10 ms·

Are they pushing for it?

layer8 11mo ago
No, they position themselves against it, because they have a narrative similar to the (former) “deep state” narrative in the US, but you can be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it.
- zaphar 11mo ago
  I'm not familiar with the far right in Germany. Why should we be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it?
  - peterlk 11mo ago
    Because, similar to the US, they have authoritarian tendencies - strong nationalism and anti-immigration. How are you going to round up the bad people if you don't have surveillance everywhere?
    - zaphar 11mo ago
      I am unclear on how strong nationalism is an authoritarian signal. Can you go into more detail there?
      - shakna 11mo ago
        Because it makes it easier to create scapegoats, and excuses for why restrictions must be created. Blame the Jews, the immigrants, the trans, and then people will grudgingly accept the Gestapo, ICE, prosecution without proof or courts. Which then allows you to target the opposition without proof.
      - croes 11mo ago
        Because it’s a fake nationalism where they decide who and what is considered part of the nation and who and what not.
      - glenstein 11mo ago
        Well the Axis powers from World War II are the most obvious demonstrations of nationalism begetting authoritarianism. Germany, Italy, and Japan were nationalist in the extreme. And Italy from that time is such a clear example that it's basically the canonical example used to teach how fascism emerges. Contemporary examples include the Philippines, Hungary, Poland's Law and Justice Party, and arguably Russia, Turkey and India. Modi is a Hindu nationalist. The United States unfortunately is shaping up to count as an example as well. Extreme forms of nationalism tend to have a narrative of grievance, a desire to restore a once a great national identity, and a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens, and enemies without and within, against whom authoritarians powers must be mobilized. So there's a conceptual basis, in terms of setting the stage for rationalizing authoritarianism, as well as abundant historical examples demonstrating the marriage of nationalism and authoritarianism in action. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but I would say there's an extremely strong and familiar historical canon to those who study the topic.
        zmgsabst 11mo ago
        But that would only be something nationalism signaled if the converse weren’t also true — eg, totalitarian states like the USSR, CCP, etc. Those also had: - grievance narratives; - a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens and enemies; and, - use the above to justify authoritarian powers. You haven’t shown that nationalism played a particular part in that cycle; just that it also happened in nationalist states. Almost like the problem is those factors, rather than nationalism.
        shakna 11mo ago
        The USSR absolutely used a nationalist view in their propaganda [0] As did the CCP [1]: > Ideals and convictions are the spiritual banners for the united struggle of a country, nation and party, wavering ideals and convictions are the most harmful form of wavering. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/abs/nationalism-in-the-ussr-a-historical-and-comparative-perspective/EE65B99FD1D9EAE1A7BC640C1319C8B7 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Commun...
      - mattlutze 11mo ago
        Here is an interesting review of how the two are historically strongly correlated[1]. Their conclusion is that "[...] ethnic and elitist forms of nationalism, which combine to forge exclusive nationalism, help to perpetuate autocratic regimes by continually legitimating minority exclusions [...]" Right-wing nationalism as we're currently experiencing it is exclusive. It broadly advocates for restoring revised historical cultural narratives of a particular ethnic group, for immigration restriction and immigrant removal, for further minority culture erasure, and so on. 1: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-4285b067eec6/files/s8g84mm37n https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-42...
      - adastra22 11mo ago
        Do you know the history of nationalism in Europe, and Germany in particular? Hint: it’s the “Na” part of “Nazi.” You are getting downvoted because this pretty basic stuff. Either you’re part of today’s lucky 10k, or your post reads very much like far-right Gish galloping.
        dinkumthinkum 11mo ago
        I don't know. It seems like from what you saying that you and honestly an enormous amount of people need to actually learn about 20th century European history and WWII. People are throwing around these terms of NAZI and Gestapo and all of this and I think they have no idea what they mean. The left is not against authoritarian. The left does not even want to really eliminate the police. They just want to be the ones to decide who are the thought-criminals and what to do with them. Also, that is not what Gish galloping. I don't know what is happening here.
        shakna 11mo ago
        The "far left" is anarchy. I don't really see anarchists wanting to keep police around.
