Germany’s bizarre selective outrage: legitimising extremists abroad while delegitimising democracy at home

The same German establishment that legitimates extremist regimes in Syria, Israel and Ukraine is destroying German democracy to "save it from the populists"

Guest post by Irish journalist Ciarán O’Regan (Substack; Twitter).

---

Reporting on the Battle of Bến Tre, part of the Tet Offensive, produced a classic one liner. An unnamed Major in the US army, according to journalist Peter Arnett, said that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it”. Being a sceptic of US interventionism, it isn’t hard to argue that such a throwaway line is actually quite representative of neocon foreign policy.

Remember the “weapons of mass destruction” fiasco that was used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq? That was an intervention based on fictional intelligence reports that resulted in hundreds of thousands of people killed, the destabilization of the region, the creation of ISIS, the brutal persecution of religious minorities (including one of the oldest Christian communities in the world), and the creation of a regime that allows for paedophiles to marry 9 year old girls. It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it. Germany, however, offered “steadfast opposition” to the invasion of Iraq at the time. This German independence was something that US Vice President, JD Vance, actually applauded in a much discussed April 2025 interview with Sohrab Ahmari for UnHerd:

Something I know a little bit more personally: I think a lot of European nations were right about our invasion of Iraq. And frankly, if the Europeans had been a little more independent, and a little more willing to stand up, then maybe we could have saved the entire world from the strategic disaster that was the American-led invasion of Iraq.

Similarly, remember the humanitarian reasons provided to justify the 2011 war against Libya? This was an intervention that resulted in massive casualties, the sodomizing to death of President Qaddafi (who a few years earlier had voluntarily dismantled his country’s nuclear program thereby decreasing the chances that any future country gives up their nukes), access to government weapons stores which a 2015 Guardian article states were transferred by MI6 and the CIA into the hands of Syrian rebels, and turned the country into a failed state with open air slave markets and a massive human trafficking hub that formed a major part of the illegal migrant route into Europe. It became necessary to destroy Libya to save it. Again, Germany wasn’t on board with this war either and, at the time, had “voted to abstain from the UN resolution authorizing force against Muammar Qaddafi”.

Decisions by the German establishment in more recent years, however, mean that history is unlikely to judge so favourably. The 13-year-long Western-backed regime change operation in Syria, for instance, culminated in the December 2024 arrival into government of former al-Qaeda and ISIS jihadis who are now supposedly quite “diversity-friendly” and “inclusive”. In early January 2025, soon after this new jihaDEI regime achieved power, Germany’s then-Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, was among the first Western diplomats to rush to legitimate Syria’s new leader, al-Sharaa, a former ISIS and Al Qaeda commander who only a matter of weeks prior had a 10 million dollar bounty on his head removed by the Biden administration. Though stating that “We must constantly remind ourselves that, yes, this is a terrorist militia”, Politico also reported Baerbock as stating that promises from the “terrorist militia” about including “all actors” in the transition process “sound good so far”.

Low and behold, so “diversity-friendly” and “inclusive” of “all actors” is this new jihaDEI regime, that they went on to behave like the “terrorist militia” Baerbock knew they were. Members of this regime went about butchering thousands of civilians from religious minorities. According to Paul Wood, in the March 15, 2025 print edition of The Spectator, much of the savagery was gleefully recorded and posted online:

No one covers up their war crimes any more. They film them, celebrate them, post them on X. So we have videos from Syria this week showing Islamist fighters making terrified Alawite men get on their hands and knees and howl like dogs. In one video, the victims crawl along a street spattered with blood and gore as a bearded gunman clubs them with a wooden pole. The camera comes to rest on half a dozen bodies. Then we hear rifle shots.

According to Wood, the massacre of civilians was led by “a brigadier-general in the new post-Assad army” and was carried out in response to an Alawite militia that had launched attacks against the new regime. Father Benedict Kiely, in the same edition of The Spectator, said the unsayable: “It may not be acceptable to say so, but, under the undeniably brutal dictatorship of the Assad family there was no inter-religious strife”. He goes on to say that a translator of his from a visit to the region in 2017 was a former supporter of the rebels, but then switched to supporting “Assad because he had seen the alternative”. Well, the alternative has arrived. Father Kiely writes of that weekend’s killing spree:

While precise numbers are difficult to ascertain, it appears that, according to a source verified by the Hungarian government’s State Secretariat for the Aid of Persecuted Christians — the only one in the world — up to 3,000 people may have been killed. While clearly a pogrom against the Alawites, Christians in Syria are deeply concerned because, as the old Syrian phrase has it, “first the Alawites, then the Christians”. Since the accession of the Islamist government at the end of last year, Christians have been the subject of murder, kidnappings, intimidation and vandalism.

