Mainstream failures bear responsibility for the deadly attack in Magdeburg. That’s no excuse for ignoring the flaws of the extremists who seek to supplant them.
The mainstream media calls every party in Europe "far right" if they opposed the continuing mass population change that has been inflicted on Europe against the will of the public. You may be right about AFD in particular, I don't know, but there is good reason to regard the term as a meaningless slur.
Exactly. A party is defined by its voters and its policies. There are many extremist parties around the world and you can find examples in each category for all of them. I read this entire article and I still don't know: what about the AfD makes it far-Right? What does this even mean in a German context? No idea
Did you actually read the entire article? Including this?
<<Höcke dwelled at length on the war crimes perpetrated by America and the great historic achievements of the German people, all without saying a single bad word about the Third Reich. He criticized a prominent memorial to the Holocaust in Berlin as a misguided “monument of shame.” And he concluded his speech by calling for a “180 degree turn in how we remember our history.”>>
If "the Nazis weren't the bad guys in WWII" isn't far right, what is?
1. America did commit war crimes in WWII. So that is just a true statement
2. Germany has many historic achievements. The leader of a country should be someone who acknowledges their countries history and achievements. 2/2
3. Who cares if he mentions 1 point in history. Germany has "existed" [in some form, mostly tribes with a common language] for 2000 years. Why should one war define them? It's been 80+ years.
4. Yeah it's been 80+ years. It's time to get over this "holocaust' thing.
5. Calling historical figures "bad guys" and "good guys" is how a child conceptualizes history. Grow up, there were good and bad things done by everyone in WWII.
It's one thing to have memorials for past atrocities, but it's another to be completely ruled by a sense of collective guilt. German politicians are so damn sorry that they can't even come to criticize Israel on anything or protect their borders over worries that a Nazi regime will return, only to create conditions where far-right parties look sensible compared to the mainstream.
It would be like if the US never criticized or challenged African regimes because they felt bad about slavery.
"Gee, that sounds like how a child conceptualizes history"
No I a child's conception of history is that Evil Germans were the bad guys who did all the bad things and the saintly allies were the good guys who did all the good things. There were good and bad people on both sides.
"I suppose it's also time for the US to get over "that slavery thing". After all, that was about 160 years ago. A right-wing position in the US"
YES. Shut the fuck up about slavery. Shut the fuck up about the holocaust. The holocaust didn't even happen in this country and White's have paid blacks back 100x over for slavery. It's over. Stop cunting about the past.
When the second largest party in the country -- and the one growing the fastest -- is 'extreme' then that word has lost its meaning. If 1/3 of Germans are on the 'far right' then what word do you use for genuine extremists? I'm disappointed to see Yascha giving in to that kind of soft headedness. Nope, there's nothing extreme about wanting to preserve your own identity and culture in your own country. I'm Canadian and there are already huge areas in my city where a Canadian Canadian is a stranger and a foreigner and not welcome.
"there's nothing extreme about wanting to preserve your own identity and culture in your own country."
I'm inclined to agree, Ray, with the huge caveat that I don't know enough about the AfD to be certain that's all they're about. I am of the general opinion that Giorgia Meloni was unfairly labeled in 2022 as a neo-Fascist in the mainstream press. I suspect the same is true of the AfD, but again, I don't know enough to be certain.
It's the new dirty word. A quick way to get social points similar to calling someone racist or misogynist. We all read this substack to find out what if the afD is really far right. The distribution in any group is the same on both sides. However, some people want you to believe it is far worse with the far right or is it far left.
It's curious also: political spectrums are (by definition) symmetrical. Think of all the leaders and groups which have been labelled far-Right, in the U.S. and elsewhere. How many have been labelled far-Left by major legacy media sources? I rarely see that label used, for anything or anyone. Arguably Ibram X. Kendi or Greta Thunberg-or even Kamala Harris 4 years ago-are far-Left in their ideas... but could you ever imagine them CALLED this?
So let me get this straight- an Arab man let into Germany due to its asylum policies goes on to commit a hate crime- a classic terror attack aimed at killing the maximum number of civilians, and targeting a symbol of German/western civilization to make clear his hate. At this point does it really *matter* if this terrorism is committed in the name of Islam or “anti Islam”? Let me be blunt, the chances that an asylum seeker from north Korea or an economic migrant from Vietnam would have done the same are close to zero. Incidentally the chances that an Arab woman would have done so are so significantly smaller too. Europe’s insane “asylum” policy and willful blindness of the extreme utility of demography (cultural and geographic and religious background, age, sex etc) in risk assessment are the policy failure driving this. This 100% an imported problem that the Germans have brought on themselves. That the mainstream media *continues* to obfuscate in its reporting as if it’s 1994 and not 2024 boggles the mind. AfD may be worse but unless some other alternative to the insane status quo props up they will eventually take over.
P.S.
As far as I could tell NYT in its reporting pointedly refused to mention the name or national origin of the attacker. This kind of insulting attempt to shield Arab and Islamic terrorism is helping nobody but the far right.
The problem is that the attack was apparently the result of mental illness, which is why his politics are so confused. If we are now going to label as terrorism any murder, as is being done in the case of Luigi Mangione, then it loses all meaning.
What you seem to be implying is that any crime committed by a person of Middle Eastern origin against Europeans is de facto an act of terrorism, whatever the true motivation. That's just racism.
No. Terrorism simply put is an act that is meant to make you afraid going on with your normal life. Do you have second thoughts about going to a Christmas market in Europe? bingo, it was terrorism. Afraid to show your class a cartoon of Muhammed or say something unpleasant about Islam lest you be beheaded? again terrorism.
P.S.
