I’m not from Germany, and I have a question: was there a single situation when Scholz called for a change, not for cautious deep concern emission?
Reportedly, 3 years ago he changed his underwear.
But if you ask about it he probably wont remember.
cum-ex underwear
(sounds weird, but cum-ex was a huge tax/financial fraud. over €30 billion, he was involved…so basically no less mafia than cdu lobbyism cult)
That’s the centrist ratchet mechanism. Only turns right.
I’m not trying to defend Scholz action-wise, but language-wise you might want to look for funny terms like “Zeitenwende” (turn of an era), “Doppelwumms” (Double Boom) or “Bazooka”…
We saw how “too big to fail” worked out in 2008. Don’t repeat the mistakes.
Chancellor Leberwurst is softer than a wet paper bag. News at 11.
A better translation for “extremist” is “seditious”.
Extremism refers to activities which oppose our democratic constitutional state and its fundamental values, norms and rules. Extremists seek to overthrow the liberal democratic order and replace it with one in line with their own ideas. They often endorse, encourage or even use violence as a way to achieve their aims. Terrorism is the most aggressive and militant form of extremism.
https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/security/extremism/extremism-node.html
I think the major concern is that there is a chance that the ban doesn’t pass the constitutional court. Which obviously would be devastating and ultimately would legitimize the AfD. I’m all for initiating the process, but it has to be done carefully.
The AfD is already legitimized with being votable. It gets more legitimized with every position, every Euro of funding, every interview in the news…
Nobody that wants to vote AfD is discouraged by some nebulous idea that they might be unconstitutional. If they were unconstitutional they would be forbidden after all.
there is only one real shot at banning the AfD. if the courts decide against it, I assume it would be almost impossible to try again. That’s why I can understand that people are cautious.
“being cautious” with the AfD is what let us here. Trying to “fight the AfD with political content” only led to taking their positions and strengthening them even further. Almost all parties in the federal parliament would rather let the AfD take over than address social issues.
So inside the current system it is the only option left to prevent the Fascist takeover.
The origin of the AfD is that a stable euro was promised but not delivered.
Better and more honest politics would prevent the AfD.
But the main problem is that the media provided the attention. The conflict is wanted by the upper class. To resolve the AfD within the system, alternative media has to be established.
Could you please elaborate how the euro is not stable? I don’t really get that point honestly, although I know the origins of the AFD are mostly about being against the euro
I haven’t found a good article that explains the early AfD position so I try to explain what I can remember.
The core should be that one currency for an inhomogenuous political entity is not a good idea. Usually, countries with weak industries can devalue their currency to offer their goods at competitive prices on the global market. This effectively means taking value from whomever owns money or receives wages that don’t adjust immediately.
If there is only one currency, and if that currency should remain stable, somebody else has to pay to adjust the prices. This can be seen in Germany after the unification when there were additional taxes in the west to finance the east.
Now the promise to the Germans was that the euro would be stable but also that they wouldn’t have to pay for it.
Economically, this doesn’t make sense, as scientists had pointed out, but they were ignored. (Thus the original AfD, to have an alternative to the established parties.)
Now the euro is quite stable. So who paid?
You don’t seem to understand my point. If I say that there is only one shot we have for a ban, then I don’t mean to say we shouldn’t bother trying, but we should be careful and precise when we do. The bars for banning a political party are (somewhat understandably) high. I’m not opposed to banning the AfD - but speaking pragmatically, if the timing/conditions aren’t right, the prohibition won’t get through.
Well, he’s not wrong. The NSDAP was banned in '23 and that only fanned their sense of grievance.
Important context: 1923, not 2023 and their ban was removed in 1925.
1923, not 2023
I would hope most readers here could infer that from the fact I was talking about the NSDAP.
The ban was of course lifted later, but there’s nothing right-wingers love more than being able to say they are a persecuted by a political elite, so the ban was very good for them.
No, the ban was good for them because it was removed shortly after, giving them a quasi-revolutionary painting without suffering the consequences. Don’t be their aid by arguing against the efficacy of a ban, thus watering down any action.
I don’t pretend to be able to predict the future. All I can do is look at past mistakes and try to avoid them.
