I wasn't specifically speaking of Afd, but overall general direction of the term used by media. How many people who are moderate and haven't changed their views on things moved from moderate to being labeled as far right.
Anyway this topic shouldn't even be on HN. The story will likely be flagged soon.
> Anyway this topic shouldn't even be on HN. The story will likely be flagged soon.
We are building a literal surveillance state tech dystopia funded by the sorts of VCs that employ a lot of the people in this site and you think that news about who will have control over this and what they plan to do with it is off-topic?
I think typically the term "Far" is meant to denote where it lies on political spectrum, and has fairly well understood typical brew of populist/authoritarian/nationalistic/xenophobic, with themes of strength, unity, and focus on "in" and "out" groups
It does not mean fringe or rare or low-in-numbers - unfortunately, "far right politics" have frequently been in the majority in our history and will certainly be again :-/
When no political party is willing to address the immigration issue that clearly is forefront on the minds of such AFD voters, what did you expect them to do? Vote CDU?
Do we all think that another 8, 10 years of being "firewalled" out of national poltitics and being told they're all nazis (I'm sure some of them are, but nowhere near all) is going to make them less or more extreme?
It's hard work making a society that caters to everyone, but the approach of ignoring and belittling a large group and ignoring their concerns entirely has a shelf life, and we aren't going to like the results.
But hey, the boomers will all get their pensions and continue to vote CDU so that's all that matters.
> being told they're all nazis (I'm sure some of them are, but nowhere near all)
Many of their senior leaders are Nazis. The head of the party in the state of Thuringia used to write pro-Hitler articles under a pseudonym.
> ignoring and belittling a large group and ignoring their concerns entirely
The AfD doesn't address their problems either. It tells them that all of their problems are because of foreigners and immigrants.
What's the AfD's solution for affordable housing? Deport immigrants to free up apartments. What's their solution for creating jobs? Deport immigrants.
This is a party that wants to deport all German citizens who don't have a sufficient quantum of German blood. There's no need to pretend the party is anything other than what it is: a fascist party.
There has been a big problem with migrants in the syrian civil war, most of which are gone again.
Without immigrants the ageing German population has no chance to keep their social safety net and as we see in the US, even when the social safety net is significantly reduced, the immigrant scarecrow will still have the desired effect for the populists because the immigrants are not the problem, they make, however a phenomenal scapegoat and will always appeal to the general populace. In consequence, focussing solely on immigration won't solve the fundamental problems and certainly won't help when the first waves of hungry climate refugees march north.
The consequences are border tightening and rearming and repopulating the military and marching confidently in the completely wrong direction. Dialog is dead and so is diplomacy.
Re-establish communication, not twitter. Collaborate on a wide front, analyse the data, compile potential solution, discuss them, etablish them. Talk to Russia, talk to Ukraine, Defang NATO or abolish it. Talk to Iran. Stop the US propagating pseudo diplomacy via Kushner and send real diplomats. Look to invest in R&D for recycling techniques, carbon sequestering, substitutes for plastics, redirect military funding to massively expand renewable energy. Close all European borders the next time the US starts a war. There is so much to do.
You're talking about the party. You're not saying anything wrong, but parent was talking about the voters.
It is true that the issues of people who vote far-right are ridiculed, and they themselves are demonised, which the parent holds, and I agree, is unproductive.
Far-right voters are largely the losers of globalisation/economic growth trying whatever they can to improve their situation: the phenomenon of many of these voters alternating between far-right and far-left from one election to the other is one of many indicators of what their real goal is, ie improving their situation.
Re migration: it does have negative effects on the economically marginalised, which the readership of HN and the talking heads in mainstream media are largely not. Among these are increasing housing costs, downward pressure on salaries, rapid and alienating shifts in cultural (and I mean cultural, not racial) makeup of cities and neighbourhoods: none of this should be controversial.
The establishment parties (so right and "left" like SPD, Labour, PS) have financial incentives to increase migration, which they do (see the Boris wave in the UK).
While migration is not an inherent evil at all, the way it's done by these parties does lead to negative effects, which adds one reason among many to vote for the far-right. So the short-term solution (curbing migration) is the simple and popular answer. The long-term solution (curbing capitalism) is harder and unpopular, so radical left parties unfortunately get fewer votes (except in France, where there's a real chance of the LFI showing a better path).
> the immigration issue that clearly is forefront on the minds of such AFD voters,
Let's be real: this "issue" is a strawman. It doesn't really exist, especially in that part of Germany. Just like pretty much everywhere else, the German anti-immigrant far right is strongest in the areas with the fewest immigrants.
