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 you think about it, it take years to naturalisation and also has to qualify for that. As an example in Germany you will not be qualified for naturalisation if you’re on social benefits.
The immigrants that become naturalised are 99% of the cases hard working people that build their lives from scratch and want the prosperity for their families. That way they don’t need any freebies and just wants a functioning and growing economy where their children would have a better future
There is no such thing and European defence. There’s never going to be a scenario where if Germany was ever attacked or invaded, France or UK would send their solders to die protecting Germans and vice versa.
We see that in Ukraine. No other European country would send their soldiers to die in a battle fields to protect Ukrainians
Perhaps, but at least there is material and financial support to Ukraine. I doubt AfD would continue it, or provide it for other EU member states if attacked.
Regardless of AfD would come into power or not, that financial support is not gonna there for long. The new budget for 2027 has been proposed in German parliament and they are borrowing more than 200 billion Euros to balance the deficit. In simple terms Germany doesn’t have money anymore to handout to fight the wars in other countries
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.
The OECD calculates Germany's 2025 tax wedge at 49.3%. That's the second highest behind belgium.
So we get to work for the state about half the time (including VAT etc), and on-top of it thanks to the Merz masterstroke we're getting an additional 800bn debt between now-2030.
Meanwhile, everything seems to be getting worse.
We need significant reductions in spending, and I don't think anyone has any clue how to achieve it before the house of cards falls down completely.
> So we get to work for the state about half the time (including VAT etc)
Dreadful framing. You work for the benefit of the entirety of Germany including yourself half the time.
Instead of viewing it as money you've lost, do this: look at the fractions of what the German (federal, municipal, etc) government spends its budget on, then apply these to what you pay yearly in taxes. Then compare that to the other things you spend money on privately and what value you directly or indirectly get out of what you 'worked for for the state'.
Have you tried? Because most people judge these things based on feelings rather than data and actual numbers. Those feelings are almost always a bad heavily skewed representation of reality.
Your framing is no better: Don't look at how much you are paying in taxes because somehow in the end you are getting more out of it.
Of course you should look at what you are getting out of it and scrutinize every euro spent by the state. This is the basis of the social contract between a country and its citizens.
Citizens pay money in the form of taxes and expect to receive decent services in return. If the state is no longer fulfilling its share of the agreement then what?
People are happy to pay high taxes if they see improvements in their lives but they do not:
- Germany has had massive infrastructure backlog for the last 15 years that will not be resolved tomorrow
- The German state is increasingly seen as a wasteful thing that still runs of paper and fax machines when we are well within the digital age
- Germany's train system is so dysfunctional that only 60% of its trains are on time
- Germany's healthcare system is one the most expensive in the world and people are paying more and more for a lesser service
This is the same problem that France is facing today.
Have you tried doing what I suggested? As an addendum to what I said to your sibling commenter: people in developed countries take a lot of shit for granted.
Of course there is a judicial system.
Of course sewage is properly dealt with.
Of course there is a fire department, etc. etc.
The whole point of the exercise is realizing what your taxes are actually providing. All that shit ain't free: it costs a lot of money and a lot of constant work from a lot of people who don't do it for the fame or fortune, yet publicly mostly just get shit on and called "lazy".
Don't get me wrong: Government isn't perfect and a lot can be and should be improved, but the framing that it is somehow scandalous or immoral to have to spend half of your earnings on the collective (mostly) good, or even to call that theft (as so many do) is entitled, spoiled and ignorant of history.
Edit: as to the prosperity of Germany, on a global scale and compared to other points in history it is actually doing fucking fantastic. It's citizens lead lives that are easily top 1% of any lives that have ever been and easily top 5% of lives currently on this planet.
I'd like more control where my money goes. I'd happily spend the time every year deciding what % of my contribution goes where, and it would be more democratic. I'm happy to have sewers, police, schools, infrastructure and so on.
I'm less enthused about the growing debt pile my children will inherit, and obvious wastes (e.g - the F126 story, everything Claudia Roth ever touched, 2.6 million* euros on whatever 'antisemitism funding' is, etc).
edit: I was wrong, it was 2.6 million in antisemitism, not billion, so that's a pretty much irrelevant sum.
