Germany has long had a “democracy” problem. It evolved neither under the English tutelage nor under Switzerland’s independent federal development.

First under the Kaiser, then under Hitler, and then under Soviet occupation of the East, Germany has had difficulty dealing with its past and creating democratic norms. Is it just us, or does it seem that after unification, Germany has taken more leadership from the East than the Western part of the nation—the Western part that Britain, France, and the American occupation powers had administered?

The East was run as a dictatorship under the careful supervision of the security services, the Stasi.  It seems not too long after taking the Berlin Wall down, German politicians want to put up an internal wall so they don’t have to deal with political opposition.

They have adopted radical green policies that deindustrialize the country, bankrupt farmers, implement radical transgender policies, and open borders to all comers. Some Germans rightfully object. How about debating ideas and letting German citizens decide? Moreover, it is interesting that Germany’s “security services” made this decision, which strikes us as a very undemocratic process.

On Friday, the German security services officially designated the Alternative für Germany (AfD Party) a right-wing extremist organization.

Oddly, these same “security services” have been silent as millions of Muslims have swarmed into the country, carrying with them Islamism, an ideology fundamentally opposed to Western cultural, religious, and political tradition. These Islamists are deemed less of a threat to the security and “democracy” of Germany than the Conservatives. That is quite a decision of historic import.

In a snap election last February, the AfD doubled its vote share to over 20%, which is significant in a parliamentary system.

This opens the possibility of banning the largest opposition party in Germany. That’s not healthy for “democracy,” is it?  Where do the party members go, and how can they express their opinions?

Should this designation be upheld in courts, the German security services will also have an increased ability to spy on the party. 

We are not making a brief necessarily for all positions and all members of the AfD. But we are suggesting they are a legitimate voice, the most popular party, and should have a voice. Reasonable people can disagree on the nature of mass migration and the beliefs of Islam. From what we have read, the AfD is not monolithic in its positions.

AfD co-leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla reacted to the decision .“Today’s decision by the Office of the Protection of the Constitution is a severe blow to German Democracy,” the statement read, continuing, “In current polls, the AfD is the strongest force.”

The designation was given because of what they called “language” that seems to exclude other groups, espeically non German migrants. They did this with a straight face while they “excluded” with “language” Germans who might disagree with open borders policies.

Interesting. The AfD uses language while their opposition uses the police powers of the state and its “security agencies.”  Speech is not force, but German authorities seem eager to conflate the two. Secretary of State Rubio called it “tyranny in disguise” and Vice President Vance also condemned the move suggesting the Berlin Wall was being rebuilt.

At a critical time in talks with Russia to end the war in Ukraine, this also seems like a strange time to pick a fight with the Trump Administration and the cohesion of NATO.

Late note:

On May 2, 2025, the German government, through its domestic intelligence agency (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV), changed the designation of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to a “confirmed right-wing extremist” organization. This escalated from its previous classification as a “suspected” extremist group. This new designation allows for increased surveillance, including using informants and interception of communications.

However, on May 8, 2025, posts on X indicated that the BfV had temporarily withdrawn this classification pending a court decision, though it would continue operating under the previous designation. This suggests the “extremist” label is currently under legal challenge, with the AfD filing a lawsuit against the BfV, alleging the designation is politically motivated and a “blow to democracy.”

The situation remains fluid, with the designation change initially implemented but now paused for judicial review.  However, no matter the outcome, the German government is trying to destroy perhaps the largest opposition political party in the country.  Rather than political competition in the marketplace of ideas to be decided by voters, especially over the issue of mass migration, the German establishment is using the police powers of the state to “support democracy.” The irony is too obvious to miss. Moreover, this would seem like trying to clamp a lid on a boiling pot of water, with predictable outcomes.