this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
347 points (91.6% liked)
Europe
5857 readers
1174 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in [email protected]. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @[email protected], @[email protected], or @[email protected].
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Weimar was a small civil war between soldiers who returned from WW1. That's why both the left and the right had fighters. Where should the fighters who shoot the bullets come from now?
The fascists came to power because the elite feared that the communists could win. Otherwise, despite massive manipulation, the fascists never got an absolute majority.
There are many issues that other parties simply ignore. There would be far less voteres for the AfD if the other parties would listen. The AfD started with the demand that the rules about euro stability shouldn't be ignored. That's not a fascist position.
The other parties are not taking up AfDs made up causes because they are made up.
For example:
A sack of potatoes falls.
AfD: Foreigners are causing the sacks to fall! We must gas them! And the jews!
Other parties: This is so stupid it doesn't even warrant a response.
General public: but the foreigners!!111!1!!!11 and the potatoes!!1! I am outraged!!!111!!!
Unfortunately, the other parties are very well taking up the Nazis' lies. The Nazis are playing the political establishment like a fiddle.
To stick with your example of the potato sack, the established parties do just jump the Nazi bandwagon and parrot their narrative in a less extreme manner, like "Illegal immigrants kicking over potato sacks is a severe problem, we need to protect our potato sacks by border controls and increased deportations."
Just as one AfD politician remarked last year, (after the election in Thuringia, if I recall right) the AfD is ruling without actually being in the government.
This reflects American politics as well.
I think the problem can be summed up as poll driven politics.
It's a feedback loop, they do focus on a topic some opinion poll has shown to be somewhat popular, the resulting exposure increases popularity, which reflects in the polls, which leads to increased political focus on the topic...
In America at least, this is as a direct result of corporate media and money in politics both controlling the narrative. None of this was naturally occurring.
Not that different in Germany. The biggest difference in the media landscape, the pretty large public broadcasters aren't really a difference, because their governing bodies and leadership positions are stuffed with (ex) politicians and their relatives.
Same thing here, but with basically every industry and not just news media. We call it the "revolving door" effect.
The revolving door effect is separate from large political parties' influence on public broadcasters, but it exists, too. It, and many other forms of legalised corruption, have led to an erosion of trust in politicians and political institutions in which the Nazis of the AfD thrieve.
Over here, it's a bit of the opposite, but also the same in some ways, where the newsmedia controls our politicians and populous (especially Fox News with the Republicans). Behind the scenes, there are almost definitely dealings between Fox News and the Republicans that isn't public. Fox News spent a significant chunk of the past 4 years denying the outcome of the 2020 election for the benefit of Trump.
It's a half/half mix of our politicians being stupid/brainwashed by the newsmedia and also corrupt. I'm sure you've seen what some of our politicians have been spewing out of their mouths.
It's a bit more complex, but essentially the same. Corporate media control politicians who in turn control the public broadcasters.
The German rough equivalent of Fox news, the Axel Springer publishing corporation, which runs the infamous Bild tabloid and multiple other media outlets, has been continuously campaigning for a reactionary cause since its founding shortly after WW2. They do set a lot of the political agenda by pretty much dictating the public discourse.
It's a few different companies over here (Fox, Sinclair [who controls basically all local media nationwide, John Oliver did a good segment on them], Newsmax, One America News, CNN, MSNBC), but same result that the media controls the Overton Window.
In 1987, America abolished the law that forced newsmedia corporations to cover the news in a specific way (which you can read about here). This has a massive negative effect on our media's news coverage. It started to become just about ratings and profit.
The German media landscape got liberalised in the 1980s, too, with private TV being legalised by a constitutional court verdict in 1981 and the first private TV station coming online in 1984. Private TV was from the start groomed by "conservative" politicians as a tool to further their agenda.
These days, the TV programme is mostly driven by market share, even the public broadcasters have jumped that bandwagon, which over time has lead to an overall decline in quality, as they are trying to emulate the private channels.
I wonder if there's a money trail that can be traced back to a single source for both the German and US (and probably others as well) media outlets to corporatize/liberalize at around the same time.
The laws here directly reflect the wishes of corporations, including the relealing of the Fairness Doctrine, and there is a money trail showing which politicians took money from who for their political campaigns.
The Heritage Foundation also played a big role in influencing policy during the Reagan administration. These are the same people who wrote Project 2025.
In Germany, there is a big political movemet that transcends pretty much all party boundaries, which calls itself "transatlanticists" its core values are subservience to the USA, or some form of transatlantic corruption.
I wouldn't be surprised about all kinds of money trails. Our future head of government "worked" for BlackRock, an US investment corporation, for the most part of his career. And there are many more like him. As I already said, most forms of political corruption are legal in Germany.