And then on March 17, only days after videos and reports were surfacing of regime jihaDEIs barbarizing civilians, Germany’s Baerbock announced 300 million euros in funding for Syria.

But while the German establishment issued critical statements about this new regime as they simultaneously legitimized it with friendly diplomatic photoshoots and, in the days after broadcasting a massacre, hundreds of millions of euros in funding support, things have gotten much worse for Syria’s minorities. Mother Superior Agnes Mariam de la Croix, a Lebanese Catholic nun based in Kurdish controlled Syria, claimed in an early May 2025 interview on The Grayzone that somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 Alawite Muslims are presently dead or missing. Mother Superior Agnes also described how foreign Sunni Muslim fighters were “unleashed” by the security forces of the new regime into residential areas and proceeded to rape, kill, burn and commit “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing”. She outlined various “crimes against humanity”, including the taking of sex slaves by fighters which she describes as part of the Islamic tradition of war, and called on the Secretary General of the UN to initiate an inquiry into these atrocities.

More starkly still, given both the transparency and scale of bloodshed, the German establishment have been unconditional supporters of an Israeli regime that barely even tries to pretend. In an April 2025 piece for Haaretz, co-founder of the Berlin-based group Israelis for Peace, Nimrod Flaschenberg, described the “escalation of Germany’s expanding and limitless support for Israel”. “Since October 7 and Israel’s war on Gaza”, writes Flaschenberg, “Germany has positioned itself unequivocally on Israel’s side, supplying it with arms and defending it in international forums — all the while invoking Staatsräson as justification. While calls for a ceasefire were heard from Berlin, military aid to Israel has continued unabated”.

This concept of Staatsräson — “reason of state” — was apparently “first declared in 2008 by then-chancellor Angela Merkel at the Knesset, where she announced that the security of Israel is part of Germany’s core identity”. And while some interpret Staatsräson “as a commitment to a democratic, peaceful state of Israel within internationally recognized borders”, Flaschenberg argues that “the dominant understanding among Germany’s elected leadership” of late “seems to ascribe total and unconditional support for Israel, regardless of its treatment of the Palestinians or its posture in the Middle East”. He doesn’t mince words:

In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state’s relation to Israel.

While some supporters of Israel may take issue with claims of “genocide”, many of the crimes being perpetrated, and the high-ranking calls for acts of barbarity against Palestinians, are in plain sight. Drop Site News, for example, reported in February 2025 that the Israeli Deputy Knesset Speaker, and member of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud party, Nissim Vaturi, “call[ed] for killing all Palestinian men in Gaza”. While on the ultra-Orthodox radio station, Kol BaRama, Vaturi is reported to have said: “Who is innocent in Gaza? Civilians went out and slaughtered people in cold blood… We need to separate the children and women and kill the adults in Gaza, we are being too considerate”. Vaturi apparently also described people in Gaza as “scum and subhumans”.

In line with this sentiment, according to an earlier report by The Times of Israel from August 2024, Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said he believes that blocking humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip is “justified and moral”, even if it causes 2 million civilians to die of hunger — adding, however, that the international community won’t allow this to happen. The Times writes:

“We are bringing in aid because there is no choice,” Smotrich says at a conference in Yad Binyamin hosted by the Israel Hayom outlet. “We can’t, in the current global reality, manage a war. Nobody will let us cause 2 million civilians to die of hunger even though it might be justified and moral until our hostages are returned. Humanitarian in exchange for humanitarian is morally justified, but what can we do? We live today in a certain reality, we need international legitimacy for this war”.

According to a CBS News report from July 2024, a member of Israel’s ruling coalition government, Hanoch Milwidsky, defended the rape and torture of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli soldiers:

A member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, speaking Monday at a meeting of lawmakers, justified the rape and abuse of Palestinian prisoners, shouting angrily at colleagues questioning the alleged behavior that anything was legitimate to do to “terrorists” in custody. […] Lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky was asked as he defended the alleged abuse whether it was legitimate “to insert a stick into a person’s rectum?” […] “Yes!”, he shouted in reply to his fellow parliamentarian. “If he is a Nukhba [a member of Hamas], everything is legitimate to do! Everything!”.

