There's been some news articles here that the AfD wasn't kicked out of the ID for being too Neonazi, but by being too obvious about it. RN cut ties because while they do in fact agree on politics, RN is trying to appeal to more moderate conservatives. AfD is just being too overtly nazi, especially currently. So it isn't really that AfD was too far right-wing for the others, even though RN and others may say that for publicity reasons to save their image, but that they didn't have the forethought to hide it a bit more.
I mean, that's kind of true. Part of it is definitely that Krah couldn't just keep his big dumb mouth shut. That he had to go and be #notallSS. In an interview. With an Italian newspaper. Being "well, acshully" about the most notorious war criminals in European history still doesn't go over well with our neighbours who were the victims in said war crimes (like, say, literally erasing entire villages). Who would have thought. That's the line he crossed.
(Yes, he's an idiot of truly incomprehensible magnitude)
It is also correct that Le Pen and friends are distancing himself from him and the AfD in general more because of optics than any actual political stances. This is calculation, not the sudden emergence of a moral core, I agree with that.
However.
It really can not be overstated just how bad the optics are. This isn't just about a controversial quote.
This is also about the fact that the second in line after Krah, Petr Bystron, is accused of being entangled in the whole Voice of Europe affair - a misinformation network, revealed to have been controlled by the Russian state, and accused of having paid political actors to spread propaganda. Bystron is alleged to have taken 20,000€ from them. Supposedly, there's tapes of this. He denies it, of course, but there was enough evidence to lift his immunity and to issue a warrant to raid his office, so. (There's also reports that he initially complained about being paid in 200€ bills. Allegedly, he would have preferred smaller ones.)
Consequences from the party? He was advised by Krah to keep to the background during the election campaign. Other than this, nothing.
Then, of course there was Krah's employee Jian G., who was arrested on accusations of espionage for the Chinese government. Krah had no idea this was even happening, you guys, seriously! Taken aback he was. Shocked. Scandalized, even.
And there was the time chats came to light in which pro-Russia Ukrainian Oleg Voloshyn assured him that "problems" with "compensation" had been sovled and from May on, "everything will be as it was before February". Seems like he took money from Russia too, doesn't it? He denies it. He never answered the message, Voloshyn probably just wanted to invite him to the opera. or the message was meant for someone else. (No, really. That's what Krah said).
Again, consequences? From the party? For any of this? Nada.
This is the problem. The AfD is openly corrupt and incompetent, the chairs clearly have 0 control over their own members, and none of these absolute buffoons can behave like civilized people in public. This isn't even touching on all the many, many scandals the party had on a national level this year alone!
f course you can't be a far right populist and have manners or a modicum of decency, so the fact that even people like Marine le Pen find the AfD unbearable - honestly gives me a little hope? There's an election in my state this year, and the AfD is predicted to get about 30%. That's very bad.
I do not think any of the clowns in I&D are better people for excluding the AfD. I don't think any of them will take this as an opportunity to take a good long look in the mirror and examine all the hatred they have in their heart.
This is, however, another little act of self-destruction. Another brick crumbling from the foundation of the party. I hope it all comes crashing down.
24 notes
·
View notes
i know many people are afraid of being rude and roleplaying as someone besides people pleaser (which is not not-understandable tho. especially for the first time players) but i think bg3 is the game that tries to motivate you not to be agreeable and obedient all the time. usually in rpg games with approval systems there are one or two characters who will approve of you being an asshole mostly for the sake of it but that's it. also actively challenging character's beliefs in most cases will just gain you a whole lot of disapproval and no actual change. meanwhile in bg3 there are many characters who will approve of you losing it in some situations and disapprove if you act too gullible and let everyone use you.
also following someone else's orders and desires every time won't get you far. if you'll blindly support your companions' initial goals (and they're very insistent and defensive about it and questioning their ideas may also naturally result in disapproval) it won't automatically get you their best ending and in the most cases it is literally the opposite. shadowheart wants to become dark justiciar real bad but if you support her on that path she'll be claimed by the evil goddess she unconsciously resisted her whole life. astarion wants to get ascended but helping him do it won't drive away his fears and just will lock him in the same cycle his master was trapped in. lae'zel worships vlaakith and is really hesitant to give up her faith and everything she was taught no matter what she's witnessed and not challenging her beliefs will make her just another sacrifice for a tyrant. if you play durge and decide to accept their father (which is also actively encouraged by durge's sidekick and, well, the other present option is an inevitable death) they'll forever lose their freedom and will become their father's dreadful instrument with no will of its own. if you decide to give gortash the netherstones as a goody two shoes you are when he asks he'll fuck you over on principle. this game lacks a truly unique completely evil run for sure. but it does reward your character for questioning other people and standing up for themself and does punish them for being too lenient when they shouldn't be
25 notes
·
View notes
my hot take of the day is that clearly the people who swallow the in universe targ & valyrian exceptionalism are being completely taken in by the exact system that george is trying to critique but also i think the people who over correct into this idea that not a single targaryen is worthy of like, our empathy or sorrow or are rightfully chafing against the structures put in place by valyrians, first men, and andals alike are also being incredibly 2d in their analysis. i feel like this happens most often when people try to make the case that andals are somehow oppressed in westerosi society on a cultural level simply bc valyrian supremacy trumps andal culture. i think this is incredibly silly to say or posit as the truth in universe because there is in fact some oppression of culture in westeros but it’s not the andals lol!!! it’s the first men, the dornish, the rhoynar/greenblood orphans, and the ironborn. there Is some level of,,,, idk bigotry/xenophobia towards valyrians but only valyrians who don’t worship the faith - people like larra rogare, who still follow valyrian gods, do face this bigotry because they’re Too Foreign, the same way someone like thoros, melisandre, taena, etc who are essosi but not from a still heavy valyrian-based society like volantis and lys, and that’s definitely important to the conversation, because it shows the Dominant Culture is in fact the Andal culture when it comes to westeros and that’s like,,, fine, and even more interesting to me to see how andals, who have been the dominant force on westeros for thousands of years, interact with valyrians, who clearly want to keep ideas of valyrian supremacy alive somehow and essentially try to get the other dominant force in westeros to buy in (which they do!). like, are these two at odds sometimes? yes! but i don’t think it’s correct to say that the andals face ~prejudice for being andals or followers of the faith either!
15 notes
·
View notes
recently i have been spending a lot of time with a man in his 90s, and while he doesn't have dementia or alzheimer's, he does frequently forget information. he will tell me a story and then re-tell the exact same story to me a few weeks later. when i am tired and frustrated (with him and/or the day and/or myself), sitting through the exact same story again seems unbearable. but recently i have been trying to look at things differently; to frame these times as something i "get" to experience rather than something i must endure.
lately i have been thinking about repetitive cycles and finding one's home in them. so much of our discourse and mental health advice is about getting OUT of repetitive cycles, breaking the cycle, etc. but why? there is an unquestioned assumption that all cycles are bad and meaningless and we must strive to break them. but what if we take a "you can never step in the same river twice" approach to what we believe to be "identical" repetitive cycles?
i may have heard the same story before, but i have never heard it with this inflection, or in this setting, or while feeling this way — at the very least, i've never heard this story at this hour before. i may have spent the last fourteen years of my life enduring the "same" repetitive thoughts running around my head, but i've never before experienced this thought at this moment, as the person i am right now. no matter how much i think i'm experiencing the same story, or the same thought pattern, over and over again, that isn't the full truth. it is the same story and the same thought, but it is also a new experience each time.
35 notes
·
View notes