        adastra22 11mo ago
        Far left has traditionally meant communism.
        adastra22 11mo ago
        I do know my history. The Nazi party was a pan-German nationalist party. I'm not sure why this is controversial. Germans, and Germany are obviously quite sensitive to the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. Not just because of WW2, but also the experience of East Germany.
        notrealyme123 11mo ago
        Didn't know the term "Gish Galloping". Thanks! I've experienced this so often in discussions with far right people.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
    - dinkumthinkum 11mo ago
      Authoritarian? You're saying this because of immigration; this comes from a position that is basically open borders. It is an interesting double standard. The people that hold this position would not consider non-Western countries that don't want to have open borders or have dramatic demographic shifts in their population and culture to be "authoritarian." This whole notion of "rounding up the bad people" is just infantile leftist stuff. How do you have a sovereign country if you are not able to have a policy that prevents unfettered 'immigration' or unable to deport those that immigrated contrary to law?
      - marcus_holmes 11mo ago
        The whole concept of a country as a related group of people from one ethnicity or historical origin is relatively recent. Feudalism did not have this concept; a country was the land belonging to a king (or equivalent), mediated through a set of nobles. There was no concept of illegal or legal immigration; the population of a country were the people who worked for, or were owned by, the nobles ruling that country. There were land rights granted to peasants who had historically lived in that place, but these could and were often overruled by nobles. European nobility had no such idea of ethnicity or national grouping; the English monarchy is a German family, and most of European nobility were related to each other much more closely than to the citizens of their country. Early post-monarchy states didn't have this concept. The English Civil War and the French Revolution didn't create states that had a defined concept of the citizen as a member of any ethnic grouping. Again, there's no mention of immigration in any of the documents from this period. It just wasn't a concept they thought about. The whole concept that a nation-state is a formalisation of a historical grouping of ethnically related people is a very recent one, only a couple of hundred years old. So to answer your question: It is very easy to have a sovereign country without a policy that prevents unfettered immigration; you just don't care about your population being ethnically diverse. Your citizens are the people who live in your country, and have undergone whatever ceremony and formality you decide makes them citizens. This is, after all, how America historically did this; if you arrived in America and pledged allegiance, you became a citizen of America.
  - layer8 11mo ago
    In simple terms, because the far right is about authoritarianism and control, not about civil liberties.
    - zaphar 11mo ago
      Interesting. So they have a history of attempting to legislate authoritarian rules that restrict civil liberties for citizens?
      - natebc 11mo ago
        In Germany? Yes. Yes, they do.
      - croes 11mo ago
        The tried to prohibit inclusive language
        pezezin 11mo ago
        The problem is that most Indo-European languages have grammatical gender, with English being a notable exception. In many cases, trying to fit that inclusive language means contorting or breaking the language grammar in unnatural ways, that's why many people oppose it.
      - layer8 11mo ago
        Yes, for example: https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw02-de-praeventionsgewahrsam-816570 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw02-de-p... https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-vollverschleierung-542282 https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v... https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf
        FirmwareBurner 11mo ago
        The first one is bad indeed, but what's so "authoritarian" about the rest? >https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-vollverschleierung-542282 https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v... Other European countries like Switzerland, also banned full face veils(burqas) in public. Try entering a bank, city hall, school, etc with a balaclava, ski mask or motorcycle helmet see how that goes. >https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf Allowing the surveillance of minors if they show signs of radicalization? This to me makes sense under existing child protection laws. If kids are being raised in environments that are harmful to themselves and society, should we just sit by and let them get permanently wrecked till they reach adulthood, over a technicality? The earlier you can catch the issues the better for everyone and the higher the chance you can rescue the child. Existing child protection laws in Germany already allow the state a lot of power to take children away from parents if they're seen as unfit. >https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? These are common sense viewpoints a lot of Europeans agree with, not authoritarian ones.
  - alsetmusic 11mo ago
    > I'm not familiar with the far right in Germany. Why should we be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it? In addition to the authoritarian aspect pointed out by a sibling comment, the far-right generally consider the ends to justify the means because of their sense of righteousness. They will compromise their values to get what they want (control over others). Just look at the hypocrisy of the free-speech absolutists on twitter who have no complaints over Lonnie shutting down Leftist accounts.