On this freakishly barbaric situation, a Haaretz report from July 2024 outlines National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s condemnation of the detention of suspected rapist soldiers by military police investigators, calling it “nothing less than shameful. I recommend the defense minister, the IDF chief and the military authorities to back the fighters and learn from the prison service — lenient treatment of terrorists is over. Soldiers need to have our full support”.

Despite this kind of openly savage attitude amongst Israeli officialdom being commonly encountered, Germany’s support for what is an undoubtedly extremist Israeli regime continues. Flaschenberg argues that “what was once an expression of Germany’s commitment to the victims of the Holocaust is now being used to support Israel’s expansionist militarism and systematic crimes in Gaza”.

Finally, given the very Nazi past for which the German establishment seemingly remains haunted to a pathologically hysteric degree, the most bizarre legitimization of foreign extremism is the similarly unconditional commitment Germany offers towards the present Ukrainian regime. Prior to February 2022, it was not controversial for mainstream Western outlets — such as the Guardian (2018), Time (2021) or Harper’s Magazine (2021) — to report on a growing element within Ukrainian society that brandished unapologetically “neo-Nazi” symbology and rhetoric. This is an element replete not only with openly national-socialist flags, insignia and tattoos, but public declarations, as reported in the Guardian, about their mission being to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans]”. In a 2017 mini-documentary by NBC News, Ukraine’s Hyper-Nationalist Military Summer Camp for Kids, we see a young boy standing by a fire exclaiming the following: “What is our slogan? We are Ukraine’s children! Let Moscow lay in ruins, we don’t give a damn! We will conquer the whole world! Death, death to the Muscovites!”.

Since Trump’s return to office, increasing numbers of commentators have been suggesting that President Zelensky’s unwillingness to engage in negotiations with Russia — despite Ukraine’s ultimately doomed battlefield situation, as I have previously outlined in October 2024 on this Substack and in the European Conservative — is possibly due to the danger posed to his very life as a result of these extremist elements. And as I described in a September 2024 essay, also published here, these well-armed, highly motivated and deeply embedded ultranationalists have, since Zelensky was elected in 2019 on a promise of peace, been publicly threatening to kill him if he tried to strike a deal with Russia. Journalist and author Scott Horton has recently reiterated this sentiment and said that he doesn’t know, should it be required as part of negotiations, if Zelensky even has the ability to order these more ideologically committed fighters to withdraw from contested regions:

They might just keep fighting and ignore his authority if he orders them back from there. They might just shoot him in the face as Dmytro Yarosh [Right Sector co-founder and commander of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army] and Andriy Biletsky [founder and leader of the 3rd Separate Assault brigade, the successor of Azov, and leader of the Azov movement’s political wing] have threatened in the past. Any President [that] tries to deal with Russia, they’ll just kill him. They’re not just going to settle for that sacrifice of all these good men for no good reason. They haven’t died in vain until Ukraine sues for peace.

Professor Nicolai Petro of the University of Rhode Island describes in his book, The Tragedy of Ukraine, how, since the 2014 Maidan, “political power” has shifted “firmly in the hands of those sympathetic to the Far Right” (pg. 105). In a May 2025 interview with professor Glenn Diesen of the University of South-Eastern Norway, Dr Marta Havryshko of the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, offered what she saw as the basis for establishment support of these ultras:

The bottom line is Ukrainian political elites and Western political elites basically changed their narrative and changed their approach to the far right in order to instrumentalize them and use them to bleed and weaken Russia, because they know that those guys are most aggressive and are most thirsty [for] war. And they are indoctrinated and socialised in violence, they are ready to use violence, and they already used violence in the Donbas war in ’14, ’15, ‘16.

Dr Havryshko goes on to describe how members of these groups were imprisoned by the Ukrainian state for war crimes such as kidnapping, murder and rape, but were released in 2022 after the Russian invasion and, since then, have gained power and influence.

If this ultranationalist element really is so influential within the Ukrainian state-military apparatus, then the German establishment, with its guiding ideology of “Compascism”, as I have previously described it elsewhere, has found itself in a profoundly twisted situation.