The “mental illness” line is very convenient but highly suspect. It’s not impossible, but somehow the supposed mentally ill committing crime are almost always male, and those engaging in calculated slaughter of the maximum number of random civilians* going about their daily life - tend to be Muslim (with the important exception of school shootings in the us which are their own sub cultural and almost exclusively American genre at this point).
(*or rather random civilians assumed to be mostly of the “wrong” religion)
> with the important exception of school shootings in the us
Yes. Nobody hesitates to point out the plain truth that these massacres are almost exclusively carried out by young white American males. That's the plain truth of the matter and nobody tries to spin doctor it away. But when Arabs/Muslims commit some atrocity the media go into overdrive to explain it away.
Did I miss the part where THPacis is a healthcare CEO? The general population was obviously not part of that particular terror event. Not obvious to you?
The DA in NY has decided to charge Luigi Mangione, who shot and killed a United Heath Care CEO, with committing a terrorist act. This is an example of defining "terrorism" too broadly and the same applies to the Christmas Market killer, whose intent is rooted in the chaos of his mental illness. (He is apparently a self-professed enemy of Saudi Arabia and a member of a far-right nationalist German group and seems to suffer from sort of schizoid condition.)
The charge of terrorism should be applied only in the case where the intent is to terrorize a population, not in cases where there is a personal beef or mental imbalance. Governments everywhere are using the charge of terrorism to broaden intrusive surveillance and restrict basic civil liberties.
>> and the same applies to the Christmas Market killer
how so? If you don't think it applies to the Christmas Market killer, explain this, don't straw man with the mangioni case! Ultimately, we can't read people's minds. If someone is capable of accurately judging what place would be super crowded and how to kill many people in it, I think our premise should be terrorism unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. If the chosen place has some symbolic value to a culture society to which the perpetrator expressed animosity, it makes the premise stronger still.
For me I don¡t fear random killers when visiting America but when visiting a Christmas market in Germany I make note of any openings that cars might be able to get through.
Why aren't these markets surrounded by large sand filled barriers that would stop a vehicle a absorb bomb blasts? They are inexpensive, easily constructed, and they work. Their utility has been known for decades.
The worst terror acts in Germany in the 1970s were committed by the Baader-Meinhof Gang, a far-left group of Germans that had no immigrant members, as far as I recall. Political violence isn't restricted to a single ethnic group. Neither is racism; I find that most haters portion out their hate to a number of ethnic groups.
You keep responding with non sequiturs. Home-grown terrorism doesn't mean that importing populations statistically more likely to be terrorist is a smart idea. With immigration policy you should aim to bring in people that are *better* in some way than the people you already have, not worse. This is true in terms of their skill and projected economic contribution, but it should *also* be true in terms of their projected contribution to social harmony.
You keep failing to follow the argument. The vague and elastic definition of "terrorist" allows it to be applied wherever governments or others find it opportunistically useful, whether in the prosecution of someone whose motive was a purely personal beef with some industry's practices or to describe someone whose motive was the inchoate paranoid beliefs engendered by mental illness, or -- as in your case -- when used by racists to vilify all 1.8 billion adherents of a major religion.
You’re the one refusing to engage in good faith. You also keep using terms you clearly don’t even understand. Accusing me of “racism” against a religious group just exposes you as a charlatan who thinks he can bully his interlocutor by throwing around bad terms as opposed to actually engaging in serious argument. Good day.
Thank you! It's as if you were channeling my thoughts. If Arab women are unlikely to slaughter strangers during public rampages, it may be due solely to their cultural conditioning. The question is what role Arab women play in raising the males who take innocent European lives.
Genocide denial is never a good look. Not when the neo-Nazis here deny the genocide of the Jews, not when the Israelis deny the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, and not when supporters of Zionism deny the IDF's on-going genocide of the Palestinian people. We all know it is happening, but too many pretend they don't see, just like the "Good Germans" of the Third Reich.
The AfD commands 35-40% of the electorate of many regions of Germany. Your opinions about quotes from a single speech (because what's a better reflection of a party's essence than a speech to whip up enthusiasm among supporters?) are irrelevant. Once a party reflects a huge share of the electorate they are no longer far-right. It is a Rightwing party in a country which is moving Rightward, due partly to the causes explained in this piece.
Incidentally, the German government has HUNDREDS of intelligence agents constantly surveilling the AfD. The media is in hysterics about the party. There have been serious proposals to ban it. If the AfD was truly extreme you would have hundreds of pages of examples to support your case. Instead you have a few out-of-context quotes and some personal drama... for a party with the support of 20 million people.
How about AfD policy ideas? Or legislation? Or a poll showing that a good part of its members are hateful or violent-or something else? Really? Nothing?
Read EUGYPPIUS on this platform if you want current and comprehensive (and expert) coverage of the political situation in Germany. I like you Yascha, but reading your views of the AfD is similar to reading the German press's coverage of the Harris campaign (which was hilarious-check it out if you have a moment).
It wouldn’t surprise me if the most radical members of the AFD were actual government employees, a.k.a. spies. There was a case a few years back where the government tried to bring a bunch of Nazis to trial. But the whole thing collapse when they discovered they were all government employees.
Yes, read Eugyppius!!! One of the key writers of our time. The "mainstream" of German politicians have become easily as terrifying as even this portrait of AfD. https://substack.com/home/post/p-142206383 See also the two prosecutions of leftist covid-dissident C.J. Hopkins. And while you're at it, pick up a copy of Roslyn Fuller's 2020 book, In Defense of Democracy, which documents Mounk's longstanding tendency to support elites against democratic say, though by scanning his roll here it looks like even he objects to the recent anti-democratic-say coup in Romania.
NOTE: I have added a major edit to this comment. The next paragraph is my original comment, the last paragraph is my addition.