  - hopelite 11mo ago
    Because it’s just manipulative and abusive, self harming and self destructive narcissistic psychopathic people calling things that thwart their suicidal mindset as “far right”. If you don’t want to LoL yourself, you must be far-right. If you don’t feel safe in your own community because of foreigners that have no right to be there, then you must be a racist. It’s an odd phenomenon called a mass formation in large populations, when groups of people get fixated or obsessed with a certain concept or even a thing that the group ourself becomes self-reinforcing; usually until a point of exhaustion is reached or self-destruction. It can also be effectively injected into a culture as it was in Germany’s case after the war through endless and limitless collective and hereditary blame abuse to the point that Germans generally do not have self-respect, and if they show even a slight bit of self-respect they are branded far right, as of that means anything being the subconscious conditioning people have been subjected to. It’s kind of sad and unfortunate and humanity should never have allowed the collective torture, abuse, and punishment of Germans even to this day 80 years later. It’s a sick and depraved thing only the most devious and evil people would condone, let alone perpetrate.
  - rsynnott 11mo ago
    Are you... familiar with the _history_ of the far right in Germany? Not scared of doing a little surveillance.
- ratelimitsteve 11mo ago
  [flagged]
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  > No, they position themselves against it, because they have a narrative similar to the (former) “deep state” narrative in the US, but you can be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it. We seem to have a general problem with people not understanding that democracies have regular elections and the other party is going to get back in at some point. So then whenever one party is in power, instead of thinking ahead by five minutes and realizing that adding new constraints on the government and adding rather than eroding checks and balances will help you the next time the other team gets in, everybody thinks of them as an impediment to doing whatever they want immediately. And then like clockwork they get butthurt when they checks they eroded or failed to put into place aren't there after the next election, as if they had nothing to do with it.
- dinkumthinkum 11mo ago
  Who is the "far right" in Germany? Is it just anyone you disagree with? And, if it is the AfD being "far right" ... ok :/

layer8 11mo ago

No, they position themselves against it, because they have a narrative similar to the (former) “deep state” narrative in the US, but you can be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it.

zaphar 11mo ago
I'm not familiar with the far right in Germany. Why should we be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it?
- peterlk 11mo ago
  Because, similar to the US, they have authoritarian tendencies - strong nationalism and anti-immigration. How are you going to round up the bad people if you don't have surveillance everywhere?
  - zaphar 11mo ago
    I am unclear on how strong nationalism is an authoritarian signal. Can you go into more detail there?
    - shakna 11mo ago
      Because it makes it easier to create scapegoats, and excuses for why restrictions must be created. Blame the Jews, the immigrants, the trans, and then people will grudgingly accept the Gestapo, ICE, prosecution without proof or courts. Which then allows you to target the opposition without proof.
    - croes 11mo ago
      Because it’s a fake nationalism where they decide who and what is considered part of the nation and who and what not.
    - glenstein 11mo ago
      Well the Axis powers from World War II are the most obvious demonstrations of nationalism begetting authoritarianism. Germany, Italy, and Japan were nationalist in the extreme. And Italy from that time is such a clear example that it's basically the canonical example used to teach how fascism emerges. Contemporary examples include the Philippines, Hungary, Poland's Law and Justice Party, and arguably Russia, Turkey and India. Modi is a Hindu nationalist. The United States unfortunately is shaping up to count as an example as well. Extreme forms of nationalism tend to have a narrative of grievance, a desire to restore a once a great national identity, and a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens, and enemies without and within, against whom authoritarians powers must be mobilized. So there's a conceptual basis, in terms of setting the stage for rationalizing authoritarianism, as well as abundant historical examples demonstrating the marriage of nationalism and authoritarianism in action. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but I would say there's an extremely strong and familiar historical canon to those who study the topic.