Soon the Germany would be stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to fiscal responsibility. They cannot depreciate the currency because Euro is controlled by Brussels and to pay the interest on debt, they would have to borrow even more and the vicious cycle would continue till they are back in Weimar Republic 2.0
> 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.
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?
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.
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".
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
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 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.
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?
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 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.
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.
> 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!
> 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.
Right, I agree. But what makes people vote for this kind of stuff? It's not like 44% of saxon-anhalt just wakes up overnight and decides "Hey, you know what...". I think it must grow over years of their feelings/opinions being ignored.
My only point was that, perhaps, we should think about these causes and why the core political parties can't solve them; otherwise it's only going to get worse -- hell at this rate they'll actually get enough people onboard to achieve their goals within a few cycles.
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).
That's a trick question though, and it cunningly pre-supposes / takes-for-granted there IS an "immigration problem", and implicitly that "the immigration problem is the root cause of other problems" (as opposed to, "there are real problems, and some people would like you to think they're because of immigration").
"Voters perceive problems. As is common in a democracy, voters elect people who propose solutions. Why is no other political party proposing solutions voters see as worth voting for?"
If you don't think the problems are real, make the case to the voters.
As far as I can tell, other political parties have no better answer than name-calling. Am I missing some politician/party that is actually making a real argument?
This kind of non-answer is exactly what leads to far-right parties getting more followers.
Tax paying citizens who want their concerns addressed absolutely LOVE hearing that "Ackchyually, your problem doesn't exist and is all in your head".
P.S. - I have no skin in the game regarding EU immigration policies, just making an honest observation about engaging with people who might have opposing views.
I approached it as a discussion on Hacker News, and I think my implicit assumption (which can be challenged!) is that taking a structured, logical approach benefits us all. When I saw what I perceive as a logical fallacy or assumption that takes us on an unproductive path, intended or not, I called it out.
In other venues, different approach may be more applicable.
To your other point, in case it wasn't clear:
* I absolutely do not think there's no problem, or that it's in anybody's head. I think there are a LOT of problems!
* At the same time, I strongly think that not-nice, dishonest people are working very very hard, very very consistently, to create an image that somehow immigrants are the root causes of these problems.
This has happened myriad times in history, and may sadly be repeating itself. The only answer I ever have for this is, to your point, a non-answer: it's education and information. I think most people propagating immigration as root of all evil are fairly aware that mathematically, socially, statistically, philosophically, logically, this is not supported. It's just intentional fallacy after intentional fallacy, starting with the "Lump of Labor Fallacy". It's clear on its face that if I had 100 people with 100 jobs yesterday, bringing 10 more people won't just magically take jobs without also creating/generating jobs! So I'm happy to discuss immigration problems at any length - but again, I think it's an intentional distraction. To your point, there ARE real problems, of housing and equality and prices and job market, and bad people are trying to make us think they're caused by immigrants, whether for personal profit or because they themselves are part of the actual root cause :-/
I find your response insulting, and as the other poster called you out, this is exactly why people are flocking to Afd.. that the “elite” dont take their problems seriously.
Im in Denmark and we have tried throwing money and ressources at the issue for 50 years, integration effort after integration effort, and for us the issue isnt money or jobs, we are a rich country with very little unemployment, the issue is gangs, violence, rape, where immigrants are far ahead of anyone..
What immigration problem? Immigrants are wonderful. Things have only improved in Germany with immigration. It is wrong and unethical to keep immigrants out of your country, you have no right to do so.
The US has one immigration system for honest law-following people (Visas, green cards, etc.) and a second system for people who don't follow rules (walk in from Mexico, overstay a Visa, etc.)
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 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 :-/
I have a feeling that the majority of AFD voters simply want some kind of change and action on what they are seeing happen in Germany. I'm definitely not one of them, (and being an auslander myself I have skin in this game) -- this is a failure of the other parties more than it's a victory for AFD. But then again, that's all it takes really.
See, this sort of thing is exactly is why they're going to continue to make progress. This attitude of painting all of them with the same brush and calling them nazis exactly is the thing that creates more nazis.
