You might remember last week, when I wrote about Generation Identity getting banned in France, and I said that how contemporary politics work is that you label the opposition as a “threat to democracy” and “far-right White supremacist extremist terrorists” and then this gives you free reign to ban and arrest all opposition.
Well, the AfD appears to be fast on the track to getting the Generation Identity treatment as the BfV (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) has announced they’re spying on the party as a whole, monitoring phone calls and such, and will “spy on its activities as a suspected extreme rightwing organisation”.
Honestly, this is hardly new. The BfV regularly spies on the AfD; I don’t think they ever DON’T spy on the AfD to be honest. But with elections looming, and the party having more support and power than I think it ever has, I think their days are numbered — no matter how cucked Weidel and Gauland are.
You’ll notice they never explain what it means to “pose a threat to democracy” at all. What does this even mean? Logically, one would assume that it means you think they’re going to “hack the election™” or otherwise undermine it (but they never really say that either), but it’s never really elaborated on. It’s one of those terms like “White Supremacist” that the media says and people just accept without ever asking for clarity on exactly what a White Supremacist IS.
As far as I can tell, what they mean by “pose a threat to democracy” is that “this party of people we don’t like could conceivably win in an election fair and square and drum up large public support, but they’re the ‘bad guys’ so we have to undermine democracy by banning them and their supporters in order to ensure they can’t win and thereby actually save democracy. Because if the bad guys win, then democracy loses.”
You know that I really hate democracy. It is fundamentally-flawed, even on the face of it — this idea that the masses of people, easily manipulated by the media, have the required wisdom, experience, personality, etc. to decide matters of statecraft. However, the bigger issue is actually probably the fact that democracy has no defense against any sort of subversion against itself. People were rigging the democratic process as early as Cleisthenes day; the inventor of Athenian democracy. Measures you could implement to stop this manipulation would by definition be anti-democratic. So if you don’t allow for this corruption, then you can’t truly have democracy.
But theoretically, if the system went untouched and was allowed to operate as intended, and the people were allowed to just vote for whatever leadership they wanted or whatever policy they wanted unimpeded, it is possible that they could actually vote for someone and something that worked positively to their interest. It has happened on a few occasions.
Which is exactly why they have to rig democracy and ban these parties.
Maybe, if this is the sort of society that democracy creates, perhaps democracy is something that should just be abandoned?