      - zmgsabst 11mo ago
        But that would only be something nationalism signaled if the converse weren’t also true — eg, totalitarian states like the USSR, CCP, etc. Those also had: - grievance narratives; - a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens and enemies; and, - use the above to justify authoritarian powers. You haven’t shown that nationalism played a particular part in that cycle; just that it also happened in nationalist states. Almost like the problem is those factors, rather than nationalism.
        shakna 11mo ago
        The USSR absolutely used a nationalist view in their propaganda [0] As did the CCP [1]: > Ideals and convictions are the spiritual banners for the united struggle of a country, nation and party, wavering ideals and convictions are the most harmful form of wavering. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/abs/nationalism-in-the-ussr-a-historical-and-comparative-perspective/EE65B99FD1D9EAE1A7BC640C1319C8B7 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Commun...
    - mattlutze 11mo ago
      Here is an interesting review of how the two are historically strongly correlated[1]. Their conclusion is that "[...] ethnic and elitist forms of nationalism, which combine to forge exclusive nationalism, help to perpetuate autocratic regimes by continually legitimating minority exclusions [...]" Right-wing nationalism as we're currently experiencing it is exclusive. It broadly advocates for restoring revised historical cultural narratives of a particular ethnic group, for immigration restriction and immigrant removal, for further minority culture erasure, and so on. 1: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-4285b067eec6/files/s8g84mm37n https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-42...
    - adastra22 11mo ago
      Do you know the history of nationalism in Europe, and Germany in particular? Hint: it’s the “Na” part of “Nazi.” You are getting downvoted because this pretty basic stuff. Either you’re part of today’s lucky 10k, or your post reads very much like far-right Gish galloping.
      - dinkumthinkum 11mo ago
        I don't know. It seems like from what you saying that you and honestly an enormous amount of people need to actually learn about 20th century European history and WWII. People are throwing around these terms of NAZI and Gestapo and all of this and I think they have no idea what they mean. The left is not against authoritarian. The left does not even want to really eliminate the police. They just want to be the ones to decide who are the thought-criminals and what to do with them. Also, that is not what Gish galloping. I don't know what is happening here.
        shakna 11mo ago
        The "far left" is anarchy. I don't really see anarchists wanting to keep police around.
        adastra22 11mo ago
        Far left has traditionally meant communism.
        adastra22 11mo ago
        I do know my history. The Nazi party was a pan-German nationalist party. I'm not sure why this is controversial. Germans, and Germany are obviously quite sensitive to the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. Not just because of WW2, but also the experience of East Germany.
      - notrealyme123 11mo ago
        Didn't know the term "Gish Galloping". Thanks! I've experienced this so often in discussions with far right people.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
  - dinkumthinkum 11mo ago
    Authoritarian? You're saying this because of immigration; this comes from a position that is basically open borders. It is an interesting double standard. The people that hold this position would not consider non-Western countries that don't want to have open borders or have dramatic demographic shifts in their population and culture to be "authoritarian." This whole notion of "rounding up the bad people" is just infantile leftist stuff. How do you have a sovereign country if you are not able to have a policy that prevents unfettered 'immigration' or unable to deport those that immigrated contrary to law?
    - marcus_holmes 11mo ago
      The whole concept of a country as a related group of people from one ethnicity or historical origin is relatively recent. Feudalism did not have this concept; a country was the land belonging to a king (or equivalent), mediated through a set of nobles. There was no concept of illegal or legal immigration; the population of a country were the people who worked for, or were owned by, the nobles ruling that country. There were land rights granted to peasants who had historically lived in that place, but these could and were often overruled by nobles. European nobility had no such idea of ethnicity or national grouping; the English monarchy is a German family, and most of European nobility were related to each other much more closely than to the citizens of their country. Early post-monarchy states didn't have this concept. The English Civil War and the French Revolution didn't create states that had a defined concept of the citizen as a member of any ethnic grouping. Again, there's no mention of immigration in any of the documents from this period. It just wasn't a concept they thought about. The whole concept that a nation-state is a formalisation of a historical grouping of ethnically related people is a very recent one, only a couple of hundred years old. So to answer your question: It is very easy to have a sovereign country without a policy that prevents unfettered immigration; you just don't care about your population being ethnically diverse. Your citizens are the people who live in your country, and have undergone whatever ceremony and formality you decide makes them citizens. This is, after all, how America historically did this; if you arrived in America and pledged allegiance, you became a citizen of America.