Yascha, I have never before seen such a disconnect in your work between the title and the content of the article. Only one sentence in the subtitle even attempts to connect the title (the AfD is really far right) with the horrible attack in Magdeburg by the kind of "immigrant" that has spurred the rise of the AfD. Maybe this American doesn't understand the situation, but it seems to me that as long as the Muslim men terrorizing Germany are seen as a greater threat to Germans than the AfD, that the AfD will continue to grow in popularity. The only way to stop the AfD from eventually joining Government will be for the Government to end the crisis of immigrants. Unfortunately now nothing can be done and this horrible event can only help increase support for the AfD.
EDIT: The above comment was made having only read the first eight paragraphs of the article, not because I am lazy or like to comment prematurely, but because it very much appeared to me that the article was at its end and another article (on the 'German Model' was beginning. Anyway, I now better understand Yascha's assertion that the AfD is truly far right. I am perhaps most persuaded by Yascha's comparison of the evolutionary direction of the AfD compared to the Brothers of Italy or France's National Front. What Yascha says IS concerning, but it is not dispositive. I think this is a case of "wait and see". I am very glad that the FRG has not (and least not yet) banned the AfD, as much of what they have to say needs to be in the political discussion in Germany.
"Rather, we should demand that moderate political parties do a better job of fixing serious problems and responding to the views of voters. Similarly, we should push and prod publications like the New York Times until its journalists once again live up to the virtues to which members of their guild have traditionally aspired."
We DID. Long, loud, and consistently. For decades!
They did NOT respond by reforming. Which is why I'm inclined to celebrate their well-deserved downfall.
There comes a point where repeated failure MUST have meaningful consequences or the inevitable lesson is that the conduct in question is not actually considered a failure by the people who truly matter.
"Schizophrenia is never a complete answer as to why terrorists do what they do. But from what is publicly known at this juncture, it seems likely that, in al-Abdulmohsen’s case, severe mental illness of some sort is an unusually big part of the explanation."
Schizophrenia is a big leap in diagnosis without any clinical evidence. The logical conclusion is that he was practicing Taqiyya; but, this is so inconvenient to the illiberal ruling class of Germany and Western media controllers that we can understand why they would deny it.
"But whatever might happen in future has not yet materialized. For now, the center of gravity within the party lies with those who persistently flirt with racism, antisemitism and nostalgia for the Third Reich."
Again, I think this is irresponsible and inaccurate hyperbole to support a specific left worldview. This is the general problem for the political media chattering class that thinks they are also the ruling class. They have attempted to drag the Overton Window to the left of normal and now claim that what is normal is "right-wing" or "hard-right". As Musk rightfully points out the average position of the AfD is that of American Democrats just a couple of decades ago. National sovereignty is not a right-wing position... it is that of normies.
My wife and I were watching a travel program with a group visiting all the Christmas Markets in Germany and Austria. I noted that almost every attendee in the frames of the videos in all the markets were Caucasian. Another program we watched about travel to various cities in France, Italy, Germany, UK and Spain... again, the crowds were generally whites.
It seems to me having traveled to these places and watching the travel shows to see the crowds, that the waves of Mideast and African immigrants must be isolated and failing to integrate and assimilate into core European society. That is likely the catalyst for these types of domestic terrorist attacks. And the left is responsible as it rejects the need for assimilation having a twisted view that a country should tolerate all cultures, and that borders should be open.
“Far-right” is merely slander and a euphemism. It only has relative meaning. Weidel is a lesbian, a woman, and married to a non-White person. But that’s not good enough for you is it? If she dares show sympathy for the horrific death of Germans at the hands of a foreigner, she’s suddenly Adolf Hitler. Everyone to the right of you will always be Hitler no matter how far the left pushes the society further into derangement.
The problem I have with the people who say the MSM needs to be dethroned is that they seem to have no idea how to discern between quality journalism and crackpot opinions and conspiracy theories. If you think The Great Barrington Declaration was a serious alternative to the policies implemented by the health experts of various nations around the world, you are a moron. If you think The Free Press is a serious alternative to The New York Times or WaPo, you are a moron. If you think Austin University is a higher quality version of higher education than the Ivy League, you are a moron.
And Elon Musk is a moron if he thinks X is leading people to the truth. If anything, it is making people dumber and more dangerous by the day.
"the policies implemented by the health experts of various nations around the world" LOL. That phrase got a chuckle out of me. Rarely does one here a phrase like that nowadays, whereas just a few years ago you couldn't go 5 seconds without hearing that sort of blather from some slavish twit.
Please say more about The Free Press. I get bad vibes from Bari Weiss. She seems to have an axe to grind. I just can't bring myself to read TFP. I'm concerned the writers sometimes allow their political leanings to influence their narratives and opinions.
She is funded by right-wing billionaires. She fancies herself a conservative rebel fighting back against the corrupt progressive “deep state”, especially mainstream media. She projects a liberal vibe on some issues to give the appearance of balance. (She's gay, which helps.) But aside from that, she pushes a soft right-wing cultural agenda. TFP is pro-religion, very anti-trans, very pro-Israel. They won't publish anything that is supportive of trans people or is sensitive to the suffering of Palestinians. The readers are mostly pro-Trump. She appeases those readers as much as she can, but I think deep down she knows he's a joke because she's not an idiot.
I'm only there as a progressive gadfly. I don't get many likes, but I get a lot of engagement.
Should we submit a list to you of who is allowed to have attention and who is not? You can then instruct us on who people are allowed to read or listen to.
Thanks Yascha for that article and that you take the time, have the energy plus patience not only read Musk’s tweets but also listen to Trump election rallies and summarise them. I wouldn’t manage
I think that the potential end of mass media might actually be a very good thing. Whenever power (in this case, narrative power) is concentrated in a few hands, it tends to corrupt. Social media platforms are enormously flawed, but I think that features like Community Notes are revelatory and that the potential for a more democratic, decentralized means of disseminating information is really incredible.