I don't think that you make a good point if you yourself make up your point. Please quote the AfD to avoid all doubt.
Of course. Here is an AfD quote:
Hope that makes it clearer.
Don't you see that false quotes undermine your position?
But it isn't false. They are literal nazis and say literal nazi things.
Several offices for the protection of the constitution of the German LΓ€nder (they are a kind of anti-extremist intelligence services, in case you don't know) have found them to be "assuredly right-wing-extremists", which is the worst possible classification the law recognises.
Again. Literal, actual, nazis.
Yes. That's why you should quote what they literally say. It's not a quote if you write what you think they say.
"Sieg Heil" is definitly a real AfD quote, Marcel Grauf said that in a private chat that was evidence in a court case.
Not sure what the exact quote for "gas the jews!" is as they probably said it in German, but it's very likley someone in the AfD said something that would translate to that on record.
Thanks, I would have looked differently at your comment if you had directly added that source.
Then it is still not a quote.
In general, if somebody can proof something easily but does not, then I assume that it is wrong. If others think like me, you create the opposite message of what you want.
Oh, I'm not the original commenter.
Sorry for not noticing.
No worries. I kind of agree with you both.
The AfD are not "literal Nazis" because they are not the NSDAP, which doesn't exist anymore. But they are as close as you can get and a spiritual successor. But the proper term is neo-nazies. And yeah you shouldn't make up quotes, when there are so many real ones you can pick from.
I hope that this exchange has convinced you that the AfD are nazis.
I am sorry to tell you but if I didn't know better, this exchange would have made me question the critics of the AfD and start seeing the AfD as the choice of reason.
You say there are lies but you just offer a strawman argument in the form of a sack of potatoes. If you don't back up these claims I usually conclude that they are wrong.
You don't have to convince me that the AfD is ineligible. I am with you. But you can't claim that the AfD makes up causes and you make up your own. That makes all your claims unbelievable.
Hi friend, I hope you are well. Remember this exchange? In the meantime, the German federal service for the protection of the constitution has found the AfD as a whole to be "assuredly right-wing extremist", which is legalese for "they are literally neonazis and we have proof".
That's good but besides my point. My issue is that you make up conversations.
Making up things is bad because it may mislead people. My example was an accurate representation of that party. "Sieg heil" is even a direct quote.
Would you also object to me making up quotes about Mussolini or Stalin if these are to the best of our knowledge accurate depictions? Probably not.
Yes I would.
You normalize fake quotes. Then the AfD can also make up quotes and claim that that represents foreigners.
You understand that it is bad when the AfD does it. Generalize that understanding. There can't be exceptions for fighting the good fight. Everybody thinks they do.
I understand that it is bad when it misrepresents the actual state of things.
Let's generalise. Is a painting bad? Is a description bad? Yes if it is used to mislead people. No if it portrays things accurately.
Holding yourself to the highest standards of correctness serves no one. The nazis - which we can now officially call nazis, by the way, it can no longer be seen as hyperbole - do not even use words according to their meaning, and they won't be particularly interested in your view of that matter.
You can't fight nazis with honourability, just like you can't fight intolerance with tolerance. It's a paradox.
How many people thought of themselves as better-behaved in 1935? Do you think they reconsidered their position in 1941? It doesn't matter, the window of opportunity to prevent the nazis from irrevocably installing themselves has passed.
You can't reason with fascism. They only understand violence. It's terrible, yes. No one wants to use violence.
Then again, the German constitution has provisions for fighting nazis with all means necessary as a last resort, so maybe we can just make them fuck off? Or do we wait until the 21st century version of 1939 and quibble in the meantime?
The choice is yours, as it is mine.
I will read your full comment later. Just note that there is no attestation that they are nazis. So you don't use the words according to their meaning.
This is becoming a pattern.
What would you call e.g. these assholes:
No, the word has not lost its meaning, but it has become less niche: some of them are better at hiding it and waiting for the right time, some of them want to make people forget what it represents and a lot of people are too lazy/stupid to distinguish between nazi/fascist/autocrat/authoritarian/ultraneoliberal or anyone who aspires to become one of those.
Right, if you wish to steer the conversation into ad hominem then I think it is best to end it here. I wish you and your loved ones peace and prosperity for the future.
Thanks and I wish you the same in return.
Let me try a final approach. For me, the conversation is ad hominem from the start. I don't disagree with your judgement of the AfD. My point is that you don't reason with the AfD but with people who are on the fence of deciding between AfD and other parties. You should't write your comments for fascists to read but for regular citizens. Being correct is to appeal to them.