A previous poster already mentioned the Springer quote.

Some populist politician said something inflammatory - big whoop.

All this is is scrouging together circumstantial evidence to make the case that "secretly" the AfD is fascist.

Quit playing a sucker for the establishment.

They're openly fascist. Springer is in the Bundestag. But good to know you're ok with fascists. Explains a lot of your other posts.

Child-like and uninteresting response.

A previous poster already mentioned the Springer quote.

Some populist politician said something inflammatory - big whoop.

All this is is scrouging together circumstantial evidence to make the case that "secretly" the AfD is fascist.

Quit playing a sucker for the establishment. — Tzeentch

Because this was groundbreaking commentary on actual facts. :roll:

What do you expect me to make of the 'secret nazis' canard?

I've listened to that drivel coming from the Dutch establishment vis-á-vis populist parties long enough to no longer take it seriously.

There's nothing "secret nazis" about these identarian statements and policies or how the average AfD voter understands them. Are you even aware of what Correctiv published in 2023/2024 as part of their infiltration of the Potsdam meeting? When the master plan of the neo-Nazi Martin Sellner was going to be discussed which turned out to be all about remigration? Are you even paying attention to what's happening or is it all just because you agree with the law & order line you get a hard on and stop thinking?

"Neo-nazi master plan", Benkei are you even listening to yourself talk?

I've seen this game played by various establishments over time and frankly I have no time for it.

Do you know the story of the boy who cried fascist?

What fact are you disagreeing with? That Martin Sellner is a neo-Nazi? Or that the letters between the participants referred to a "master plan"?

Neo-nazis are some fringe group with no power whatsoever. They're also hella useful to vilify any threat to the establishment - something which you're inadvertently contributing to.

Sorry, but you have no idea how silly this looks to me.

Adults putting themselves forward as morally righteous fighters against fascism - come on.

So your point is that he isn't a neo Nazi?

Some populist politician said something inflammatory - big whoop. — Tzeentch

Are political assassinations in Minnesota, the killing of Melissa Hortman and her husband and the attempt on State Senator John Hoffman and his wife also a - big whoop or are they something else to you?

(BBC) Investigators reportedly found a list of 70 "targets", including the names of state Democratic politicians, in a vehicle the suspect drove for the assassination.

Walz, congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Minnesota's two US senators, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, and state Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison were on the hit list, according to local media.

Locations for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions and contraception, were also on the list, a person familiar with the investigation told the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Or are you going to say that it's just a one off lone nut? Well, political violence is and has to be a "lone nut" thing, because otherwise if there's really a terrorist cell, an organization behind the act of violence, then the Police and the security apparatus will spring to life.

Just to stay on the topic of the creep.

Can someone explain, without reference to banal personal preferences, why my comment which was wholly on topic was removed? Glibness is not against the guidelines.

My point is that I don't particularly care. I don't spend my time worrying about the "master plans" of powerless loonies.

Or are you going to say that it's just a one off lone nut? Well, political violence is and has to be a "lone nut" thing, because otherwise if there's really a terrorist cell, an organization behind the act of violence, then the Police and the security apparatus will spring to life. — ssu

I can't quite see whether you're trying to say that htis means its not a 'lone nut' or that it's somehow problematic that the security apparatus don't treat lone nuts like terror cells. I don't hold you to either, though.

Suffice to say, lone nuts are lone nuts. The optics aren't relevant. Plenty of left-wing psychos out there.

I can't quite see whether you're trying to say that htis means its not a 'lone nut' or that it's somehow problematic that the security apparatus don't treat lone nuts like terror cells. I don't hold you to either, though. — AmadeusD

It's the latter case.

What I'm saying that especially with right-wing terrorism in the US, those who want it and promote it, understand that any conspiracy like forming terrorist cells or some organization simply alerts the whole security system. The legal system is made for fighting terrorist organizations. Yet if it's just individuals just acting alone, the security system cannot crack down on everybody. If you say you are against illegal immigrant, you cannot be detained or held responsible for someone who you don't know killing illegal immigrants in another state. But if someone makes a deadly terrorist attack and then it's publicly declared that the attack was made by "The Brotherhood for the Defence of America", guess which brotherhood members are going to have SWAT teams coming through the doors of their home in no time? Then having extensively discussed the illegal immigration problem in the Brotherhood website will get you into at least questioning or to be under watch.

I still can't quite grok what you're saying. The reason is this:

If you say you are against illegal immigrant, you cannot be detained or held responsible for someone who you don't know killing illegal immigrants in another state. — ssu

There is absolutely no argument that could justify that you should be detained or held responsible (on your example, that is. Obviously circumstances can exist to meet that burden).

Being part of an identifiable group doesn't seem to lead to much anyway: Antifa, BLM etc... all carried out serious, violent terroristic actions, but other members were never called up and hte groups were not designated (this being political bias, obviously, but that's not quite relevant to my clarifying what's going on here.

Unrelated:
I see Vance was banned from Bluesky for specifically political reasons. Very Democractic :P

There is absolutely no argument that could justify that you should be detained or held responsible (on your example, that is. Obviously circumstances can exist to meet that burden). — AmadeusD

That's what I meant. It's a true political and philosophical question just where we draw the line of hate speech or inciting people to commit violence.

Being part of an identifiable group doesn't seem to lead to much anyway: Antifa, BLM etc... all carried out serious, violent terroristic actions, but other members were never called up and hte groups were not designated (this being political bias, obviously, but that's not quite relevant to my clarifying what's going on here. — AmadeusD

Have relations with Al Qaeda or ISIS members, and you will notice the difference.

Besides, irrelevant of Kash Patel being the head of FBI, the FBI has been quite systematic at looking at both leftist and right-wing extremist groups, including even environmental groups. In truth the security apparatus hasn't been biased as the partisan commentators always persist.

And do notice that you have gunmen that have tried to kill Republican politicians too. Starting with one Thomas Crooks.


This is the way that violence and upheaval can show itself. Solitary events create together the instability.

In truth the security apparatus hasn't been biased as the partisan commentators always persist. — ssu

A certainly agree.

Some have used Guenther's writings to argue that politicians are out of touch and gotta' go.

Political Representation Gaps and Populism
^{— Laurenz Guenther · Toulouse School of Economics · Sep 30, 2022 — Aug 18, 2025}
Representation gaps and the rise of populism
^{— Laurenz Guenther · The Conversation · Feb 3, 2025}

So, politicians and population don't match up, and "right-wing populists fill the cultural representation gap".
Like en vogue fashion, populism may go wherever the wind blows.
A populist leader then can't be expected to be principled; concern for truth, morals, whatever takes a back seat.
They can instead take culture wars for a ride (in the front seat), and have (loud) us-versus-them attitudes reign; convenient for adversaries.
When populism is a weakness of humanity, it becomes a weakness of democracy.