In the post shared by Musk, the account lamented the presence of humanitarian groups in the Mediterranean Sea that rescue migrants from distressed vessels.
“These NGOs are subsidized by the German government,” the account posted. “Let’s hope AfD wins the elections to stop this European suicide.”
Calling for a second holocaust, demanding refugees should be executed, all of this is forbidden in Germany. I don’t know where you got your information from but none of this has happened:
AfD members have called for a second Holocaust … the execution of refugees … the imprisonment of homosexuals … the creation of a new SA … the imprisonment of left wingers in Buchenwald … and practicing apartheid.
There are Nazis in the AFD, though. They want to stop teaching so much about the Holocaust at schools and they use rhetoric tricks to get people riled up or circumvent the laws around denying the Holocaust.
For example Björn Höcke (who almost certainly is a Nazi) said: “Alles für Deutschland” (All for Germany) and has to go to court for this.
I think we still misunderstand each other on why calling right wing people in general Nazis is a problem. And Björn Höcke is a good example.
The word is used as if you are right wing, then extremely right wing and then you are a Nazi. As if this is somehow worse than being extremely right wing. But “Nazi” is not the superlative of being right wing. And people like Höcke will use this to get people to vote for the AFD.
A Nazi is someone who is, for example, denying the Holocaust. Or believes in Herrenrasse or something like that. Right wing people simply have to deny that they are Nazis (which is easily done, look above) and suddenly your “argument” is gone.
That’s exactly what Björn Höcke did before and will do in court again. It will again be about whether or not he can be called a Nazi which is completely irrelevant if you want to tackle the problem that is people voting for AFD and other politicians being increasingly right wing.
When the court says: “Yes, Björn Höcke used Nazi rhetoric!” The AFD will say: “Oh no what an evil man! With Nazis we don’t want to have anything in common! He is not AFD anymore.” And all the people can continue to vote for AFD, they aren’t Nazis afterall. Great!
I was unable to determine what other interpretations this might have:
“Abschiebung der Antifa nach Buchenwald. Arbeit statt Linksterror.”
Perhaps there is some nuance I have missed, ‘nach’ is a very versatile word even if the rest are very unambiguous.
This factchecker analysis looked even-handed enough for me to be satisfied it was not just my poor German or inaccurate auto-translation.
For the other incidents, I’ll leave you to check the post I initially replied to for names and accuracy checking.
Literally every single one of these quotes where either proven as false or the people are not part of the AFD and/or they were brought to court and judged for it. That’s all on the site of Faktencheck.
"Größtenteils richtig. Von den 19 Zitaten sind die meisten richtig oder größtenteils richtig. Bei fünf fehlen Belege, vier weitere wurden leicht verändert oder es fehlt Kontext. "
Are you referring to a different Factchecker than the link i posted? Or are you saying they just left up the page with incorrect information? “Proven as false” doesn’t seem to match this quote from the link I posted.