A situation so twisted, in fact, that the blowing up of Germany’s Nord Stream pipeline has yet to be officially investigated with anything even resembling a sincere interest in discovering the truth. In an astonishing July 2024 speech, Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, issued an explosive claim — the accuracy of which can be surmised by the relatively deafening silence that followed amongst his NATO allies and EU colleagues:

We let the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline go unchallenged; Germany itself let an act of terrorism against its own property — which was obviously carried out under US direction — go unchallenged, and we are not saying a word about it, we are not investigating it, we do not want to clarify it, we do not want to raise it in a legal context.

It is against this backdrop of legitimizing “diversity-friendly” and “inclusive” jihaDEI headcutters in Syria, fanatics in Israel who openly defend rape, murder and ethnic cleansing, and a state-military apparatus infused with totalitarian ultranationalist elements in Ukraine, that Germany’s establishment are delegitimizing their own democracy at home.

In March 2025 we saw Merz’s scandalous post-election use of the outgoing parliament to ram through debt brake alterations. Then on Friday May 2, 2025, the German Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (BfV) announced it had categorised the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as “definitely right-wing extremist”. This was a big move against the second most popular party in Germany. In outlining some of the basic facts of this situation for Brussels Signal, Chris Gattringer reminds readers that the “AfD received 21 per cent of the vote in the February 2025 general election — making it the second-biggest faction in parliament after the CDU”. Prior to this election, I wrote a brief primer summarising why, alongside Germany’s rapidly sinking economy, immigration was one of the biggest concerns for voters, and how the AfD were one of only two parties, alongside the left-conservative BSW, who definitively gave voice to this concern.

Gattringer went on to describe how “the categorisation as right-wing extremist may serve as a basis for other parties to achieve a total ban of AfD as a party.” Importantly, the BfV has, since 2021, been headed by an elected politician, Nancy Faeser, who has a questionable level of neutral objectivity. For example, Faesar has apparently written for a “far-left” magazine, Antifa, which is published by an organization that has been described by the state-operated Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution as Germany’s “largest left-wing extremist-influenced organisation in the field of anti-fascism”. In a May 6 newsletter for Brussels Signal, Dr Ralph Schoellhammer wrote:

While banning political parties is not without precedent in Germany, a key condition is a party’s desire to overthrow the existing political system. Despite the anti-mainstream positions of the AfD, there is no indication the party has any design of abandoning the democratic system. And criticising Islam and opposing mass migration should not be grounds for a party ban.

Dr Schoellhammer argues that “[w]hile banning the largest opposition party in itself makes for a veritable crisis of democracy, what makes the situation even worse is that the government refuses to publish the reasoning for it”. Gattringer did, however, provide three examples of AfD member’s supposed “right-wing extremism” from the confidential report that had been published by the mainstream outlet Welt. These examples of supposed “right-wing extremism” include quotes from AfD representatives such as:

Diversity means multiculturalism. And what does multiculturalism mean? Multiculturalism means loss of traditions, loss of identity, loss of homeland, murder, manslaughter, and gang rape.

Firstly, it is simply common sense that importing huge numbers of people from vastly different cultures will provide a challenge to indigenous tradition, identity, and homeland. Especially so when considering the normalised reality of asymmetric multiculturalism in which indigenous European cultures are denigrated and demonised; something clearly visible in recent school curriculum changes in my home nation of Ireland, for example. This fact of multiculturalism posing a threat to indigenous culture is obviously the case and, as Dr Frank Furedi described in a February 2025 essay, has even been championed by Europe’s de-nationalised establishment elites:

For Cook and his colleagues one of the virtues of mass migration and multiculturalism is that it tends to weaken national identity. That is why the federalist supporters of the European Union regard multiculturalism and migration as a useful instrument for strengthening the power of Brussels. As one study supporting this project claimed “multiculturalism could increase support for the EU and undermine Euroscepticism”. Why? Because multiculturalism inevitably diminishes the authority of national identity.