You're the problem here. I'm not on the side of the AFD, never will be -- and let me be clear: I and my family are directly impacted if they take power.
I don't think calling literal nazis nazis is a problem, my point, if you read it properly is that shutting down the (reasonable or not) concerns of a big chunk of the population and calling them all nazis only makes them more extreme, and grows their power. We need a better way.
In normal English, it would be from the average (median) voter. A party is "far-right" (or "far-left") if it is substantially to the right (left) of the average voter.
Assume that people vote for the person/party closest to their own view on an issue. 44% of voters choose the far-right candidate, meaning 44% of voters are closer to the far-right candidate than any other option.
How can this happen? Several ways, but only one is realistic: the other candidates are even farther away (to the left or right) from the position of the median voter. 40%+ of voters are themselves "far-right".
> The Nazi party got 37% of votes nationwide (not just in one state).
The Nazi party was not that far to the right of the median German voter at the time.
The far-left is using scary words ("Nazi", "Far-right", etc.) to tar a group they dislike (see what I did there?) They are counting on the fact that most voters can be influenced by group-think and name-calling. They are probably correct. But this is Hacker News, and the people here ought to be smart enough to see this for the stupid political smear that it obviously is. If you don't like a party, make the case that their policy is wrong. If vague analogy to the Nazis is the best argument you have, then you have no argument at all.
This is exactly the arrogant narrative that pushes more people to vote for AfD. It’s the people’s right to vote for any party they want and that’s part of the democratic process.
Labelling or bullying people because they have exercised their right and calling them Nazis is not gonna make them change their mind at all.
After all who are you or anyone else to say that what other person has voted is right or wrong. You can have your opinion, but you cannot judge them
That comparison is depressingly applicable. The National Socialists gained power in a period when both the present and future looked very bleak to a large fraction of German voters, and a whole succession governments formed by political mainstream figures had demonstrated that they couldn't do squat to really fix things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Renewed_crisis...
If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II had not done such a comprehensive job of discrediting hereditary nobility, it might be healthier if German voters had the option to replace their elected government with a ruling Kaiser for 4 or 5 years. Ideally, that would lessen the appeal of more-extreme political parties. And the threat of indefinite irrelevance (the Kaiser could be reelected) might even motivate the politicians to occasional competence.
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?
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.
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'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.
Liberal party is sacrificing everything just to create a vote bank. They know immigrants will always vote them as Right don't like immigrants.
Irony is that the after naturalisation, the immigrant actually votes for the Right parities. That happened in US as well as in Germany
Depends on who is going to give freebies. These politicians are making people poor and giving freebies to win elections ...
If you think about it, it take years to naturalisation and also has to qualify for that. As an example in Germany you will not be qualified for naturalisation if you’re on social benefits.
The immigrants that become naturalised are 99% of the cases hard working people that build their lives from scratch and want the prosperity for their families. That way they don’t need any freebies and just wants a functioning and growing economy where their children would have a better future
There is no such thing and European defence. There’s never going to be a scenario where if Germany was ever attacked or invaded, France or UK would send their solders to die protecting Germans and vice versa.
We see that in Ukraine. No other European country would send their soldiers to die in a battle fields to protect Ukrainians
Perhaps, but at least there is material and financial support to Ukraine. I doubt AfD would continue it, or provide it for other EU member states if attacked.
Regardless of AfD would come into power or not, that financial support is not gonna there for long. The new budget for 2027 has been proposed in German parliament and they are borrowing more than 200 billion Euros to balance the deficit. In simple terms Germany doesn’t have money anymore to handout to fight the wars in other countries
> would send their soldiers to die
transforming a cold war into an full war.
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.
The OECD calculates Germany's 2025 tax wedge at 49.3%. That's the second highest behind belgium.
So we get to work for the state about half the time (including VAT etc), and on-top of it thanks to the Merz masterstroke we're getting an additional 800bn debt between now-2030.
Meanwhile, everything seems to be getting worse.
We need significant reductions in spending, and I don't think anyone has any clue how to achieve it before the house of cards falls down completely.
> So we get to work for the state about half the time (including VAT etc)
Dreadful framing. You work for the benefit of the entirety of Germany including yourself half the time.
Instead of viewing it as money you've lost, do this: look at the fractions of what the German (federal, municipal, etc) government spends its budget on, then apply these to what you pay yearly in taxes. Then compare that to the other things you spend money on privately and what value you directly or indirectly get out of what you 'worked for for the state'.
That would have worked if the things were getting better and living standards are being elevated.
Right now it’s more like your tax is being used in wasteful spending, funding wars and corruption that doesn’t improve the quality of life at all
Have you tried? Because most people judge these things based on feelings rather than data and actual numbers. Those feelings are almost always a bad heavily skewed representation of reality.
Your framing is no better: Don't look at how much you are paying in taxes because somehow in the end you are getting more out of it.
Of course you should look at what you are getting out of it and scrutinize every euro spent by the state. This is the basis of the social contract between a country and its citizens.
Citizens pay money in the form of taxes and expect to receive decent services in return. If the state is no longer fulfilling its share of the agreement then what?
People are happy to pay high taxes if they see improvements in their lives but they do not: - Germany has had massive infrastructure backlog for the last 15 years that will not be resolved tomorrow - The German state is increasingly seen as a wasteful thing that still runs of paper and fax machines when we are well within the digital age - Germany's train system is so dysfunctional that only 60% of its trains are on time - Germany's healthcare system is one the most expensive in the world and people are paying more and more for a lesser service
This is the same problem that France is facing today.
Have you tried doing what I suggested? As an addendum to what I said to your sibling commenter: people in developed countries take a lot of shit for granted.
Of course there is a judicial system.
Of course sewage is properly dealt with.
Of course there is a fire department, etc. etc.
The whole point of the exercise is realizing what your taxes are actually providing. All that shit ain't free: it costs a lot of money and a lot of constant work from a lot of people who don't do it for the fame or fortune, yet publicly mostly just get shit on and called "lazy".
Don't get me wrong: Government isn't perfect and a lot can be and should be improved, but the framing that it is somehow scandalous or immoral to have to spend half of your earnings on the collective (mostly) good, or even to call that theft (as so many do) is entitled, spoiled and ignorant of history.
Edit: as to the prosperity of Germany, on a global scale and compared to other points in history it is actually doing fucking fantastic. It's citizens lead lives that are easily top 1% of any lives that have ever been and easily top 5% of lives currently on this planet.
I'd like more control where my money goes. I'd happily spend the time every year deciding what % of my contribution goes where, and it would be more democratic. I'm happy to have sewers, police, schools, infrastructure and so on.
I'm less enthused about the growing debt pile my children will inherit, and obvious wastes (e.g - the F126 story, everything Claudia Roth ever touched, 2.6 million* euros on whatever 'antisemitism funding' is, etc).
edit: I was wrong, it was 2.6 million in antisemitism, not billion, so that's a pretty much irrelevant sum.
Soon the Germany would be stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to fiscal responsibility. They cannot depreciate the currency because Euro is controlled by Brussels and to pay the interest on debt, they would have to borrow even more and the vicious cycle would continue till they are back in Weimar Republic 2.0
> 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.
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?
> that makes the far-right parties grow stronger
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.
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.
> CDU has been trying to adopt more AfD positions
> 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".
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
https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/publications/books/after-...
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 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.
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?
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.
[1] https://www.cato.org/white-paper/immigrants-recent-effects-g...
[2] https://phys.org/news/2026-06-birth-declining-world.html
> I don't understand why we even give the right an opportunity to speak on immigration
"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.
You really should have read the rest of that extremely short comment.
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 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.
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.
> 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.
Pretty much. It's not a fun time being a brown person in Chemnitz.
I'm pretty convinced at this point there's almost nothing we can do about it.
> 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 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!
> 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.
Right, I agree. But what makes people vote for this kind of stuff? It's not like 44% of saxon-anhalt just wakes up overnight and decides "Hey, you know what...". I think it must grow over years of their feelings/opinions being ignored.
My only point was that, perhaps, we should think about these causes and why the core political parties can't solve them; otherwise it's only going to get worse -- hell at this rate they'll actually get enough people onboard to achieve their goals within a few cycles.
