Germany to ban political parties?... Again?

Letters from O'Brien #42

Germany to ban political parties?

Recently it was disclosed that the German populist party AfD had experienced a further surge in popularity, with polling numbers likely to supersede 23% in next years election. Data collected suggests that alternative parties in Germany - as in France and Italy - have been on the rise following the revelation of unilateral collaboration between the major parties on issues such as climate change, vaccine mandates, and other economic and social measures.

In response to this, a proposal has been put forward; to ban the AfD party from participating in federal or state elections. This proposal has received widespread support both within the government and subsequently amongst the German mainstream media. The move appears to have occurred in response to nothing more than the increase in AfD popularity, with almost a quarter of Germanys voting age population leaning towards it. Despite this, the media has attempted to paint the move as coming from ‘far right activity’, even though nothing really controversial has emerged from the party in its rise to popularity.

With pre-polling surveys suggesting that the AfD will receive 23% of the vote in the next election, this would place it above other historically large parties, including the Social Democrat Party (SPD) which has an estimated 19% of the vote.

BANNING THE AfD

Calls for the AfD to be banned have emanated - unsurprisingly - from far left groups such as Alliance 90 - also known as The Greens - who believe that alternative right leaning parties should be outlawed. I think I remember there being a party in the 1930s that thought along the same lines!

Not much needs to be said of the idiocy. The Greens - as with most modern liberalist parties - work in lockstep with larger left leaning parties to centralise power under a socialist system. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since many within these parties are openly socialists or communists holding their many-times-debunked utopian vision. The Greens have thus far been one of the most extreme parties in the country, openly anti-German (including calls to ban native Germans from employment and remove terminology relating to ‘Germany’ from speeches and party material), yet have a large sway over decisions put forward by the government. This is likely a result of the aligned interests of both the major parties and the left-leaning alternative parties who seek to advance the same political and economic measures.

Of the many accusations levelled against the AfD include the claim that the party is seeking to promote hatred of minority groups. The origin of this claim appears to be a statistic shared by the AfD which highlighted that immigrants were committing a large percentage of crimes within Germany. For context, the immigrant issue is not exclusive to the discussions of the AfD and other ‘alternative parties’. In fact, the German population has rapidly become one of the most skeptical regarding immigration over the past year, with recent polling suggesting that almost 80% of the population are displeased with the current situation. If the Greens were going for an attack, they clearly picked the wrong topic.

Another point of criticism has been the Euro-scepticism espoused by many within the AfD. Again, a distaste for the European Union is not a minority opinion. Pew research (which has shown bias in such polls) still claims that 29% of Germans are ‘eurosceptic’, however they attempt to rationalise this by claiming that euro-scepticism is not a popular opinion, but a byproduct of ‘right wing populist parties’ (the irony was clearly lost here). 62% of Europeans broadly agreed that the EU fails to understand the needs of its citizens at all. Many believe that the EU is a failed Soviet-esque centralised apparatus, which benefits failed economies such as Greece (and one day perhaps Ukraine) while punishing advancing economies such as Germany. Even France - often seen as the progenitor and most avid proponent of the EU - has shown an increasing distaste for the results of this decades long experiment.

In actuality, the AfD party has grown in popularity due to its insistence that populist opinions matters, and that issues popular among Germans should be pushed into the political sphere (who would have guessed, right?). This is the defining element of a working representative democracy. In practice Germany’s parliament - as with most western parliaments - are basically closed bureaucratic circles, listening to no one, subject to no one, and held accountable to no one. Few things better highlight this than the call to ban the AfD for the ‘preservation of democracy’. This tired and contradictory argument has been put forth countless times by mainstream parties across the west in response to rising populist distrust.

THE RESULT

Germany has a long history of banning competing political parties. Apart from the obvious example - the Nazi Parties Enabling Act of 1933 - other moves include the outlawing of certain parties during World War I, the banning of practically all parties in Soviet controlled East Germany, and the banning of several nationalist parties during the Weimar era. The latter example during the Weimar era directly influenced the rise of ultranationalism before World War II, as regular nationalists who often had little other interest in politics (workers, farmers, etc.) were suppressed, thus funnelling these groups into larger underground organisations.

The stupidity of this move cannot be overstated. It is almost comically ridiculous in its outward appearance, as it comes off as some sort of right-wing accelerationist propaganda. Using such ridiculously out of touch buzzwords such as ‘racist’, ‘hateful’, ‘far right’, and ‘extremist’ as labels against an opponent has become laughable in the present day to an already skeptical population. For younger people such buzzwords have lost their meaning, being nothing more than overused political insults.

TACTICAL USAGE

Although some have called for the banning of the AfD, others have shown reluctance to move towards such a ban. This reluctancy is not tied to any idea of upholding freedom of speech. Instead, it is a tactical move which has been utilised throughout the west for some time. These nationalist groups can continue to exist, so long as they remain in their ‘bubble’ (in this case, associating AfD with concepts such as ‘Nazism’ and ‘anti-immigration’) which the mainstream press upholds. The goal here is to draw a divide between the ‘extreme’ parties (AfD and the nationalists, against the Greens and the communists) whilst offering a ‘moderate’ centre ground coalition. This has essentially led to three major parties - the SPD, the FDP, and the Greens - forming a coalition in Germany which absorbs the majority of the vote. This essentially shuts down the political sphere from ever bringing about change, since most important moves are unilateral. Thus, creating the illusion of fringe-groups has been successful in driving voters into the centre.

It is also known that the Greens gain benefit from the existence of parties which can be tied with nationalism. The reasoning is fairly simple; since the mainstream press are ideologically aligned with socialism, attacks are targeted to the right. Thus, unknowing voters are usually swayed to the left. This is almost entirely the doing of the press, since the Greens - even when members have called for the assassination of other representatives - manage to escape from facing any mainstream criticism.

This has likely been one of the major incentives for those who previously voted ‘centrist’ to look elsewhere for answers, since evidently nothing except moves ‘to the left’ are discussed within parliament. The only large ‘conservative’ group is the generally-aligned Christian Social Union and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU/CSU), which often receives a large voter turnout, but cannot compete against the socialist coalition which has been formed. Again, even these centrist conservative groups may be losing favour, as they are also too slow to enact necessary change, and also appear as if they are appealing to the ‘moderate voter’.

The irony here is that many within Germany’s ‘centrist’ coalition are utopian socialists (which may be obvious given they are lead by the SPD), hence why the Greens policies are often simply more advanced or radical forms of whatever the mainstream parties are advocating for. This essentially breaks the illusion that the Greens are merely a fringe group, whilst the SPD and FDP are ‘moderates’ who share completely different opinions.

Regardless, this past year has seen public opinion sway towards the AfD. If its popularity continues to increase, then the ‘moderate’ parties may also join in on the calls for a ban.

MOVING FORWARD

Germany’s future remains uncertain, but I am doubtful that the lie can be upheld for much longer. What is occurring seems reminiscent of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s; their lie cannot be upheld without increased force, but this force only flows from those willing to go along with the lie. If it truly is as unsustainable as it appears, then bottom-up pressure will result in change further up in the political hierarchy. This may explain the recent moves by international organisations to force individuals into digitised banking schemes and inter-national economic plans, since these limit the swaying power of free-market decisions made by people on the individual level.

Just like the Soviet situation in the late 80s, the western ‘postmodern regime’ can only continue if the population is willing to lie to itself every single day. The moment individuals decide to speak the truth is the moment these lies lose their power.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien