AfD: Are they Neo-Nazis? (Pt 2)

My deep dive into the German populist party continues

The AFD curse?

It can be no coincidence that three leaders in AfD's twelve years have resigned in frustration at apparent mounting radicalism. Even though political games are clearly being played both within the party and outside it, that must tell you something. Perhaps it is just a high pressure role and hence a poisoned chalice - like the UKIP job when Farage left, or the England manager role (now also held by a German). Perhaps the establishment has ways of getting to its leaders. Or maybe there genuinely is a problem with a growing illiberal contingent that won't allow a centrist course to be held. That doesn't mean the contingent is fascist or neo-Nazi, but it might mean it is intransigent and hard-line. One faction has ultimately got to lose, and the party may succeed or fail depending on the winner. All 'radical' parties, on the left and right, have this problem - a battle between ideological purity and mainstream acceptance. Even more established parties are vulnerable to infiltration - see the Labour Party in 2015, or the Republicans in 2016. Farage has kept such a tight grip on his parties because he doesn't want them to become too extreme and thus unpalatable. He doesn't mind who votes for him in the polling booth, but he does cares about optics.

Weidel and 'remigration'

If Alice Weidel is a neo-Nazi, she is certainly not typical. She is a lesbian dating a Sri Lankan women, and supports civil partnerships. The couple have even adopted two children. Like Beatrix von Storch, her grandfather was a Nazi employee (a politically appointed judge), but she has herself dismissed the Nazis as authoritarian socialists, going against her economically libertarian instincts. These economic ideas are often cited by those arguing the AfD are not neo-Nazis or fascists, and it's a fair point. Although the Nazis weren't really socialists in my view (despite the name and some of their roots), they were big state, and only allowed those who toed the line to own industries and corporations.

Weidel's personal assistant (and a former AfD national MP), Roland Hartwig, was fired in 2024 after it emerged he and five other AfD figures had attended a secretive meeting on 'remigration'. The Postdam meeting on November 25th 2023 featured as a speaker the co-founder of the 'Identitarian' movement, Martin Sellner.

The Identitarian movement started in Austria, and along with its youth wing, 'Generation Identity', spread across various European countries. It attracted much concern and controversy in 2017, with ideas that were considered by many ethno-nationalist, vehemently anti-Islam and even neo-fascist. In the wake of the Trump victory, it enjoyed uptake in America and other Anglosphere countries. Generation Identity was the group that the Canadian journalist Lauren Southern associated with, and received a ban from the UK as a result. It favoured direct activism and ethnically exclusive association.

Remigration is a popular concept on the dissident right, and is subscribed to in a mild form by AfD. There is much debate on it now, exactly what it means and how feasible it is. Essentially, it aims to repatriate people of a non-native background - mostly non-citizens - to their home countries. The exact details however, are contested. Some believe that all foreign-born (or even foreign descended) citizens should be stripped of their passports and deported. Others say this should only happen to citizens that do not assimilate. There are those who argue dual citizens should have to choose one passport or the other. Then there are voices calling for residency permits to be removed but not citizenship. At the lower level you have the position only asylum seekers should be sent back, if not immediately than once their countries are deemed safe again. Another position is that none of this should be forced but it could be done on a voluntary basis by offering financial incentives. This was the view Enoch Powell had.

To clarify my view, I should say that forcibly removing citizenship except in extreme circumstances (such as defecting to the enemy in a time of war) must not happen. Neither must deportation of citizens. It would be illiberal and a slippery slope. We should not give out citizenship so easily and must drastically reduce immigration, but we can't retroactively apply this policy. Similarly existing residency permits should be honoured, if the migrants abide by our laws, but we should not keep issuing more. On asylum seekers there is a case for simply refusing them, especially from very dangerous countries like Afghanistan. This would necessitate ignoring or leaving the ECHR. I would advocate detaining all asylum claimants and sending them to safe third countries or overseas territories. I am open to voluntary repatriation of migrants (or the descendents of migrants) with a cash incentive, although you would have to do this across the board and not just for particular races, religions or ethnicities. It might not be feasible, but I don't consider it immoral.