I hope that the establishment parties in Germany take AfD's rise as a wake-up call. People who are desperate for a change will become more comfortable with extremes as time goes on (which I think is evidenced by the party's rise in the first place), and I'd be deeply concerned if any Nazi apologists gain power, for obvious reasons. I think it was your article about Merkel that discussed the importance of a big-tent center-leaning parties to prevent extremist wings from gaining traction, and that has really helped me understand some of these emerging tendencies around the world. I really hope that people in power take action soon, because they need to. No one should be scared to attend a Christmas market. :(
As a scholar of German history who visits the country frequently, I found this article very informative. I’d love it if Yascha could discuss what we know about motivations and beliefs of AfD voters.
How much do they understand and support Höcke‘s radicalism? My German friends - from both the former East and West Germany - think most AfD voters are non-ideological and are mainly protesting a complacent and ineffective political establishment. I’m not so sanguine. Any thoughts?
You will get no love from your critics, the apologists for Germany's AfD. Yes even after meticulously detailing how that group swept out right-wing but not Nazi loving party leaders. But the blind do not want facts. They are here to love anything Musk or other apologists for the far, far right produce.
On the larger stage and the founding raison detre' of Persuasion is your correct defense of moderation and centrist parties against the forces of far Left and here increasingly among the commentariat, far right. Is is , and I recognize you know this already, in the interests of the "axis of evil" states to defeat moderation and mainstream and laud extremes. This is not to say all apologists for domestic versions of socialism on one hand or far-right autocracy or oligarchy are in the pay of, say, Iran or Moscow. But we know who does not want centrist parties to prosper.
No it isn't. The woke fundamentalists have taken over the Democratic party in the US even tho they are a minority. Trump took over the GOP even tho the majority of Republicans detested him at the time. Naturally real Nazis will attempt to hijack the AfD as well, and we hope they do not succeed, but that's not a reflection of the majority of Germans who simply want to stop the destruction of their own country.
Speaking of political parties that have moderated from their past racism, what about America's democratic party? It is the party that insisted on keeping slavery, seceding from the Union over it, and ultimately fighting the civil war over it. People claim the civil war was not about slavery. It was. Slavery was THE prime issue between North and South since the beginnings of the USA.
After the civil war, the KKK was formed by democrats to keep the freed slaves under white rule. The Jim Crow laws were enacted and enforced by democrats. Segregation was codified by democrats. EVERY elected official who stood against MLK was a democrat.
But that's all changed now, right? Democrats campaign for equity, on behalf of blacks. Oops, well, wait a minute. They campaign for equity for democrats who pledge fealty to the democratic party. Those blacks who express opinions contrary to the democratic party are vilified. Clarence Thomas immediately comes to mind. Also, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowlell and Kanye West, to name a few.
Every black ghetto in America is ruled by democrats. Every cop who has shot a black person in the inner city was hired by democrats.
Going back to slavery times, keep in mind that slave owners didn't hate blacks. As far as slave owners were concerned, they were doing blacks a favor. Their opinion was that blacks weren't smart enough to run their own lives, and they were fortunate to have democrats run their lives for them. Is it really any different today?
You’re not completely wrong but you’re fudging your history a bit. The Democratic Party didn’t secede from the Union and join the Confederacy. Many prominent Democrats - especially from the North - stayed in the Union government. Lincoln’s Vice President Andrew Johnson was the most prominent Democrat in the Union government.
The lineage of the current Democratic Party descends from that branch that remained loyal to the Union. It’s also a big tent party in a way that’s not comparable to AFD. For most of the last century, various contradictory ideologies coexisted in the Democratic party (also Republican Party) usually broken down by geography.
Over simplification has its hazards. I would never suggest that either party was monolithic. We all recognize the contention between the parties, but tend to gloss over the contention within the parties.
But a serious misunderstanding of our history that needs to be corrected is that racism is the equivalent of hatred. Most slave owners saw themselves as a benefit to their slaves, providing them with organization and structure. We have that same racism today. Many who proclaim their dedication to helping 'those black people' are very, very racist.
From 1865 to 1930, the Democratic Party was dominated by white southern segregationists who had a strong romantic attachment towards the Confederacy and the Antebellum.
The northern wing of the party was Irish Catholic and only began to grow in national influence after 1930. It was only after 1964 that the Democratic Party moved decisively away from the dominance of white southern segregationists.
I don't see how this makes the AfD far right. In fact it seems to me that the culture has shifted so far to the left in DE that anyone who isn't willing to give homage to the German shame-based self-debasement in their policies and speech is now far right.
The mainstream media calls every party in Europe "far right" if they opposed the continuing mass population change that has been inflicted on Europe against the will of the public. You may be right about AFD in particular, I don't know, but there is good reason to regard the term as a meaningless slur.
Exactly. A party is defined by its voters and its policies. There are many extremist parties around the world and you can find examples in each category for all of them. I read this entire article and I still don't know: what about the AfD makes it far-Right? What does this even mean in a German context? No idea
Did you actually read the entire article? Including this?
<<Höcke dwelled at length on the war crimes perpetrated by America and the great historic achievements of the German people, all without saying a single bad word about the Third Reich. He criticized a prominent memorial to the Holocaust in Berlin as a misguided “monument of shame.” And he concluded his speech by calling for a “180 degree turn in how we remember our history.”>>
If "the Nazis weren't the bad guys in WWII" isn't far right, what is?