This is not to say that the wave of immigration that is now more than 10 years past didn't have its challenges, and they were downplayed by some.
But at its core, the immigration scare is just the classic playbook of offering simple but wrong explanations to distract from the class warfare that's being waged by the wealthy.
Ideally, we'd turn down the temperature and have patient conversations, but the media environment was made very counterproductive over the last few decades.
> Let's be real: this "issue" is a strawman. It doesn't really exist, especially in that part of Germany. Just like pretty much everywhere else, the German anti-immigrant far right is strongest in the areas with the fewest immigrants
According to this organization which sits on the complete on opposite spectrum of the right/far-right, they write that 2.7M people immigrants moved to Germany in 2022 with a net inflow of 1.5M in a single year.
According to the same organization, today, immigrants make-up at least 20% of the German population and that's from an article from 2024 so that number is probably low. So if we extrapolate roughly 1 in 4 people living in Germany are not German.
That is exactly why the AFD is rising, people just bury their heads in the sand and pretend that there is no problem at all.
But I guess its easier to think that 44% of the inhabitants of Saxony-Anhalt are secretly Nazies than admitting that something must change. Lets continue doing that, its been working so well so far!
It also doesn't explain the regional correlations. If immigrants are objectively a problem, why is anti-immigration sentiment highest in regions with the least immigration?
20% of people in Germany were born abroad. A good share of them have naturalized and are now German citizens. The top countries of origin are Poland, Turkey and Ukraine.
Very few of them go to Saxony-Anhalt. Less than 10% of the population of the state is foreign-born. As GP said, anti-immigrant sentiment is strongest where there are the fewest immigrants.
> But I guess its easier to think that 44% of the inhabitants of Saxony-Anhalt are secretly Nazies
People have a hard time imagining that any person ever voted for the Nazis. 37% of Germans did. It's entirely possible for large parts of the population to vote for fascist parties. It has happened in history before.
When economic reforms are off the table, and austerity has run out of things to be austere about... yeah, anti-immigrant political parties are going to feast.
Here in the US, there's a dumber revival of the Red Scare. The scare mongering isn't as effective this go round because there's no existing abundance for the people. All people want is affordable housing, jobs that let you plan for the future, and healthcare that won't bankrupt you. But there's no solution to any of those problems that don't involve some class of investors losing money/power. So we're stuck with MAGA. Incoherent ideology for incoherent times. When I look at the AfD, I see the same helpless thrashing taking hold.
Its kind of the same as Maga, in the way that the people, and the politicians want very different things.. the people want a stop to crazy levels of immigration, and a stop to the EU deciding how they live their lives, and the politicians wants immigration, censorship and the EU to decide everything.. people voting Afd is primarily anti immigration and anti establishment.
> All people want is affordable housing, jobs that let you plan for the future, and healthcare that won't bankrupt you.
Right. I want to see the Democrats campaigning on those things. Midterm is near, they should be getting their We-Wont-Let-AI-Take-Your-Jobs campaign in motion.
> But there's no solution to any of those problems that don't involve some class of investors losing money/power. So we're stuck with MAGA.
You got MAGA because the Dems specifically went the diversity route, instead of at least pretending to address the concerns of the voters.
This time round they've been handed an opportunity on a golden platter: Go anti-AI, at least enough so that people aren't worried about losing their jobs to AI.
They will not see an opportunity like this for a long time, and if MAGA wins again, blame will lie squarely on Dems who decided that arguing about men in women's sport is a productive use of their voter goodwill.
I'm worried of what European defense will look like if some day France, Germany and UK are all ruled by populist parties with historical ties / understanding attitude towards to Russia & skepticism towards NATO and EU. Not good for us here in Eastern frontier of EU.
Traditional parties have failed badly in economic and migration policies, and Russia does its best to exploit this. They can't win on a battlefield against united Europe, but if small Eastern European countries are left without support, then Russia has much better odds against them.
If they win the federal elections, this will be the biggest betrayal of voters ever. Musk will have a chat with Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs will have a chat with Weidel, then the following will happen:
- The Ukraine war will continue to be supported for the benefit of Blackrock and to tie up Russia for the middle east plans of the US.
- There will be a lot of noise about immigration. Some 1000 people will be deported for the headlines, but Weidel will obey the industry that uses immigration for union busting, driving down salaries and driving up rents.
- Social services will be cut for everyone, including AfD voters.
- Weidel will discover that she can use state TV and refrain from abolishing it.
- Military spending will increase according to Hegseth's wishes.
This is the biggest con in post-war German election history.