Secondly, and much more provocative, is the claim linking multiculturalism to “murder, manslaughter, and gang rape”. Germany’s own official crime data, however, supports this claim — including statistics on gang rape which, in September 2024, Friedrich Merz himself acknowledged. Andrew Hammel, in a very bleak piece exploring immigration-related crime statistics for The Critic, quoted Berlin Police Chief, Barbara Slowik: “Bluntly stated, our numbers show that violence in Berlin is young, male, and has a non-German background”. Germany is not an outlier here and these trends align with similar crime data from Sweden and Denmark — two countries that have been scrambling to change course on their immigration policies due to years of bloody carnage. What is specifically worth highlighting at this point, since immigration restrictionism is typically tarred as “far right” by those who wish to delegitimize the topic, is that Denmark has some of the strictest immigration laws in Europe, yet is led by a centre-left Social Democrat government.

And so, in essence, we see a state body headed by a politician with ties to an officially designated “left-wing extremist” organisation deciding to categorize the second most popular party in Germany — and her own party’s main parliamentary opposition — as “right-wing extremist”, thereby giving the state the ability to legally spy on the AfD, and putting them on the road to banning, all the while refusing to make the report accessible to the public. How very democratic.

None of this even mentions the fact that detailed evidence has been provided that election irregularities exist around the BSW, the only other serious non-establishment party of any note alongside the AfD, who narrowly missed out on the 5% needed to make it into the Bundestag. Thomas Fazi has republished a piece from the German magazine NachDenkSeiten outlining the case. In principled solidarity, the leader of the left-conservative BSW, Sarah Wagenknecht, came out on May 2 with a highly critical statement about the classification of the AfD as “extremist”:

The re-evaluation of #AfD by #Verfassungsschutz is questionable in substance and politically counterproductive. We don’t need [to] ban debate, but finally a sensible policy that convinces citizens and improves their living conditions, instead of making them increasingly angry through incompetence, paternalism, and electoral fraud. The classifications by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, firewall debates, and the exclusion in the Bundestag are slaps in the face for AfD voters, which will certainly not convince any of them to change their minds. This absurd policy should not be continued.

Now, it might well be the case that unpleasant or even sinister figures lurk within the AfD, and Berlin based writer CJ Hopkins — a man I hold in very high regard and have interviewed about his political persecution by the German establishment, published on this Substack — argues as much.

However, as Wagenknecht puts it above, slapping millions of AfD voters in the face “will certainly not convince any of them to change their minds”. Wagenknecht’s position here is honourably principled — which is more than can be said for others on Germany’s left where, as Sabine Beppler-Spahl described for the European Conservative, hypocrisy is rife:

The BfV’s classification confirms, if nothing else, the German establishment’s deep distrust of voters. Created after the Second World War under Allied occupation, ostensibly to monitor Nazi resurgence, the BfV quickly became a tool for targeting political dissidents of all stripes—communists during the Cold War, Green Party members in the 1980s, and Left Party politicians, including even Thuringia’s former and long-serving minister president Bodo Ramelow (Left Party).

The hypocrisy is staggering. There was a time when leftist politicians like Hans Christian Ströbele (Green Party) denounced the BfV as an authoritarian body beyond democratic control and campaigned for its abolition. Now, these same voices are cheering its targeting of the AfD. Both the Green Party and the Left Party have become leading advocates for an AfD ban—apparently, the BfV was evil when targeting them but virtuous when pursuing their opponents.

Interestingly, some within the German establishment went on to change their minds: the BfV announced on May 8 that it was temporarily suspending its classification of the AfD as “right-wing extremist” until the AfD’s lawsuit against the BfV on the matter is settled. Perhaps this change of heart was somewhat influenced by the US Vice President comparing the German establishment to Soviet totalitarians in a post on X which, at the time of writing, has over 43 million views.

Or perhaps it was to do with the embarrassment of titanic proportions faced by CDU/CSU leader, Friedrich Merz, when he was rejected as chancellor in the first attempt on May 7, in what should have been a mere formality. This was “an unprecedented failure in modern German history” that, according to a poll by Bild, 51% of Germans are convinced “will benefit the AfD”, and 57% think is a “stain that has tainted his image for the rest of his term in office”.