- layer8 11mo ago
  In simple terms, because the far right is about authoritarianism and control, not about civil liberties.
  - zaphar 11mo ago
    Interesting. So they have a history of attempting to legislate authoritarian rules that restrict civil liberties for citizens?
    - natebc 11mo ago
      In Germany? Yes. Yes, they do.
    - croes 11mo ago
      The tried to prohibit inclusive language
      - pezezin 11mo ago
        The problem is that most Indo-European languages have grammatical gender, with English being a notable exception. In many cases, trying to fit that inclusive language means contorting or breaking the language grammar in unnatural ways, that's why many people oppose it.
    - layer8 11mo ago
      Yes, for example: https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw02-de-praeventionsgewahrsam-816570 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2021/kw02-de-p... https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-vollverschleierung-542282 https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v... https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf
      - FirmwareBurner 11mo ago
        The first one is bad indeed, but what's so "authoritarian" about the rest? >https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-vollverschleierung-542282 https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2018/kw08-de-v... Other European countries like Switzerland, also banned full face veils(burqas) in public. Try entering a bank, city hall, school, etc with a balaclava, ski mask or motorcycle helmet see how that goes. >https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/304/1930412.pdf Allowing the surveillance of minors if they show signs of radicalization? This to me makes sense under existing child protection laws. If kids are being raised in environments that are harmful to themselves and society, should we just sit by and let them get permanently wrecked till they reach adulthood, over a technicality? The earlier you can catch the issues the better for everyone and the higher the chance you can rescue the child. Existing child protection laws in Germany already allow the state a lot of power to take children away from parents if they're seen as unfit. >https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/111/1911127.pdf Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not? These are common sense viewpoints a lot of Europeans agree with, not authoritarian ones.
- alsetmusic 11mo ago
  > I'm not familiar with the far right in Germany. Why should we be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it? In addition to the authoritarian aspect pointed out by a sibling comment, the far-right generally consider the ends to justify the means because of their sense of righteousness. They will compromise their values to get what they want (control over others). Just look at the hypocrisy of the free-speech absolutists on twitter who have no complaints over Lonnie shutting down Leftist accounts.
- hopelite 11mo ago
  Because it’s just manipulative and abusive, self harming and self destructive narcissistic psychopathic people calling things that thwart their suicidal mindset as “far right”. If you don’t want to LoL yourself, you must be far-right. If you don’t feel safe in your own community because of foreigners that have no right to be there, then you must be a racist. It’s an odd phenomenon called a mass formation in large populations, when groups of people get fixated or obsessed with a certain concept or even a thing that the group ourself becomes self-reinforcing; usually until a point of exhaustion is reached or self-destruction. It can also be effectively injected into a culture as it was in Germany’s case after the war through endless and limitless collective and hereditary blame abuse to the point that Germans generally do not have self-respect, and if they show even a slight bit of self-respect they are branded far right, as of that means anything being the subconscious conditioning people have been subjected to. It’s kind of sad and unfortunate and humanity should never have allowed the collective torture, abuse, and punishment of Germans even to this day 80 years later. It’s a sick and depraved thing only the most devious and evil people would condone, let alone perpetrate.
- rsynnott 11mo ago
  Are you... familiar with the _history_ of the far right in Germany? Not scared of doing a little surveillance.
ratelimitsteve 11mo ago
[flagged]
AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
> No, they position themselves against it, because they have a narrative similar to the (former) “deep state” narrative in the US, but you can be assured that they will reverse course as soon as they can afford it. We seem to have a general problem with people not understanding that democracies have regular elections and the other party is going to get back in at some point. So then whenever one party is in power, instead of thinking ahead by five minutes and realizing that adding new constraints on the government and adding rather than eroding checks and balances will help you the next time the other team gets in, everybody thinks of them as an impediment to doing whatever they want immediately. And then like clockwork they get butthurt when they checks they eroded or failed to put into place aren't there after the next election, as if they had nothing to do with it.
dinkumthinkum 11mo ago
Who is the "far right" in Germany? Is it just anyone you disagree with? And, if it is the AfD being "far right" ... ok :/