I don't understand why we even give the right an opportunity to speak on immigration. Is it really that hard to allow only legal immigration and stop giving incentives to illegal immigrants? I understand that there may be around 5% of people who are genuinely trying to escape dictatorships, but if 95% are just gaming the system, it's going to look very bad.
> Is it really that hard to allow only legal immigration and stop giving incentives to illegal immigrants?
Illegal immigrants are a source of cheap labor. Business interests tell politicians that without a pool of cheap workers, costs will go up, voters will feel inflation, and the politicians will get the blame.
The overall cost is not low. Some illegal immigrants get benefits. Some illegal immigrants commit crimes. Almost all illegal immigrants will use the healthcare system eventually. But those costs are not seen by the businesses that push illegal immigration.
> The overall cost is not low. Some illegal immigrants get benefits.
> But those costs are not seen by the businesses that push illegal immigration.
Do you have a source about the cost? As of 2023, noncitizen immigrants generally and illegal immigrants specifically were a net positive to fiscal burden [1]:
> Illegal noncitizens were only somewhat less fiscally positive per capita than noncitizens generally, and they likely reduced the deficit by at least $1.7 trillion from 1994 to 2023. Illegal immigrants of all educational attainments are also likely to have paid more in taxes than they received in government benefits. Although we adopt simple assumptions, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion significantly different from the one below. Even if illegal immigrants used benefits at the exact same rate as all noncitizens, they would still be, on average, fiscally beneficial to the United States—both by reducing the debt in real terms and by lowering debt-to-GDP.
> Almost all illegal immigrants will use the healthcare system eventually.
If by almost all you mean that most illegal immigrants get pathways to permanent residence/citizenship (unclear to me whether that's true), it's not very relevant unless you propose that after becoming legal residents illegal immigrants burden the economy/budget more than always-legal residents do. Otherwise, I would wonder whether the national birth rate issue [2] is as urgent as I've heard.
Giving them an opportunity to speak on immigration by handling it so badly.
If I don't put out a fire, you can come along and suggest pouring kerosene on it, and if I handle shit badly enough, people might say hey, why not. But if I put the fire out while you're still a toddler, what can you do? Suggest to start a fire and pour kerosene on it?
> to me this sounds exactly like the type of fascist rhetoric everyone warns about
Well going by what you just did, I would have to guess you would say this about just about anything except fascist rhetoric. To try to twist something to harmless and banally true as the above into some sinister fascist ideology, while shrugging off people calling the Holocaust a "Fliegenschiss", who plan to abolish education about that time, does have a Gschmäckle.
You putting words into the mouth of others is not you speaking, it's you making noises to drown out the speech of others. So fuck this pretense of caring for free speech. You are what you do.
You have completely misread what he is saying. See Denmark - mainstream parties started to be harder on immigration and all the right wing parties in Denmark essentially evaporated.
In the UK I think the issue is the European Court of Human Rights say you can't send them back and so it costs the taxpayer about £200k a head to house and feed them. The answer is probably to leave the court and send them back but only Reform + Reclaim I think are pitching that.
It's kind of a shame - if the mainstream politicians followed the views of the mainstream voters you wouldn't have the far right lot getting in.
For me it's a shame because I believe in democracy, human rights and rule of law and most of the anti - immigrant parties also believe in letting Russia trample those, probably because Russia funds them.
> Is it really that hard to allow only legal immigration and stop giving incentives to illegal immigrants?
Suggesting they abandon a core part of their platform is a non-starter. At least in the US, the left isn't silent or neutral on illegal immigration, they are enthusiastically pro illegal immigration. One of the biggest reasons centrists have drifted to supporting the right is realizing the left no longer supports their values.
The people on the left who are "enthusiastically pro illegal immigration" are a tiny minority of all leftists. The majority does think that illegal immigrants shouldn't be mistreated deliberately, which conservative media outlets condense into "enthusiastically pro illegal immigration".
Seconded. I guess it makes sense with tech leaders like Musk and DHH making white supremacy fun and cool again. But the internet always remembers, and will continue to remember when these things are not fun and cool anymore.
I assume that these populist, extremist or dictator-willing-to-be politicians, not only in Germany but also in other European countries, in Russia, in the US, in Canada, as well as in China and elsewhere, are now all spending countless AI tokens to perfect their psychological manipulation and brainwashing techniques.
So that they can secure more and more fanatic followers who will vote for them no matter what. And so that they can remain in power for as long as possible.
To them, the "illegal immigration issue" is just a vehicle to gain power. Nothing more.
Because, from what I can see, their only and actual goal is to get in power. No matter the cost. Then abuse it to the benefit of them and their friends. And never ever give it up ever again.