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).
there's clearly been a problem with migrants, why did no party address these issues?
if you could make them powerless by just addressing the issue, why have no parties done that? why hand power to the AfD?
Whats your solution to the immigration problem in Germany?
That's a trick question though, and it cunningly pre-supposes / takes-for-granted there IS an "immigration problem", and implicitly that "the immigration problem is the root cause of other problems" (as opposed to, "there are real problems, and some people would like you to think they're because of immigration").
Fair enough, it should be asked in a neutral way.
"Voters perceive problems. As is common in a democracy, voters elect people who propose solutions. Why is no other political party proposing solutions voters see as worth voting for?"
If you don't think the problems are real, make the case to the voters.
As far as I can tell, other political parties have no better answer than name-calling. Am I missing some politician/party that is actually making a real argument?
This kind of non-answer is exactly what leads to far-right parties getting more followers.
Tax paying citizens who want their concerns addressed absolutely LOVE hearing that "Ackchyually, your problem doesn't exist and is all in your head".
P.S. - I have no skin in the game regarding EU immigration policies, just making an honest observation about engaging with people who might have opposing views.
That's fair, but context is everything :)
I approached it as a discussion on Hacker News, and I think my implicit assumption (which can be challenged!) is that taking a structured, logical approach benefits us all. When I saw what I perceive as a logical fallacy or assumption that takes us on an unproductive path, intended or not, I called it out.
In other venues, different approach may be more applicable.
To your other point, in case it wasn't clear:
* I absolutely do not think there's no problem, or that it's in anybody's head. I think there are a LOT of problems!
* At the same time, I strongly think that not-nice, dishonest people are working very very hard, very very consistently, to create an image that somehow immigrants are the root causes of these problems.
This has happened myriad times in history, and may sadly be repeating itself. The only answer I ever have for this is, to your point, a non-answer: it's education and information. I think most people propagating immigration as root of all evil are fairly aware that mathematically, socially, statistically, philosophically, logically, this is not supported. It's just intentional fallacy after intentional fallacy, starting with the "Lump of Labor Fallacy". It's clear on its face that if I had 100 people with 100 jobs yesterday, bringing 10 more people won't just magically take jobs without also creating/generating jobs! So I'm happy to discuss immigration problems at any length - but again, I think it's an intentional distraction. To your point, there ARE real problems, of housing and equality and prices and job market, and bad people are trying to make us think they're caused by immigrants, whether for personal profit or because they themselves are part of the actual root cause :-/
I find your response insulting, and as the other poster called you out, this is exactly why people are flocking to Afd.. that the “elite” dont take their problems seriously.
Im in Denmark and we have tried throwing money and ressources at the issue for 50 years, integration effort after integration effort, and for us the issue isnt money or jobs, we are a rich country with very little unemployment, the issue is gangs, violence, rape, where immigrants are far ahead of anyone..
Just yesterday a new article broke from one of the largest most respected newspapers.. we now face child immigrant gangs of 11-18 year olds, that commit violence. Paywaled link: https://www.berlingske.dk/indland/markant-flere-boern-er-inv...
What immigration problem? Immigrants are wonderful. Things have only improved in Germany with immigration. It is wrong and unethical to keep immigrants out of your country, you have no right to do so.
what?
why can't I then migrate to the US or whatever country I wanna go to?
The US has one immigration system for honest law-following people (Visas, green cards, etc.) and a second system for people who don't follow rules (walk in from Mexico, overstay a Visa, etc.)
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.
"far right" (gets 44% of votes.. lets not talk about that)
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 :-/
Right and left has little meaning in modern politics. What is a bit more concerning is the allegations of getting money from Russian.
As for a resurgence of the nazi horror: their leader is in a mixed race lesbian relationship.
When people say "far right," they mean "authoritarian right," not "fringe right."
Just because authoritarianism has emerged from the fringes doesn't make it any less authoritarian.
*44% of a Saxony-Anhalt state election. Let me know when the heart of Berlin gets anything near that.
Also, the Free State of Anhalt was the first Weimar state to elect a local parliament with a Nazi leader. History sure does rhyme.
The Nazi party got 37% of votes nationwide (not just in one state).