1. America did commit war crimes in WWII. So that is just a true statement
2. Germany has many historic achievements. The leader of a country should be someone who acknowledges their countries history and achievements. 2/2
3. Who cares if he mentions 1 point in history. Germany has "existed" [in some form, mostly tribes with a common language] for 2000 years. Why should one war define them? It's been 80+ years.
4. Yeah it's been 80+ years. It's time to get over this "holocaust' thing.
5. Calling historical figures "bad guys" and "good guys" is how a child conceptualizes history. Grow up, there were good and bad things done by everyone in WWII.
You could have just limited your response to no. 4, that says everything people need to about you.
Oh yeah? And what does it say about me?
He's mostly right.
It's one thing to have memorials for past atrocities, but it's another to be completely ruled by a sense of collective guilt. German politicians are so damn sorry that they can't even come to criticize Israel on anything or protect their borders over worries that a Nazi regime will return, only to create conditions where far-right parties look sensible compared to the mainstream.
It would be like if the US never criticized or challenged African regimes because they felt bad about slavery.
"this holocaust thing"? Gee, that sounds like how a child conceptualizes history.
I suppose it's also time for the US to get over "that slavery thing". After all, that was about 160 years ago. A right-wing position in the US.
"Gee, that sounds like how a child conceptualizes history"
No I a child's conception of history is that Evil Germans were the bad guys who did all the bad things and the saintly allies were the good guys who did all the good things. There were good and bad people on both sides.
"I suppose it's also time for the US to get over "that slavery thing". After all, that was about 160 years ago. A right-wing position in the US"
YES. Shut the fuck up about slavery. Shut the fuck up about the holocaust. The holocaust didn't even happen in this country and White's have paid blacks back 100x over for slavery. It's over. Stop cunting about the past.
" I read this entire article and I still don't know: what about the AfD makes it far-Right?"
Exactly, James. In my comment a moment ago I told Yascha that I saw no connection between the title and the article.
When the second largest party in the country -- and the one growing the fastest -- is 'extreme' then that word has lost its meaning. If 1/3 of Germans are on the 'far right' then what word do you use for genuine extremists? I'm disappointed to see Yascha giving in to that kind of soft headedness. Nope, there's nothing extreme about wanting to preserve your own identity and culture in your own country. I'm Canadian and there are already huge areas in my city where a Canadian Canadian is a stranger and a foreigner and not welcome.
"there's nothing extreme about wanting to preserve your own identity and culture in your own country."
I'm inclined to agree, Ray, with the huge caveat that I don't know enough about the AfD to be certain that's all they're about. I am of the general opinion that Giorgia Meloni was unfairly labeled in 2022 as a neo-Fascist in the mainstream press. I suspect the same is true of the AfD, but again, I don't know enough to be certain.
Did you miss the part about "Germans were the real victims" revisionist history of WWII?
Yes, I did miss that. I have now amended my comments because I had originally thought the article ended after eight paragraphs.
It's the new dirty word. A quick way to get social points similar to calling someone racist or misogynist. We all read this substack to find out what if the afD is really far right. The distribution in any group is the same on both sides. However, some people want you to believe it is far worse with the far right or is it far left.
It's curious also: political spectrums are (by definition) symmetrical. Think of all the leaders and groups which have been labelled far-Right, in the U.S. and elsewhere. How many have been labelled far-Left by major legacy media sources? I rarely see that label used, for anything or anyone. Arguably Ibram X. Kendi or Greta Thunberg-or even Kamala Harris 4 years ago-are far-Left in their ideas... but could you ever imagine them CALLED this?
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/only-one-side-demands-censorship/comments
So let me get this straight- an Arab man let into Germany due to its asylum policies goes on to commit a hate crime- a classic terror attack aimed at killing the maximum number of civilians, and targeting a symbol of German/western civilization to make clear his hate. At this point does it really *matter* if this terrorism is committed in the name of Islam or “anti Islam”? Let me be blunt, the chances that an asylum seeker from north Korea or an economic migrant from Vietnam would have done the same are close to zero. Incidentally the chances that an Arab woman would have done so are so significantly smaller too. Europe’s insane “asylum” policy and willful blindness of the extreme utility of demography (cultural and geographic and religious background, age, sex etc) in risk assessment are the policy failure driving this. This 100% an imported problem that the Germans have brought on themselves. That the mainstream media *continues* to obfuscate in its reporting as if it’s 1994 and not 2024 boggles the mind. AfD may be worse but unless some other alternative to the insane status quo props up they will eventually take over.
P.S.
As far as I could tell NYT in its reporting pointedly refused to mention the name or national origin of the attacker. This kind of insulting attempt to shield Arab and Islamic terrorism is helping nobody but the far right.
The problem is that the attack was apparently the result of mental illness, which is why his politics are so confused. If we are now going to label as terrorism any murder, as is being done in the case of Luigi Mangione, then it loses all meaning.
What you seem to be implying is that any crime committed by a person of Middle Eastern origin against Europeans is de facto an act of terrorism, whatever the true motivation. That's just racism.
No. Terrorism simply put is an act that is meant to make you afraid going on with your normal life. Do you have second thoughts about going to a Christmas market in Europe? bingo, it was terrorism. Afraid to show your class a cartoon of Muhammed or say something unpleasant about Islam lest you be beheaded? again terrorism.
P.S.
The “mental illness” line is very convenient but highly suspect. It’s not impossible, but somehow the supposed mentally ill committing crime are almost always male, and those engaging in calculated slaughter of the maximum number of random civilians* going about their daily life - tend to be Muslim (with the important exception of school shootings in the us which are their own sub cultural and almost exclusively American genre at this point).
(*or rather random civilians assumed to be mostly of the “wrong” religion)
> with the important exception of school shootings in the us
Yes. Nobody hesitates to point out the plain truth that these massacres are almost exclusively carried out by young white American males. That's the plain truth of the matter and nobody tries to spin doctor it away. But when Arabs/Muslims commit some atrocity the media go into overdrive to explain it away.