> to them, the "illegal immigration issue" is just a vehicle to gain power. Nothing more.
If what you said made any sense whatsoever, then the parties currently in charge would have stopped it along time ago. Because if according to you that makes the far-right parties grow stronger, then why would anyone in their right mind not do anything about it?
Why wait for these parties to use this issue to fuel their growth?
The CDU has been trying to adopt more AfD positions and talking points, in the hopes of getting their votes. Meanwhile this keeps only strengthening the AfD, but the CDU would rather see the fascists in power than govern with anyone left of center.
I am unfamiliar with the details of German politics but if what you say is true, I am not surprised at all. I do not think that one can "win" against those parties by using their methods or adopting their positions. Because they are genuine at it. While the others would only fake it.
If the voters have a choice between a fake populist and a genuine populist, they would, in my opinion, naturally pick the genuine one.
I think that one of the reasons is that the "fakeness" is not very appealing to anyone. So they prefer the "real deal".
The research I've seen points to a different, but closely related causal chain - when the mainstream party adopts positions by the extreme party, some view it as a confirmation that the extreme party was right on this point, and might be right on others.
That issue is just one of many that they use and abuse to gain popularity. They have also spread lies about vaccines. They promote antisemitism, xenophobia, hate against the LGBTI people, historical revisionism (e.g. they say nice things about the Nazis), etc. They are even fighting against the wind turbines (or, as Donald Trump calls them, the "wind mills"). You cannot satisfy their demands by "fixing" one issue. Because they will always find another. The more absurd one, the better, it seems. I think that the reason is that those absurd causes are supported by people who are easy to manipulate. They know it. And they abuse it.
> Why wait for these parties to use this issue to fuel their growth?
No one wants to wait. But at the same time, I have not yet seen a successful recipe on how to root out their populist practices and render them ineffective against the general population at large. Because, unfortunately, there is still a considerable number of people who are falling for it. And it seems to me that no politician or party so far has been able to figure out a reliable way to protect those who are most vulnerable from being manipulated this way.
"They're not afraid to say climate change is fake".
"They're going to kick out the refugees".
"They're going to fix the retirement pensions".
"Back to the good old days".
I'm now reading that the AfD are saying in the press that "democracy demands the other parties work with them". I mean if someone got into power on the promise of taking away the right for women to vote, I guess all the adults in the room have to bow down to 'democracy'.
I personally think the general population is some small percentage of saintly people. And a small percentage of evil people. And a huge mass in the middle. That mass in the middle can be swayed to vote for almost anything.
There was a lot of hope when the current German government was elected. The current chancellor did his campaign saying the leftist-green ideological politics would be over and he is going to drastically reduce the government spending and cut bureaucracy and lift up the economy. People believed him and majority voted for a center right government.
However, as soon as he came to power, he broke the promise of fiscal discipline and cutting spending and the first thing he did was passed a bill to burrow more than half a trillion Euros under the votes of old parliament even changing the constitution.
Also because of the firewall they have imposed to AfD, for him the only coalition partner was SPD( which is more of a left leaning party) and they formed a government and since then it has been internal conflicts to pass the important legislations to get the country back on track.
All these has worked as a boost for the AfD because people realised that apart from AfD the only other main right conservative party in Germany is CDU/CSU (which is the party of the chancellor) and voting for them hasn’t resulted in the change they voted in last election and now, they don’t have any other choice than voting for AfD because voting for the same old parties expecting a different result would be the definition of insanity.
> All these has worked as a boost for the AfD because people realised that apart from AfD the only other main right conservative party in Germany is CDU/CSU
I think that was a mistake and they should have form coalition with AfD and let them try to fulfil their promises to their voters. After delivering either little or dead on arrival laws they would be effectively self-defused.
I'd like to note the highly biased nature of this comment.
> There was a lot of hope when the current German government was elected. The current chancellor did his campaign saying the leftist-green ideological politics would be over and he is going to drastically reduce the government spending and cut bureaucracy and lift up the economy. People believed him and majority voted for a center right government.
The current chancellor is from the CDU, the same party that led the government 16 out of the last 20 years (and the majority of Germany's existence), and they offered nothing but populist non-solutions. Now they're implementing them, and it turns out they're just pushing Germany deeper into the hole the CDU dug for us.
> However, as soon as he came to power, he broke the promise of fiscal discipline and cutting spending and the first thing he did was passed a bill to burrow more than half a trillion Euros under the votes of old parliament even changing the constitution.
