8,018
edits
Restless Souls/Research/Artifacts: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "===Geopolitik=== ====Russland==== Die NATO bedroht militärisch niemanden. Die angeblichen '''militärischen Sicherheitsinteressen''' von Russland sind nur '''den wirtschaftlichen Interessen vorgeschoben'''. Reine Propaganda. Putin kann das den Leuten einfach besser verkaufen. Es geht nicht um Sicherheit, es geht um Macht. Stoltenberg formulierte das öffentlich [https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/plus236249374/Nato-Chef-Stoltenberg-Putin-will-seine-Nachbarn-dominieren-...") |
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=====Ultraconservatives===== | |||
======Party: AfD====== | |||
'''The argument counts''' | |||
Either it's wrong or it's right. In addition, it has no political color. It stands for itself, no matter who else is clapping or voting. [https://archive.is/Zaxgi Don't make it too easy for AfD by getting pushed by their mere claims.] | |||
'''Cooperation with the AfD on a case-by-case basis''' | |||
'''The AfD can portray other parties as ideological and irrational at any time by formulating objectives that are in the general interest and in scope of the constitution, bringing them to a vote and then failing. This pitfall should be avoided.''' | |||
So anyone who absolutely has to work with the AfD should be smarter: The AfD has become radicalized. As '''democrats''', you '''cannot declare a coalition''' with them. '''Hitler showed this can go terribly wrong.''' But democrats can '''offer a door to deradicalization''': Voting together has to happen on a case-by-case basis. There must be no operational blindness. This '''decision''' has to be individually made '''for every single case'''. This would be the firewall in the actual sense of the IT word: selective, protecting democracy against harmful influences. | |||
'''Alternative to a case-by-case approach''' | |||
It has been said that the other '''parties should introduce their own proposals''' in all cases. This could result in a silly outbidding competition. Time will tell how well this will really work out. | |||
'''How to deal with the AfD?''' | |||
The strength of the '''AfD is a reflection of one's own incompetence and the decline of political culture (populism)''': There is not enough "good politics" (the voter really cares about), too few good counter-narratives, and too little exposure and correction of disinformation. | |||
Demonstrations and party bans are treating the symptoms, not the '''root causes'''. Bans should only be done if three conditions are met: probable success of the ban, while a simultaneous robust fight against the root causes happens, the right point in time (not immediately ahead of elections). | |||
The right-wing spectrum still refuses to fully acknowledge that their populism largely benefits the even more radical forces. | |||
In the left-wing spectrum, there is still often a lack of pragmatism due to ideological blindness: For example, [https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/innenpolitik/id_100322240/buergergeld-plan-von-heil-jusos-und-gruene-jugend-einig-absolut-ehrenlos-.html sanctions in context of the Bürgergeld]. Anyone who has worked in an agency knows that it is necessary. Instead of recognizing this, the young leftists burn one of the few remaining Chancellor candidates of the SPD. | |||
===Geopolitik=== | ===Geopolitik=== | ||
====Russland==== | ====Russland==== | ||