So the murder of the UHC CEO has made you afraid of going on with your normal life? Wow, it didn't take much. Do you stay home when it's cloudy?
Did I miss the part where THPacis is a healthcare CEO? The general population was obviously not part of that particular terror event. Not obvious to you?
The DA in NY has decided to charge Luigi Mangione, who shot and killed a United Heath Care CEO, with committing a terrorist act. This is an example of defining "terrorism" too broadly and the same applies to the Christmas Market killer, whose intent is rooted in the chaos of his mental illness. (He is apparently a self-professed enemy of Saudi Arabia and a member of a far-right nationalist German group and seems to suffer from sort of schizoid condition.)
The charge of terrorism should be applied only in the case where the intent is to terrorize a population, not in cases where there is a personal beef or mental imbalance. Governments everywhere are using the charge of terrorism to broaden intrusive surveillance and restrict basic civil liberties.
>> and the same applies to the Christmas Market killer
how so? If you don't think it applies to the Christmas Market killer, explain this, don't straw man with the mangioni case! Ultimately, we can't read people's minds. If someone is capable of accurately judging what place would be super crowded and how to kill many people in it, I think our premise should be terrorism unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. If the chosen place has some symbolic value to a culture society to which the perpetrator expressed animosity, it makes the premise stronger still.
For me I don¡t fear random killers when visiting America but when visiting a Christmas market in Germany I make note of any openings that cars might be able to get through.
Why aren't these markets surrounded by large sand filled barriers that would stop a vehicle a absorb bomb blasts? They are inexpensive, easily constructed, and they work. Their utility has been known for decades.
A mentally ill immigrant still could have been avoided.
The worst terror acts in Germany in the 1970s were committed by the Baader-Meinhof Gang, a far-left group of Germans that had no immigrant members, as far as I recall. Political violence isn't restricted to a single ethnic group. Neither is racism; I find that most haters portion out their hate to a number of ethnic groups.
You keep responding with non sequiturs. Home-grown terrorism doesn't mean that importing populations statistically more likely to be terrorist is a smart idea. With immigration policy you should aim to bring in people that are *better* in some way than the people you already have, not worse. This is true in terms of their skill and projected economic contribution, but it should *also* be true in terms of their projected contribution to social harmony.
You keep failing to follow the argument. The vague and elastic definition of "terrorist" allows it to be applied wherever governments or others find it opportunistically useful, whether in the prosecution of someone whose motive was a purely personal beef with some industry's practices or to describe someone whose motive was the inchoate paranoid beliefs engendered by mental illness, or -- as in your case -- when used by racists to vilify all 1.8 billion adherents of a major religion.
You’re the one refusing to engage in good faith. You also keep using terms you clearly don’t even understand. Accusing me of “racism” against a religious group just exposes you as a charlatan who thinks he can bully his interlocutor by throwing around bad terms as opposed to actually engaging in serious argument. Good day.
Thank you! It's as if you were channeling my thoughts. If Arab women are unlikely to slaughter strangers during public rampages, it may be due solely to their cultural conditioning. The question is what role Arab women play in raising the males who take innocent European lives.
Israelis just slaughtered 45,000 Arab men, women, and children. That's my definition of terrorism.
bullshit
Profanity is an admission that you have no argument.
Ridiculous. You made a garbage claim with no evidence. You deserve less than the response you were given.
Genocide denial is never a good look. Not when the neo-Nazis here deny the genocide of the Jews, not when the Israelis deny the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, and not when supporters of Zionism deny the IDF's on-going genocide of the Palestinian people. We all know it is happening, but too many pretend they don't see, just like the "Good Germans" of the Third Reich.
The AfD commands 35-40% of the electorate of many regions of Germany. Your opinions about quotes from a single speech (because what's a better reflection of a party's essence than a speech to whip up enthusiasm among supporters?) are irrelevant. Once a party reflects a huge share of the electorate they are no longer far-right. It is a Rightwing party in a country which is moving Rightward, due partly to the causes explained in this piece.
Incidentally, the German government has HUNDREDS of intelligence agents constantly surveilling the AfD. The media is in hysterics about the party. There have been serious proposals to ban it. If the AfD was truly extreme you would have hundreds of pages of examples to support your case. Instead you have a few out-of-context quotes and some personal drama... for a party with the support of 20 million people.
How about AfD policy ideas? Or legislation? Or a poll showing that a good part of its members are hateful or violent-or something else? Really? Nothing?
Read EUGYPPIUS on this platform if you want current and comprehensive (and expert) coverage of the political situation in Germany. I like you Yascha, but reading your views of the AfD is similar to reading the German press's coverage of the Harris campaign (which was hilarious-check it out if you have a moment).
It wouldn’t surprise me if the most radical members of the AFD were actual government employees, a.k.a. spies. There was a case a few years back where the government tried to bring a bunch of Nazis to trial. But the whole thing collapse when they discovered they were all government employees.
Yes, read Eugyppius!!! One of the key writers of our time. The "mainstream" of German politicians have become easily as terrifying as even this portrait of AfD. https://substack.com/home/post/p-142206383 See also the two prosecutions of leftist covid-dissident C.J. Hopkins. And while you're at it, pick up a copy of Roslyn Fuller's 2020 book, In Defense of Democracy, which documents Mounk's longstanding tendency to support elites against democratic say, though by scanning his roll here it looks like even he objects to the recent anti-democratic-say coup in Romania.
Here's Eugyppius's latest, and irony-filled tour through the recent Musk-happenings. https://www.eugyppius.com/p/in-latest-effort-to-keep-afd-out
NOTE: I have added a major edit to this comment. The next paragraph is my original comment, the last paragraph is my addition.