This is a non-argument, since it's just pointing at a Euro amount without arguing why it's not fiscally responsible or how it doesn't align with their campaign promises. I actually agree that it's fiscally irresponsible, but it definitely aligns with Merz's campaign promises. When you vote for a party that promises both fiscal responsibility AND to funnel lots of money to the rich, you're gonna break one of them no matter what - but that's on the voters for believing in both.
> Also because of the firewall they have imposed to AfD, for him the only coalition partner was SPD( which is more of a left leaning party) and they formed a government and since then it has been internal conflicts to pass the important legislations to get the country back on track.
For the record, the SPD lost >80% of their voters because they have been the CDU's little lapdog for more than a decade, and are actively pushing against non-centrist policies. The "important legislations to get the country back on track" are things like "allowing employers to demand 8 additional hours of work each week" or "allowing employers to force employees to get a sick note on the first day AND no longer paying for single sick days, WHILE ALSO banning sick notes over video appointments AND no longer reimbursing physicians for 'open hours', so if you can't get that sick note, sucks to be you".
In comparison, the party FDP (who literally let the richest capitalists directly participate in their decisions) actually blocked a bunch of agreed-upon things in the only recent left-of-center government. After the coalition fell apart, investigative journalism revealed that they literally planned on entering the government with the intention of blocking as much as possible before blowing up the coalition.
> After the coalition fell apart, investigative journalism revealed that they literally planned on entering the government with the intention of blocking as much as possible before blowing up the coalition.
Can you share the link or source for this? This is the first time I’m hearing this
As a European, I am not worried at all. AfD promises are a complete nonsense which will make everything in Germany worse (Leaving Euro, EU) or require cooperation of other countries (Deportations) so they will either not even try or try and fail. Then after 4-5 years of barking achieve nothing and will get voted out.
You’ve projected the best outcome, but there are worse outcomes than that. They can proclaim it’s a major crisis and suspend elections indefinitely. Wars follow and those frigging suck to put it nicely.
I've found this book to be particularly instructive in understanding how policies across the world ended up neglecting citizens and pushing them to the far right, from Trump to AfD and everything in between. It's made it clearer that these are common symptoms that arise from systemic problems, not one-off idiosyncrasies.
After the Fall: From the End of History to the Crisis of Democracy, How Politicians Broke Our World
58 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 30.1 ms ] threadJust because authoritarianism has emerged from the fringes doesn't make it any less authoritarian.
Anyway this topic shouldn't even be on HN. The story will likely be flagged soon.
Oh, it should. Where should we discuss it? Because we really should discuss it.
We are building a literal surveillance state tech dystopia funded by the sorts of VCs that employ a lot of the people in this site and you think that news about who will have control over this and what they plan to do with it is off-topic?
As for a resurgence of the nazi horror: their leader is in a mixed race lesbian relationship.
It does not mean fringe or rare or low-in-numbers - unfortunately, "far right politics" have frequently been in the majority in our history and will certainly be again :-/
Also, the Free State of Anhalt was the first Weimar state to elect a local parliament with a Nazi leader. History sure does rhyme.
Do we all think that another 8, 10 years of being "firewalled" out of national poltitics and being told they're all nazis (I'm sure some of them are, but nowhere near all) is going to make them less or more extreme?
It's hard work making a society that caters to everyone, but the approach of ignoring and belittling a large group and ignoring their concerns entirely has a shelf life, and we aren't going to like the results.
But hey, the boomers will all get their pensions and continue to vote CDU so that's all that matters.
Many of their senior leaders are Nazis. The head of the party in the state of Thuringia used to write pro-Hitler articles under a pseudonym.
> ignoring and belittling a large group and ignoring their concerns entirely
The AfD doesn't address their problems either. It tells them that all of their problems are because of foreigners and immigrants.
What's the AfD's solution for affordable housing? Deport immigrants to free up apartments. What's their solution for creating jobs? Deport immigrants.
This is a party that wants to deport all German citizens who don't have a sufficient quantum of German blood. There's no need to pretend the party is anything other than what it is: a fascist party.
if you could make them powerless by just addressing the issue, why have no parties done that? why hand power to the AfD?
Without immigrants the ageing German population has no chance to keep their social safety net and as we see in the US, even when the social safety net is significantly reduced, the immigrant scarecrow will still have the desired effect for the populists because the immigrants are not the problem, they make, however a phenomenal scapegoat and will always appeal to the general populace. In consequence, focussing solely on immigration won't solve the fundamental problems and certainly won't help when the first waves of hungry climate refugees march north.
The consequences are border tightening and rearming and repopulating the military and marching confidently in the completely wrong direction. Dialog is dead and so is diplomacy.
