Why is it repeatedly claimed that the AfD is a right-wing and radical party?

I am replying to Mr Rainer Schütz—because I think his answer is an excellent example of how opinion about the AfD comes about.

You have your political attitude.Then comes a very different, perhaps almost opposite position, and then starts with what is so read in the politically related media about this party.

As I said, I find what Mr Schütz is writing exemplary and I have therefore referred to his ‘argument’.

What he writes in this way could similarly be in the mirror, the time, SD or a “critical” reportage of the WDR, even in the formerly venerable FAZ stand or be brought.

(His claims and statements are always in their entirety)

But now:

Rainer Schütz, studied: University of Birmingham.

“Of course, the AfD is not center-right, i.e. business-friendly but concessional and differentiated, but right-wing populist, so resentment-driven and simplistic.

Of course!If I start from this dogma and only research one-sidedly then of course I will also find “reasons” (=/= evidence). Judging very one-sidedly, I would like to say.

Then I do something critical — that seems serious!:

“Whether it becomes openly far-right remains to be seen, but in my opinion it is rather probable: for the AfD, ethnically understood nationalism is a starting point of thinking.”

.. but only to underpin my long-fixed point of view.

Then come a few statements worthy of discussion such as e.g.

  1. “Many arguments build on the position that common nationality is based on ancestry and is the basis of a community of loyalty that needs to close itself off.
  2. the AfD is libertarian in economic terms,
  3. social benefits are seen as an expression of charity
  4. the AfD tends to be anti-EU and anti-euro, and
  5. regards the strengthening of “national sovereignty” and the return to national borders as a solution to many problems.

This is of course especially true for the current main topic of the AfD, the “refugee question” similar to Trump’s motto “America first”

  • The AfD thinks the international community is a zero-sum game in which it is necessary to conquer the biggest piece of the cake, rather than seeking cooperative win-win situations.
  • “The AfD tends to be anti-science, as is particularly evident in the questioning of climate change”
  • Point 1 is very simplified, I would like to say very undifferentiated.I do not know that there is a general conviction in the AfD that one must close oneself off. But, of course, the AfD is against the opposite, unlimited immigration.

    Point 2 by a majority yes, even if there are clear social to socialist convictions among different members.

    Point 3 the AfD’s approach is certainly not the welfare state, but care for the truly needy.And also, of course, against social tourism. And the ongoing flood of strangers is based precisely on this. The last thing, however, is my personal opinion.

    Point 4 is simply wrong.The AfD is clearly pro-European, but not as an EU in its current form. The euro is being rejected — the party of economics professors — and exactly what has been said about the euro has happened. The different economic philosophy, as well as the different economic strengths of the euro countries, will sooner or later tear the euro apart. The problems can still be covered up with hundreds of billions or even trillions of euros. But that will not last.

    5.Exceptionally, right. But the reason is the EU’s inability to keep its external borders properly closed.

    6.Well. That’s what I think. According to the motto “sounds horny”. Or is there serious evidence for the claimed win-win situation? A. Ever heard of Adam Smith? b. Despite all the dreams, socialism has not prevailed. Why not?

    7.As a doctoral chemist, I have to smile a little about it. If the scribe assumes a s e h r f r a g w ü r d i g e n T h e o r i e (in which one can believe or leave it) — and anyone who doubts this theory is hostile to science is not proof of his thesis. , but on the contrary, as an example of its “evidence”.

    Apart from that, there are many experts who see the man-made thing as more than questionable about climate change and who have very different convictions.Their arrogance convinced me.

    For the neutrals 97% of the CO2 input into the atmosphere are of natural origin.The 3% of humans should be the reason for the (possible) global warming. At the same time, plants grow better with slightly more CO2. The latter means that more CO2 in the air means that more is degraded plants grow better. Some gardeners therefore supply their plants with additional CO2.


    And then comes the reference:

    “Many AfD supporters are prone to conspiracy theories.The AfD has a reactionary understanding of culture and tends to replace differentiated critical thinking with simplistic total rejection”

    Well. Where, I have to ask, is critical thinking lacking?

    And we continue with generalities that I can copy out of any left “quality” sheet.I’m fed up with the AfD’s “victim role.”

    “Although “political correctness” is rejected and “freedom of expression” is repeatedly indicted, the AfD is in its own way linguistically very normative and hostile to criticism.AfD representatives often moan and fall victim to each other. The hostility to the press and irritability towards a self-critical culture of remembrance are disturbing signs of deep-seated intolerance”

    The facts speak a different language.Incitement against the AfD, defamation without end — to claim that it is accessible to the far-right but to generously overlook the close links of the three left-wing parties with the anti-constitutional AntiFa.


    I am not going into this further, because the rest goes on in this “scientific-serious” “prejudice-free” way.

    Well.Anyone who believes such a thing, of course, hates the AfD. But everyone has the opportunity to see for themselves. Everyone can attend the AfD’s events and talk to people directly, and anyone can see/hear the speeches of AfD politicians in the Bundestag.

    Leave a Reply