Yascha, I have never before seen such a disconnect in your work between the title and the content of the article. Only one sentence in the subtitle even attempts to connect the title (the AfD is really far right) with the horrible attack in Magdeburg by the kind of "immigrant" that has spurred the rise of the AfD. Maybe this American doesn't understand the situation, but it seems to me that as long as the Muslim men terrorizing Germany are seen as a greater threat to Germans than the AfD, that the AfD will continue to grow in popularity. The only way to stop the AfD from eventually joining Government will be for the Government to end the crisis of immigrants. Unfortunately now nothing can be done and this horrible event can only help increase support for the AfD.
EDIT: The above comment was made having only read the first eight paragraphs of the article, not because I am lazy or like to comment prematurely, but because it very much appeared to me that the article was at its end and another article (on the 'German Model' was beginning. Anyway, I now better understand Yascha's assertion that the AfD is truly far right. I am perhaps most persuaded by Yascha's comparison of the evolutionary direction of the AfD compared to the Brothers of Italy or France's National Front. What Yascha says IS concerning, but it is not dispositive. I think this is a case of "wait and see". I am very glad that the FRG has not (and least not yet) banned the AfD, as much of what they have to say needs to be in the political discussion in Germany.
Posting will continue until all stated goals of Persuasion fail utterly
"Rather, we should demand that moderate political parties do a better job of fixing serious problems and responding to the views of voters. Similarly, we should push and prod publications like the New York Times until its journalists once again live up to the virtues to which members of their guild have traditionally aspired."
We DID. Long, loud, and consistently. For decades!
They did NOT respond by reforming. Which is why I'm inclined to celebrate their well-deserved downfall.
There comes a point where repeated failure MUST have meaningful consequences or the inevitable lesson is that the conduct in question is not actually considered a failure by the people who truly matter.
"Schizophrenia is never a complete answer as to why terrorists do what they do. But from what is publicly known at this juncture, it seems likely that, in al-Abdulmohsen’s case, severe mental illness of some sort is an unusually big part of the explanation."
Schizophrenia is a big leap in diagnosis without any clinical evidence. The logical conclusion is that he was practicing Taqiyya; but, this is so inconvenient to the illiberal ruling class of Germany and Western media controllers that we can understand why they would deny it.
"But whatever might happen in future has not yet materialized. For now, the center of gravity within the party lies with those who persistently flirt with racism, antisemitism and nostalgia for the Third Reich."
Again, I think this is irresponsible and inaccurate hyperbole to support a specific left worldview. This is the general problem for the political media chattering class that thinks they are also the ruling class. They have attempted to drag the Overton Window to the left of normal and now claim that what is normal is "right-wing" or "hard-right". As Musk rightfully points out the average position of the AfD is that of American Democrats just a couple of decades ago. National sovereignty is not a right-wing position... it is that of normies.
My wife and I were watching a travel program with a group visiting all the Christmas Markets in Germany and Austria. I noted that almost every attendee in the frames of the videos in all the markets were Caucasian. Another program we watched about travel to various cities in France, Italy, Germany, UK and Spain... again, the crowds were generally whites.
It seems to me having traveled to these places and watching the travel shows to see the crowds, that the waves of Mideast and African immigrants must be isolated and failing to integrate and assimilate into core European society. That is likely the catalyst for these types of domestic terrorist attacks. And the left is responsible as it rejects the need for assimilation having a twisted view that a country should tolerate all cultures, and that borders should be open.
“Far-right” is merely slander and a euphemism. It only has relative meaning. Weidel is a lesbian, a woman, and married to a non-White person. But that’s not good enough for you is it? If she dares show sympathy for the horrific death of Germans at the hands of a foreigner, she’s suddenly Adolf Hitler. Everyone to the right of you will always be Hitler no matter how far the left pushes the society further into derangement.
I am not quite clear what explicit policy stands the AfD make that you consider “extremist.”
This sounds more like a “vibes” based argument than one based on actual policy stands.
The problem I have with the people who say the MSM needs to be dethroned is that they seem to have no idea how to discern between quality journalism and crackpot opinions and conspiracy theories. If you think The Great Barrington Declaration was a serious alternative to the policies implemented by the health experts of various nations around the world, you are a moron. If you think The Free Press is a serious alternative to The New York Times or WaPo, you are a moron. If you think Austin University is a higher quality version of higher education than the Ivy League, you are a moron.
And Elon Musk is a moron if he thinks X is leading people to the truth. If anything, it is making people dumber and more dangerous by the day.
"the policies implemented by the health experts of various nations around the world" LOL. That phrase got a chuckle out of me. Rarely does one here a phrase like that nowadays, whereas just a few years ago you couldn't go 5 seconds without hearing that sort of blather from some slavish twit.
Are you one of those morons who don't trust experts, but happily trusts random people on Twitter?
Please say more about The Free Press. I get bad vibes from Bari Weiss. She seems to have an axe to grind. I just can't bring myself to read TFP. I'm concerned the writers sometimes allow their political leanings to influence their narratives and opinions.
She is funded by right-wing billionaires. She fancies herself a conservative rebel fighting back against the corrupt progressive “deep state”, especially mainstream media. She projects a liberal vibe on some issues to give the appearance of balance. (She's gay, which helps.) But aside from that, she pushes a soft right-wing cultural agenda. TFP is pro-religion, very anti-trans, very pro-Israel. They won't publish anything that is supportive of trans people or is sensitive to the suffering of Palestinians. The readers are mostly pro-Trump. She appeases those readers as much as she can, but I think deep down she knows he's a joke because she's not an idiot.
I'm only there as a progressive gadfly. I don't get many likes, but I get a lot of engagement.
