared to critize the institutions? The answer is no. And so aren't people that are critizing the current institutions.
And finally, to the guy claiming that I am a troll and that my posts are hidden. That's bs. I posted here maybe 10 times. And I am not a troll but a sincere citizen who just happens to really like the AfD and what it stands for.
You only become a Verdachtsfall when your organization is deemed to want to dismantle the state, get rid of rule of law or want to erase basic human rights.