Re-establish communication, not twitter. Collaborate on a wide front, analyse the data, compile potential solution, discuss them, etablish them. Talk to Russia, talk to Ukraine, Defang NATO or abolish it. Talk to Iran. Stop the US propagating pseudo diplomacy via Kushner and send real diplomats. Look to invest in R&D for recycling techniques, carbon sequestering, substitutes for plastics, redirect military funding to massively expand renewable energy. Close all European borders the next time the US starts a war. There is so much to do.
It is true that the issues of people who vote far-right are ridiculed, and they themselves are demonised, which the parent holds, and I agree, is unproductive.
Far-right voters are largely the losers of globalisation/economic growth trying whatever they can to improve their situation: the phenomenon of many of these voters alternating between far-right and far-left from one election to the other is one of many indicators of what their real goal is, ie improving their situation.
Re migration: it does have negative effects on the economically marginalised, which the readership of HN and the talking heads in mainstream media are largely not. Among these are increasing housing costs, downward pressure on salaries, rapid and alienating shifts in cultural (and I mean cultural, not racial) makeup of cities and neighbourhoods: none of this should be controversial.
The establishment parties (so right and "left" like SPD, Labour, PS) have financial incentives to increase migration, which they do (see the Boris wave in the UK).
While migration is not an inherent evil at all, the way it's done by these parties does lead to negative effects, which adds one reason among many to vote for the far-right. So the short-term solution (curbing migration) is the simple and popular answer. The long-term solution (curbing capitalism) is harder and unpopular, so radical left parties unfortunately get fewer votes (except in France, where there's a real chance of the LFI showing a better path).
Let's be real: this "issue" is a strawman. It doesn't really exist, especially in that part of Germany. Just like pretty much everywhere else, the German anti-immigrant far right is strongest in the areas with the fewest immigrants.
This is not to say that the wave of immigration that is now more than 10 years past didn't have its challenges, and they were downplayed by some.
But at its core, the immigration scare is just the classic playbook of offering simple but wrong explanations to distract from the class warfare that's being waged by the wealthy.
Ideally, we'd turn down the temperature and have patient conversations, but the media environment was made very counterproductive over the last few decades.
I'm pretty convinced at this point there's almost nothing we can do about it.
This is not a strawman. Even if you believe that the AFD is not correct in its diagnosis of the problems, why are you saying something that is a complete lie: https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/54441/germany-net-migra...
According to this organization which sits on the complete on opposite spectrum of the right/far-right, they write that 2.7M people immigrants moved to Germany in 2022 with a net inflow of 1.5M in a single year.
According to the same organization, today, immigrants make-up at least 20% of the German population and that's from an article from 2024 so that number is probably low. So if we extrapolate roughly 1 in 4 people living in Germany are not German.
That is exactly why the AFD is rising, people just bury their heads in the sand and pretend that there is no problem at all.
But I guess its easier to think that 44% of the inhabitants of Saxony-Anhalt are secretly Nazies than admitting that something must change. Lets continue doing that, its been working so well so far!
It also doesn't explain the regional correlations. If immigrants are objectively a problem, why is anti-immigration sentiment highest in regions with the least immigration?
Make it make sense...
Very few of them go to Saxony-Anhalt. Less than 10% of the population of the state is foreign-born. As GP said, anti-immigrant sentiment is strongest where there are the fewest immigrants.
> But I guess its easier to think that 44% of the inhabitants of Saxony-Anhalt are secretly Nazies
People have a hard time imagining that any person ever voted for the Nazis. 37% of Germans did. It's entirely possible for large parts of the population to vote for fascist parties. It has happened in history before.
Here in the US, there's a dumber revival of the Red Scare. The scare mongering isn't as effective this go round because there's no existing abundance for the people. All people want is affordable housing, jobs that let you plan for the future, and healthcare that won't bankrupt you. But there's no solution to any of those problems that don't involve some class of investors losing money/power. So we're stuck with MAGA. Incoherent ideology for incoherent times. When I look at the AfD, I see the same helpless thrashing taking hold.
Right. I want to see the Democrats campaigning on those things. Midterm is near, they should be getting their We-Wont-Let-AI-Take-Your-Jobs campaign in motion.
> But there's no solution to any of those problems that don't involve some class of investors losing money/power. So we're stuck with MAGA.
You got MAGA because the Dems specifically went the diversity route, instead of at least pretending to address the concerns of the voters.
This time round they've been handed an opportunity on a golden platter: Go anti-AI, at least enough so that people aren't worried about losing their jobs to AI.
They will not see an opportunity like this for a long time, and if MAGA wins again, blame will lie squarely on Dems who decided that arguing about men in women's sport is a productive use of their voter goodwill.