Thank you for the instructive reminder about AfD. We need to deprive Elon of the oxygen of attention though. He’s basically a creep.
Elon's a creep, but he's a creep with one of the most powerful megaphones on the planet. How, then, do we deprive him of attention?
Should we submit a list to you of who is allowed to have attention and who is not? You can then instruct us on who people are allowed to read or listen to.
Thanks Yascha for that article and that you take the time, have the energy plus patience not only read Musk’s tweets but also listen to Trump election rallies and summarise them. I wouldn’t manage
I think that the potential end of mass media might actually be a very good thing. Whenever power (in this case, narrative power) is concentrated in a few hands, it tends to corrupt. Social media platforms are enormously flawed, but I think that features like Community Notes are revelatory and that the potential for a more democratic, decentralized means of disseminating information is really incredible.
I hope that the establishment parties in Germany take AfD's rise as a wake-up call. People who are desperate for a change will become more comfortable with extremes as time goes on (which I think is evidenced by the party's rise in the first place), and I'd be deeply concerned if any Nazi apologists gain power, for obvious reasons. I think it was your article about Merkel that discussed the importance of a big-tent center-leaning parties to prevent extremist wings from gaining traction, and that has really helped me understand some of these emerging tendencies around the world. I really hope that people in power take action soon, because they need to. No one should be scared to attend a Christmas market. :(
As a scholar of German history who visits the country frequently, I found this article very informative. I’d love it if Yascha could discuss what we know about motivations and beliefs of AfD voters.
How much do they understand and support Höcke‘s radicalism? My German friends - from both the former East and West Germany - think most AfD voters are non-ideological and are mainly protesting a complacent and ineffective political establishment. I’m not so sanguine. Any thoughts?
You will get no love from your critics, the apologists for Germany's AfD. Yes even after meticulously detailing how that group swept out right-wing but not Nazi loving party leaders. But the blind do not want facts. They are here to love anything Musk or other apologists for the far, far right produce.
On the larger stage and the founding raison detre' of Persuasion is your correct defense of moderation and centrist parties against the forces of far Left and here increasingly among the commentariat, far right. Is is , and I recognize you know this already, in the interests of the "axis of evil" states to defeat moderation and mainstream and laud extremes. This is not to say all apologists for domestic versions of socialism on one hand or far-right autocracy or oligarchy are in the pay of, say, Iran or Moscow. But we know who does not want centrist parties to prosper.
The article did not identify a single explicit issue stand that makes the AfD “extremist.”
Is the fact that the Nazi sympathising wing has taken over the party not enough of a red flag?
No, I asked for "explicit issue stands".
You defining people as "Nazi sympathizing" is not evidence.
I can call you "Nazi sympathizing," but that does not make it true.
No it isn't. The woke fundamentalists have taken over the Democratic party in the US even tho they are a minority. Trump took over the GOP even tho the majority of Republicans detested him at the time. Naturally real Nazis will attempt to hijack the AfD as well, and we hope they do not succeed, but that's not a reflection of the majority of Germans who simply want to stop the destruction of their own country.
The what now?
Speaking of political parties that have moderated from their past racism, what about America's democratic party? It is the party that insisted on keeping slavery, seceding from the Union over it, and ultimately fighting the civil war over it. People claim the civil war was not about slavery. It was. Slavery was THE prime issue between North and South since the beginnings of the USA.
After the civil war, the KKK was formed by democrats to keep the freed slaves under white rule. The Jim Crow laws were enacted and enforced by democrats. Segregation was codified by democrats. EVERY elected official who stood against MLK was a democrat.
But that's all changed now, right? Democrats campaign for equity, on behalf of blacks. Oops, well, wait a minute. They campaign for equity for democrats who pledge fealty to the democratic party. Those blacks who express opinions contrary to the democratic party are vilified. Clarence Thomas immediately comes to mind. Also, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowlell and Kanye West, to name a few.
Every black ghetto in America is ruled by democrats. Every cop who has shot a black person in the inner city was hired by democrats.
Going back to slavery times, keep in mind that slave owners didn't hate blacks. As far as slave owners were concerned, they were doing blacks a favor. Their opinion was that blacks weren't smart enough to run their own lives, and they were fortunate to have democrats run their lives for them. Is it really any different today?
You’re not completely wrong but you’re fudging your history a bit. The Democratic Party didn’t secede from the Union and join the Confederacy. Many prominent Democrats - especially from the North - stayed in the Union government. Lincoln’s Vice President Andrew Johnson was the most prominent Democrat in the Union government.
The lineage of the current Democratic Party descends from that branch that remained loyal to the Union. It’s also a big tent party in a way that’s not comparable to AFD. For most of the last century, various contradictory ideologies coexisted in the Democratic party (also Republican Party) usually broken down by geography.
Over simplification has its hazards. I would never suggest that either party was monolithic. We all recognize the contention between the parties, but tend to gloss over the contention within the parties.
But a serious misunderstanding of our history that needs to be corrected is that racism is the equivalent of hatred. Most slave owners saw themselves as a benefit to their slaves, providing them with organization and structure. We have that same racism today. Many who proclaim their dedication to helping 'those black people' are very, very racist.
Some people don't let facts stand in the way of a good story.
You are fudging history even more.
From 1865 to 1930, the Democratic Party was dominated by white southern segregationists who had a strong romantic attachment towards the Confederacy and the Antebellum.
The northern wing of the party was Irish Catholic and only began to grow in national influence after 1930. It was only after 1964 that the Democratic Party moved decisively away from the dominance of white southern segregationists.
I don't see how this makes the AfD far right. In fact it seems to me that the culture has shifted so far to the left in DE that anyone who isn't willing to give homage to the German shame-based self-debasement in their policies and speech is now far right.