Getting a lot of votes does not mean a party is not far-right. Germans of all people know that.
I have a feeling that the majority of AFD voters simply want some kind of change and action on what they are seeing happen in Germany. I'm definitely not one of them, (and being an auslander myself I have skin in this game) -- this is a failure of the other parties more than it's a victory for AFD. But then again, that's all it takes really.
This was a state election. This state was the first to elect nazis pre nazi dictatorship. Let's not jump to any crazy conclusions.
In 2020, florida was called for trump and biden won. Saying florida was a sign of things to come was simply not true.
Fascists inherently do not care why people voted for them.
If you're a foreigner who's rooting for the fascists, you're an idiot. They want to deport you.
So what? Is he only allowed to play victim? What kind of a dumb logic is that
? What did I say that gave that opinion? Of course I'm not rooting for the fascists...
Elsewhere in this thread, you talk about how it's unfair that the far-right gets compared to Nazis, but here you call them fascists.
What a weird position to be in, where you acknowledge the fascism but think Nazi comparisons go too far...
See, this sort of thing is exactly is why they're going to continue to make progress. This attitude of painting all of them with the same brush and calling them nazis exactly is the thing that creates more nazis.
You're the problem here. I'm not on the side of the AFD, never will be -- and let me be clear: I and my family are directly impacted if they take power.
I don't think calling literal nazis nazis is a problem, my point, if you read it properly is that shutting down the (reasonable or not) concerns of a big chunk of the population and calling them all nazis only makes them more extreme, and grows their power. We need a better way.
What is the "far-right" far from?
In normal English, it would be from the average (median) voter. A party is "far-right" (or "far-left") if it is substantially to the right (left) of the average voter.
Assume that people vote for the person/party closest to their own view on an issue. 44% of voters choose the far-right candidate, meaning 44% of voters are closer to the far-right candidate than any other option.
How can this happen? Several ways, but only one is realistic: the other candidates are even farther away (to the left or right) from the position of the median voter. 40%+ of voters are themselves "far-right".
> The Nazi party got 37% of votes nationwide (not just in one state).
The Nazi party was not that far to the right of the median German voter at the time.
The far-left is using scary words ("Nazi", "Far-right", etc.) to tar a group they dislike (see what I did there?) They are counting on the fact that most voters can be influenced by group-think and name-calling. They are probably correct. But this is Hacker News, and the people here ought to be smart enough to see this for the stupid political smear that it obviously is. If you don't like a party, make the case that their policy is wrong. If vague analogy to the Nazis is the best argument you have, then you have no argument at all.
> But this is Hacker News, and the people here ought to be smart enough to see this
lol. lmao.
This is exactly the arrogant narrative that pushes more people to vote for AfD. It’s the people’s right to vote for any party they want and that’s part of the democratic process.
Labelling or bullying people because they have exercised their right and calling them Nazis is not gonna make them change their mind at all.
After all who are you or anyone else to say that what other person has voted is right or wrong. You can have your opinion, but you cannot judge them
That comparison is depressingly applicable. The National Socialists gained power in a period when both the present and future looked very bleak to a large fraction of German voters, and a whole succession governments formed by political mainstream figures had demonstrated that they couldn't do squat to really fix things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Renewed_crisis...
If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II had not done such a comprehensive job of discrediting hereditary nobility, it might be healthier if German voters had the option to replace their elected government with a ruling Kaiser for 4 or 5 years. Ideally, that would lessen the appeal of more-extreme political parties. And the threat of indefinite irrelevance (the Kaiser could be reelected) might even motivate the politicians to occasional competence.
This isn't really news. Media has been calling anyone which does not align with their views as far right for more than a decade.
Is the AfD a party in favor of liberal democracy? Enlighten us about where you'd palce their ideas in the political spectrum.
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
Oh, it should. Where should we discuss it? Because we really should discuss it.
> 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?
Exactly but woke communism is the mass ideology of the dumb people right now so everyone that hates woke shit is a nazi to those clowns.
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.
I hate this timeline.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
The far right's win on hacker news goes mostly without comment, however. Very uh, interesting views you guys got in here.
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.