As for AfD, their manifesto for the 2025 federal election makes clear that for them, 'remigration' concerns only illegal immigrants, foreign criminals, rejected asylum seekers and refugees deemed no longer to be at threat.

There has been a significant lack of enforcement in implementation for years [deporting illegal immigrants and rejected asylum seekers]... AfD will immediately end this enforcement deficit. Our catalogue of measures to reverse this migration policy state failure is called remigration and includes the following measures, which already correspond to the current legal situation... If the reason for fleeing in the country of origin of recognized asylum seekers no longer applies, their residence permit usually ends. You must return

Regarding residency and citizenship, the party's website makes clear:

AfD does not differentiate between German citizens with and without a migration background. All Germans are part of our national people regardless of origin, descent, worldview or religious affiliation. Unconstitutional demands such as arbitrary collective deportation of foreigners regardless of an existing individual right of residence or even the deportation of German citizens with a migration background meet with our firm rejection

The manifesto states that AfD want to phase out dual citizenship except in special instances; and that the only aspect of citizenship they will (legally) change is the right of automatic citizenship by being born in Germany. This the same position as Donald Trump who is trying to abolish that law in the USA:

We want to remove the place of birth principle (acquisition of German citizenship solely through birth in Germany, even if neither parent is German) from the law and return to the descent principle, as it applied until the year 2000... Dual citizenship should be limited to well-founded special cases... Multiple nationalities, apart from justified exceptions...pose the risk of conflicts of loyalty and must therefore be ruled out again in the future

The Potsdam meeting covered the various permutations of 'remigration', from the mild to the more extreme. Its intended secrecy was blown wide open by 'Correctiv', a German investigative journalism outfit. They inserted a mole into the meeting, having presumably stumped up the pricey attendance fee, and everything that happened (everything incriminating, at least) was reported. The two other AfD politicians in attendance were Gerrit Huy (a national MP) and Ulrich Siegmund (a Saxony-Anhalt MP and leader). Two AfD press spokesmen, Tim Krause and Patrick Harr were also present. So too was Mario Muller, a research assistant of the AfD national MP, Jan Wenzel Schmidt. He is a member of the Identitarians and apparently has convictions for violence. Genot Morig, the co-founder of the supposedly neo-Nazi group Andreas Kalbizt had been involved in, was also present. Incidentally, so were two CDU members.

'Correctiv' reported Martin Sellner identified three groups a 'remigration' policy must involve: asylum seekers, people with residency permits and "unassimilated citizens". The expose claims nobody from the AfD objected to this, but were only interested in how such a plan would work. The AfD claimed the attendance of the party figures was unofficial and in their capacity as individual citizens. Weidel said it was a "completely irrelevant event" and suggested Hartvig's attendance and contribution was a 'communication error'. Sorry, but that sounds like the weasel words of Starmer whenever he gets in trouble. Only Hartwig was reprimanded, because of his proximity to Weidel. One wonders if Weidel knew he was attending, or if he would have been fired had meeting not been made public.

You could definitely call the content of the Potsdam meeting extreme, but whether it was neo-Nazi or damning evidence of AfD's underlying fascism is debateable. Certainly there are parallels with some of Hitler's policies - deportation was definitely considered before mass murder took effect, and there were rigid ideas of what a 'true German' is. It doesn't automatically mean 'remigration', if it can ever happen at all, would follow the same progression. Nor does this version necessarily involve Jewish people, who are fully integrated with European cultures now, and are as alarmed about Islam as their gentile compatriots. For AfD figures to support blanket 'remigration', however, in the company of more extreme groups, doesn't look good. The party must not have anything to do with such things, and should just represent their own (very appealing) policy platform.

The road to acceptance and power?

The German SPD government has been in place since 2021, when it replaced Merkel's CDU. It collapsed in November 2023 after Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired his finance minister. Scholz lost a no-confidence vote and had to call a snap election. It is reckoned that the CDU led by Friedrich Merz will win, with the only mystery being how many votes the AfD will get.