Traditional parties have failed badly in economic and migration policies, and Russia does its best to exploit this. They can't win on a battlefield against united Europe, but if small Eastern European countries are left without support, then Russia has much better odds against them.
- The Ukraine war will continue to be supported for the benefit of Blackrock and to tie up Russia for the middle east plans of the US.
- There will be a lot of noise about immigration. Some 1000 people will be deported for the headlines, but Weidel will obey the industry that uses immigration for union busting, driving down salaries and driving up rents.
- Social services will be cut for everyone, including AfD voters.
- Weidel will discover that she can use state TV and refrain from abolishing it.
- Military spending will increase according to Hegseth's wishes.
This is the biggest con in post-war German election history.
Illegal immigrants are a source of cheap labor. Business interests tell politicians that without a pool of cheap workers, costs will go up, voters will feel inflation, and the politicians will get the blame.
The overall cost is not low. Some illegal immigrants get benefits. Some illegal immigrants commit crimes. Almost all illegal immigrants will use the healthcare system eventually. But those costs are not seen by the businesses that push illegal immigration.
> But those costs are not seen by the businesses that push illegal immigration.
Do you have a source about the cost? As of 2023, noncitizen immigrants generally and illegal immigrants specifically were a net positive to fiscal burden [1]:
> Illegal noncitizens were only somewhat less fiscally positive per capita than noncitizens generally, and they likely reduced the deficit by at least $1.7 trillion from 1994 to 2023. Illegal immigrants of all educational attainments are also likely to have paid more in taxes than they received in government benefits. Although we adopt simple assumptions, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion significantly different from the one below. Even if illegal immigrants used benefits at the exact same rate as all noncitizens, they would still be, on average, fiscally beneficial to the United States—both by reducing the debt in real terms and by lowering debt-to-GDP.
> Almost all illegal immigrants will use the healthcare system eventually.
If by almost all you mean that most illegal immigrants get pathways to permanent residence/citizenship (unclear to me whether that's true), it's not very relevant unless you propose that after becoming legal residents illegal immigrants burden the economy/budget more than always-legal residents do. Otherwise, I would wonder whether the national birth rate issue [2] is as urgent as I've heard.
[1] https://www.cato.org/white-paper/immigrants-recent-effects-g...
[2] https://phys.org/news/2026-06-birth-declining-world.html
"People I disagree with should not have a right to speak"
I don't know about you, but to me this sounds exactly like the type of fascist rhetoric everyone warns about.
If I don't put out a fire, you can come along and suggest pouring kerosene on it, and if I handle shit badly enough, people might say hey, why not. But if I put the fire out while you're still a toddler, what can you do? Suggest to start a fire and pour kerosene on it?
> to me this sounds exactly like the type of fascist rhetoric everyone warns about
Well going by what you just did, I would have to guess you would say this about just about anything except fascist rhetoric. To try to twist something to harmless and banally true as the above into some sinister fascist ideology, while shrugging off people calling the Holocaust a "Fliegenschiss", who plan to abolish education about that time, does have a Gschmäckle.
You putting words into the mouth of others is not you speaking, it's you making noises to drown out the speech of others. So fuck this pretense of caring for free speech. You are what you do.
It's kind of a shame - if the mainstream politicians followed the views of the mainstream voters you wouldn't have the far right lot getting in.
For me it's a shame because I believe in democracy, human rights and rule of law and most of the anti - immigrant parties also believe in letting Russia trample those, probably because Russia funds them.
Suggesting they abandon a core part of their platform is a non-starter. At least in the US, the left isn't silent or neutral on illegal immigration, they are enthusiastically pro illegal immigration. One of the biggest reasons centrists have drifted to supporting the right is realizing the left no longer supports their values.
So that they can secure more and more fanatic followers who will vote for them no matter what. And so that they can remain in power for as long as possible.
To them, the "illegal immigration issue" is just a vehicle to gain power. Nothing more.
Because, from what I can see, their only and actual goal is to get in power. No matter the cost. Then abuse it to the benefit of them and their friends. And never ever give it up ever again.
If what you said made any sense whatsoever, then the parties currently in charge would have stopped it along time ago. Because if according to you that makes the far-right parties grow stronger, then why would anyone in their right mind not do anything about it?
Why wait for these parties to use this issue to fuel their growth?
> this keeps only strengthening the AfD
I am unfamiliar with the details of German politics but if what you say is true, I am not surprised at all. I do not think that one can "win" against those parties by using their methods or adopting their positions. Because they are genuine at it. While the others would only fake it.
If the voters have a choice between a fake populist and a genuine populist, they would, in my opinion, naturally pick the genuine one.