Regardless, given the level of persecution faced by political dissenters in Germany, such a temporary suspension of proceedings against the only meaningful opposition currently in the Bundestag is of little consolation. This intolerance toward criticism is epitomised by the aforementioned persecution of CJ Hopkins, and has become disturbingly normalized. As well as the Sisyphean fiasco that Hopkins is being dragged through by the hivemind establishment, other high profile persecutions for wrongthink include the cancellation of courageous political scientist and author, Ulrike Guérot. Thomas Fazi covered Ulrike’s persecution back in May and, more recently, you can hear her outline Germany’s slide into “para-authoritarianism” in a fascinating interview with Neutrality Studies. Fazi writes:

Her case stands as a chilling testament to the authoritarian drift of German society, and Western societies more in general, where dissent is no longer debated but punished — even to the point of going after tenured professors, who used to be almost untouchable. It’s a story that should shatter any lingering illusions about the true state of Western liberal democracy. Ultimately, however, one doesn’t need proof of a conspiracy to be appalled by Guérot’s treatment. If every actor involved was indeed operating independently, the picture is arguably even more troubling — that of an establishment so intolerant of dissent and contradiction that it instinctively moves to stamp it out it wherever it arises.

Public figures aside, normies too have suffered under the Rainbow Reich. The European Conservative outlined how, on June 25, 2025, “the German federal police carried out a major operation throughout the country, searching the homes and confiscating the electronics of 170 people over social media comments that either fall in the general ‘hate speech’ category or just insult sitting politicians”. In a February 2025 essay analysing the almost unbelievable 60 Minutes segment about the strangely pitiable apparatchiks responsible for this kind of mean word policing, eugyppius argues that “Germany has some of the most insane speech restrictions of all Western democracies”. This surreal 60 Minutes segment is as if David Brent dreamt up a comedy sketch influenced by Monty Python’s Spanish Inquisition and Anna Funder’s Stasiland. Mr eugyppius provides some examples of what the “Gaystapo” have been busying themselves with in the supposed defence of democracy:

I find it hard to exaggerate how oppressive and petty the speech police have become. I’ve covered the case of Stefan Niehoff, a 64 year-old retiree who had his house raided for the crime of tweeting a meme that called Green Economics Minister Robert Habeck a “professional moron”. I wrote about Doris van Geul, a 74 year-old woman who was convicted (among other things) for suggesting that some migrants might be “loafers and freeloaders”. Her pension is so meagre and her fines so high that she’ll probably be paying them off for the rest of her life. Tweeting the poop emoji at cabinet ministers, quoting politicians inexactly, calling Green politicians fat and stupid — all of this can lead to ruinous fines in the Federal Republic. Repeat offenders can even face prison time, all for saying impolite things to powerful people.

When considering Germany’s spate of horrific terror attacks over the last decade, alongside the fact that rates of knife crime and sexual violence have been through the roof, are dawn raids and petty prosecutions of those who issue schoolyard insults toward politicians really a reasonable use of police and state resources? In an anarcho-tyrannical banana republic perhaps the answer is “Yes”, but not so in a country that has already suffered under both national socialism and communism — two regimes known for savagely persecuting political dissent — and that claims to have learned from the past and prides itself on being a beacon of democracy.

Alas, in the final days of wrapping up this essay, Euronews published a story about the SPD plotting a ban on AfD. Apparently, an AfD ban “has been a central topic of discussion among MPs — right up to the party leadership for months”. Euronews quotes historian Andreas Rödder, described as one of the CDU’s most important intellectuals: “The German left should think carefully about what it is doing and what consequences it has for liberal democracy”. Rödder even goes so far as to suggest the possibility of “civil war”. Though certainly taking seriously the possibility of such a legal coup through institutional capture, euggypius is less convinced that “civil war” conditions exist than he is about worsening lawfare against the right such that he eventually wakes up in “a soft socialist dictatorship”. Whatever the outcome of successful SPD scheming, whether civil war or gender-fluid-GDR, an AfD ban clearly endangers German democracy.

To conclude, we see that Germany’s establishment has been busy supporting foreign regimes orders of magnitude more extreme than the relatively normie AfD while, at home, persecuting what could now be 25% of voters who, given the crumbling economy and clearly disastrous approach to immigration, are understandably malcontent with what the hyper-moralist hivemind have to offer in terms of policy direction. But instead of acknowledging the reasonable concerns of these voters, the same German establishment that legitimates extremist regimes in Syria, Israel and Ukraine is in the process of destroying German democracy to save German democracy from the supposedly “right-wing extremist” AfD, which, apparently, endangers German democracy. “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it”. Surely such impossibly deranged selective outrage cannot endure? Surely…

---

Thanks for reading. Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

Twitter: @battleforeurope

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)