There was a major fuss when the CDU were trying to pass a motion in Parliament which showed a tougher stance on immigration. They had to rely on AfD votes for this, and both parties celebrated when it passed. Merz had vowed not to work with AfD, and despite the fact he hadn't *worked* with them as such, he was roundly attacked by the SPD and other liberal politicians. The critics included Angela Merkel, who attacked the party she formerly led, claiming Scholz had broken his pledge. This probably had something to with Merz having ripped on Merkel's legacy for months, not least her disastrous migrant crisis error.

Merz then tried to pass a bill to put the contents of the motion into law. AfD MPs supported this once more, but unfortunately it was defeated by a majority of 12. The liberal parties will have celebrated this, but they might not be so smug come the elections, because this legislation might have helped saved the liberal order. Maybe if they weren't so squeamish about such matters, they might not be in such a fix.

The SPD government, as well as the CDU opposition, has tried to appear more hard-line on immigration in order to shoot the AfD fox. Similarly, in Sweden and Denmark the centre-left has changed tack on immigration to meet the threat of the populist right. Having occasional 'based' policies has meant both parties have been able to fend off the AfD in the past, without having to work with them. If AfD were to control a large proportion of the federal parliament, as well as in the state parliaments, then it would be harder to do this. It might even get to the stage where a government of any party will need AfD's support to pass legislation, or even to govern full stop. AfD probably won't win this time around, but they certainly can have an effect.

Conclusion

I'm not a German, and nor do I have intimate knowledge of German politics. Neither does Elon Musk, who has vocally supported AfD. As I have highlighted, there do seem to be some issues and disturbing figures they should distance themselves from. AfD should capitalise on the common sense things they propose, not get bogged down in extremism. Perhaps these are creases to iron out, but equally they could be symptoms of a dark side; their reasonable policy platform just spin, covering nefarious plans. On the other hand there is a campaign of propaganda against them, which could well be exaggerating their supposed extremes, a campaign that is intensifying as they get closer to power.

Certainly, some unpleasant people support them and have represented them, in a country which has struggled with a neo-fascist fringe in the past (as well as other extremists such as radical communists). Many will vote for AfD as the party closest to their aims. You could say that about any political party. Undoubtedly some extremists voted for Trump, even though he's a free-market liberal boomer wedded to the Martin Luther King vision for America. The Labour Party has some skeletons in the cupboard, as do the Tories and even Reform. Having the support of extremists does not discredit a whole movement.

There are distinct differences in AfD's political ideology from moustache man. They are advocates of free expression, direct democracy, lightly regulated free market capitalism, limits in state and supranational power and (nation state-based) liberalism. Not to mention they are accepting and protective of Jewish people, as well as all other ethnicities so long as they integrate and respect the law. Does this mean AfD won't follow some authoritarianism? No - but some authoritarianism is required to preserve society, certainly in the dire straits Europe is in now. Is there a possibility that what they'd do in power would differ from what they're saying now? Yes of course, there is with any political party. Equally there is a chance they might moderate in power, just as Meloni has done in Italy, or just as it appears Reform may do in Britain. There is of course a built-in need to moderate under the proportional systems of Germany and most of continental Europe.

Ultimately we can only really know how extreme AfD are if they manage to get into government - just as we learned that Trump was not really a fascist from his first term. Voting is always a gamble to some degree. Some will consider this a risk not worth taking; but I see the state of Europe, and I think the Germans require something bolder and more radical. They have no choice really, considering liberal social democrats have turned their country into a violent mess, where the fanatics and criminals of the Middle East are killing their people. It is worse than it was when the Baader Meinhoff gang was in business; perhaps it's the most violent period since the Nazis, or at least since the Communists had half the country.

Obviously I am no fan of the Nazis - my grandparents had to fight and suffer bombing and hunger at their hands, and they got off lightly. I have friends who are Jewish, whose relatives may have been butchered. Nazism was a totalising, fanatical and genocidal ideology. But it doesn't mean that robust nationalism within a classical liberal framework should forevermore be off-limits, in Germany or anywhere else. It doesn't mean you can't protect your tribe. The current situation is so desperate, we need a much tougher defence of everything our European cultures have built. If we don't mount this defence, it could all be lost.