I think that one of the reasons is that the "fakeness" is not very appealing to anyone. So they prefer the "real deal".
That issue is just one of many that they use and abuse to gain popularity. They have also spread lies about vaccines. They promote antisemitism, xenophobia, hate against the LGBTI people, historical revisionism (e.g. they say nice things about the Nazis), etc. They are even fighting against the wind turbines (or, as Donald Trump calls them, the "wind mills"). You cannot satisfy their demands by "fixing" one issue. Because they will always find another. The more absurd one, the better, it seems. I think that the reason is that those absurd causes are supported by people who are easy to manipulate. They know it. And they abuse it.
> Why wait for these parties to use this issue to fuel their growth?
No one wants to wait. But at the same time, I have not yet seen a successful recipe on how to root out their populist practices and render them ineffective against the general population at large. Because, unfortunately, there is still a considerable number of people who are falling for it. And it seems to me that no politician or party so far has been able to figure out a reliable way to protect those who are most vulnerable from being manipulated this way.
"They're not afraid to say climate change is fake".
"They're going to kick out the refugees".
"They're going to fix the retirement pensions".
"Back to the good old days".
I'm now reading that the AfD are saying in the press that "democracy demands the other parties work with them". I mean if someone got into power on the promise of taking away the right for women to vote, I guess all the adults in the room have to bow down to 'democracy'.
I personally think the general population is some small percentage of saintly people. And a small percentage of evil people. And a huge mass in the middle. That mass in the middle can be swayed to vote for almost anything.
However, as soon as he came to power, he broke the promise of fiscal discipline and cutting spending and the first thing he did was passed a bill to burrow more than half a trillion Euros under the votes of old parliament even changing the constitution.
Also because of the firewall they have imposed to AfD, for him the only coalition partner was SPD( which is more of a left leaning party) and they formed a government and since then it has been internal conflicts to pass the important legislations to get the country back on track.
All these has worked as a boost for the AfD because people realised that apart from AfD the only other main right conservative party in Germany is CDU/CSU (which is the party of the chancellor) and voting for them hasn’t resulted in the change they voted in last election and now, they don’t have any other choice than voting for AfD because voting for the same old parties expecting a different result would be the definition of insanity.
I think that was a mistake and they should have form coalition with AfD and let them try to fulfil their promises to their voters. After delivering either little or dead on arrival laws they would be effectively self-defused.
> There was a lot of hope when the current German government was elected. The current chancellor did his campaign saying the leftist-green ideological politics would be over and he is going to drastically reduce the government spending and cut bureaucracy and lift up the economy. People believed him and majority voted for a center right government.
The current chancellor is from the CDU, the same party that led the government 16 out of the last 20 years (and the majority of Germany's existence), and they offered nothing but populist non-solutions. Now they're implementing them, and it turns out they're just pushing Germany deeper into the hole the CDU dug for us.
> However, as soon as he came to power, he broke the promise of fiscal discipline and cutting spending and the first thing he did was passed a bill to burrow more than half a trillion Euros under the votes of old parliament even changing the constitution.
This is a non-argument, since it's just pointing at a Euro amount without arguing why it's not fiscally responsible or how it doesn't align with their campaign promises. I actually agree that it's fiscally irresponsible, but it definitely aligns with Merz's campaign promises. When you vote for a party that promises both fiscal responsibility AND to funnel lots of money to the rich, you're gonna break one of them no matter what - but that's on the voters for believing in both.
> Also because of the firewall they have imposed to AfD, for him the only coalition partner was SPD( which is more of a left leaning party) and they formed a government and since then it has been internal conflicts to pass the important legislations to get the country back on track.
For the record, the SPD lost >80% of their voters because they have been the CDU's little lapdog for more than a decade, and are actively pushing against non-centrist policies. The "important legislations to get the country back on track" are things like "allowing employers to demand 8 additional hours of work each week" or "allowing employers to force employees to get a sick note on the first day AND no longer paying for single sick days, WHILE ALSO banning sick notes over video appointments AND no longer reimbursing physicians for 'open hours', so if you can't get that sick note, sucks to be you".
In comparison, the party FDP (who literally let the richest capitalists directly participate in their decisions) actually blocked a bunch of agreed-upon things in the only recent left-of-center government. After the coalition fell apart, investigative journalism revealed that they literally planned on entering the government with the intention of blocking as much as possible before blowing up the coalition.
Can you share the link or source for this? This is the first time I’m hearing this
After the Fall: From the End of History to the Crisis of Democracy, How Politicians Broke Our World
https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/publications/books/after-...