In the post shared by Musk, the account lamented the presence of humanitarian groups in the Mediterranean Sea that rescue migrants from distressed vessels.
“These NGOs are subsidized by the German government,” the account posted. “Let’s hope AfD wins the elections to stop this European suicide.”
I am not saying they are just a conservative party. I also didn’t thought the person I reacted to was only talking about AFD, but the general rise in right wing rhetoric in different parties and the populace. It’s also not just the AFD that is problematic.
Just calling them Nazis plays right into their hands and won’t help at all. They will simply turn it around and complain you insult them as Nazis and lament you are just trying to kill their arguments with it.
The term “Nazi” sees so much overuse, you gain absolutely nothing by using it. In my opinion it is better to directly address and call out what they say precisely.
The majority of people voting for the AFD don’t do the Hitler salute and similar. And calling them Nazis won’t change their mind but instead it will do the exact opposite! It will encourage them to vote for the AFD or similar parties because now they can claim you are just trying to insult them and won’t address what they say. “The evil left just wants to silence us!”
Their arguments are easily refuted and that’s what needs to happen again and again. While it might feel satisfying labeling them, it won’t help the cause.
While I’m not convinced the distinction between extreme right wing supporters and Nazis is as significant as you suggest, I do understand that it is possible to object to unchecked mass migration without being a Nazi or even being right-wing.
Refugees and corresponding xenophobia are a pretty standard global topic for obvious reasons, and as much as I wish infrastructure could be instantaneously built, I know it can’t be.
But:
We’re well past discussing the nuances of “what separates Nazis from other far-right ideology” and plausible deniability when someone starts invoking the name of fucking Buchenwald. Even if the rest of that list were somehow acceptable or could be explained away, there’s no mistaking what Buchenwald means.
I’m not surprised by the global rise of the right-wing rhetoric as the situation gets harder for 99% of people. I have been watching that closely for years. Xenophobia is always presented everywhere as the false easy solution. What I am surprised by is that Germany is allowing politicians to advocate specific Nazi atrocities when there are purportedly laws against glorifying Nazis.
Calling for a second holocaust, demanding refugees should be executed, all of this is forbidden in Germany. I don’t know where you got your information from but none of this has happened:
There are Nazis in the AFD, though. They want to stop teaching so much about the Holocaust at schools and they use rhetoric tricks to get people riled up or circumvent the laws around denying the Holocaust.
For example Björn Höcke (who almost certainly is a Nazi) said: “Alles für Deutschland” (All for Germany) and has to go to court for this.
I think we still misunderstand each other on why calling right wing people in general Nazis is a problem. And Björn Höcke is a good example.
The word is used as if you are right wing, then extremely right wing and then you are a Nazi. As if this is somehow worse than being extremely right wing. But “Nazi” is not the superlative of being right wing. And people like Höcke will use this to get people to vote for the AFD.
A Nazi is someone who is, for example, denying the Holocaust. Or believes in Herrenrasse or something like that. Right wing people simply have to deny that they are Nazis (which is easily done, look above) and suddenly your “argument” is gone.
That’s exactly what Björn Höcke did before and will do in court again. It will again be about whether or not he can be called a Nazi which is completely irrelevant if you want to tackle the problem that is people voting for AFD and other politicians being increasingly right wing.
When the court says: “Yes, Björn Höcke used Nazi rhetoric!” The AFD will say: “Oh no what an evil man! With Nazis we don’t want to have anything in common! He is not AFD anymore.” And all the people can continue to vote for AFD, they aren’t Nazis afterall. Great!
Old twitter screenshot of Mirko Welsch’s account apparently calling for Antifa to be deported to Buchenwald
I was unable to determine what other interpretations this might have:
Perhaps there is some nuance I have missed, ‘nach’ is a very versatile word even if the rest are very unambiguous.
This factchecker analysis looked even-handed enough for me to be satisfied it was not just my poor German or inaccurate auto-translation.
For the other incidents, I’ll leave you to check the post I initially replied to for names and accuracy checking.
Literally every single one of these quotes where either proven as false or the people are not part of the AFD and/or they were brought to court and judged for it. That’s all on the site of Faktencheck.
Are you referring to a different Factchecker than the link i posted? Or are you saying they just left up the page with incorrect information? “Proven as false” doesn’t seem to match this quote from the link I posted.
The Link you posted does not match the quotes you claimed have been said. And also you wrote Germany allowed the AFD to say those things, but it is not true.
deleted by creator
As I said previously:
For the Buchenwald quote, under heading list item 3: Mirko Welsch from the link I provided that you said proved false most of the claims despite it saying they were “mostly accurate”:
Which directly contradicts what you said:
What I also said:
Were there legal consequences for Welsch saying this that I missed? Was there a trial and investigation?
Mirko Welsch is not in the AFD and of course there was a trial.
He is actually trialed regularly and he always changes his targets. Sometimes he insults groups on Facebook who are against (!) the right as antisemites. Then he insults the major of Hamburg as a “Fascist removed”. And other cases like this.
In your original post you claimed these are all things the AFD does that are allowed in Germany, but it is not true (that’s why I said none of this has happened).
If the AFD would say this they could have easily be banned! That’s even on the website and the links you posted yourself.
Mirko Welsch left the AFD quite some time ago, ironically, claiming that Björn Höcke is a neo fascist. This is a quote from Mirko Welsch why he left:
(“As much as I stand for a conservative-patriotric awakening in Germany, just as much I oppose the ingradiation towards a right-wing extremist and nationalist milieu.”)
https://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=28385
This was around 2017, a few years before the tweet. Which says pretty much everything about these clowns.
The publicity about unimportant people like Welsch, the trials and the way they are thrown out of or leave the AFD with a lot of media attention is a tool to them. This is used by people like Björn Höcke or Alice Weidel to pretend they are centrist. They thrive from the discord in the other parties.
For example they will put “gender” on the agenda on purpose, because they know it will get the others fighting and then they can later pretend in front of their voters that the other parties talk about “unimportant stuff like gender” all the time. They don’t advertise or use Nazi stuff openly, because that’s very complicated in Germany and will easily get you banned or prosecuted.
So they use sneaky tactics to bind actual neo Nazis but also the much bigger group of “centrist” conservatives and right wing people who do not want to associate with Nazis.
Did you ever argue with one of the AfD voters? They don’t take facts well, they don’t care about facts anymore. It’s a bit like arguing with conspiracy theorists.
There definitely is overlap between them and those who believe in conspiracy theories. But there are a lot of average people who vote for them as well. Like, middle aged, not particularly poor or wealthy. Your typical boomer…
Many AFD voters I’ve heard talking or saw what they write believe that specifically Muslim immigrants are bad for Europe. And/or they think that the green party is responsible for them having less money.
For those AFD voters who are immigrants, they vote for them because they believe refugees specifically cost too much money and they are also against the green party. At least, that’s what I hear from the people in my neighborhood, which is mostly people whose families migrated from Turkey, sometimes two generations ago.
A third group think they somehow get back at the “elite” when they vote for AFD. Like a poor example of an act of defiance.
I believe that at least those who are not primarily xenophobic are still people we could bring to the other side. We waited to long to ban the AFD. I fear if they ban them now, the next right wing party will get a headstart in voters…