Bespoke translation by yours truly... at first, but switched to machine translation due to exhaustion. Original article [A] by Roland Tichy at Tichys Einblick
This document, marked classified - around 1,000 pages long - is to prove that parts of the AfD systematically act against central values of the free democratic basic order. On Tuesday night [May 13], several media published the paper after requests have been dismissively rejected. The confidentiality itself has been a scandal: The AfD was to be publicly denounced, citizens were to be discouraged from joining, and political partners were to be blocked - and that with hushing and mumbling without evidence. A few skinny lines of a press statements were supposed to suffice.
It is politics with intelligence agency methods - claims are being made in secrecy, but they generate political effects. Instead of reporting, intelligence agency methods are being used. The watchdog agency Verfassungsschutz thus became a domestic secret service that, directed by the Minister of the Interior, acts against the opposition - an outrageous procedure.
Because the fact that an intelligence agency surveils a large opposition party is a drastic intervention in the democratic process. Even more dramatic is that the intelligence agency is specifically targeting the AfD - without a justification, without a court assessment, without the possibility to defend yourself against that. What does that remind you of?
And what is the Verfassungsschutz basing its suspicion of extremism on? Now we know - from a confidential document for which its mere publication is already illegal. That is not the praxis of a democratic state bound by the law in which fundamental political questions are negotiated publicly.
There's nothing to learn about the AfD that isn't already known or can't be googled in seconds. The report simply strings together public quotes. Anyone expecting the ominous headline "confirmed enemy of the constitution" to reveal some hidden conspiracy to overthrow the state—arms caches, assassination training camps—will be disappointed. It's all about paperwork, out-of-context quotes, exaggerated claims, and shaky constructions.
Example: In Germany, there is an unchecked wave of antisemitic violence by Hamas supporters against Jews—people being assaulted, threatened, and harassed. Is the AfD involved? No. In fact, the federal leadership, including Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, is quoted at length criticizing Hamas. But the Office for the Protection of the Constitution dismisses this: "The cited statements concerning the murder and abduction of people by Hamas in Israel do not eliminate the indicators of antisemitism in the AfD."
That's quite a stretch. And there's no explanation. This is the method: make the most threatening claims, ignore counterarguments, and certainly don’t include them. The analysts? They think differently and so they cite "statements."
Target of these supposedly antisemitic statements, for example, is Klaus Schwab—who isn't Jewish—but is described with negative stereotypes "typically associated with Jews." Thus, not only is the dignity of Jews allegedly violated, but that of non-Jews as well—by being "effectively declared Jewish under an antisemitic framing."
How does that work? The BfV knows: "ambiguous terms" are combined such that their antisemitic meaning only becomes clear in context, though isolated, they could mean several things. Very crafty, this AfD. And there's no way to defend against it: the BfV alone decides what something really means. The agency engages in bizarre semantic acrobatics.
Certain words are now officially coded as "far-right." Use them—intentionally or not, jokingly or seriously—say "population replacement" or "overforeignization," and bam: you're far-right, and it's official. But should we really be treating a party supported by over 20 percent of voters as extremist because of some words? Apparently yes. That’s the method: linguistic denunciation. Conveniently, this works well with programs like Microsoft Word. Just search for terms like "block party," "cartel party," or "system party"—if an AfD member uses one, they’re flagged as extremist. The bolder the claims, the faster the process.
Then it escalates. On November 11, 2023, Saxon MP Rene Bachmann shared a Facebook post from David Bendels, editor of Deutschland-Kurier, with the comment:
"Here’s another reason to turn away from the system media and toward reality. That’s why Deutschland Kurier instead of Spiegel!"
A bit of self-promotion—immediately twisted into a massive attack. The BfV seriously claims that urging people to reject the "system media" amounts to slandering the entire German press landscape. (p. 568)
And suddenly, the state is under threat:
Instead of expressing "a pointed political opinion," these statements, through their "defamatory generalization," aim to fundamentally question "democratic institutions and structures." Therefore, they violate "the principle of democracy itself." (p. 571)
So: if you're dissatisfied with the media landscape, you're attacking democratic structures? Media criticism is now state criticism. Bendels and others were right to worry—there really is a united front of media, parties, and politics.
Even neutral warnings about Germany’s past are now cause for scrutiny. Nearly half a page is devoted to this:
On February 22, 2024, Bavarian AfD leader Stephan Protschka posted a graphic on Telegram stating:
"... 1933 must not repeat itself! Citizens were defamed by the Nazis.
Dissenters were betrayed
The media were controlled
Reporting hotlines were set up
The people were divided
Parties were banned."
Supposedly, this equates the present to the Nazi era. Really? Where? The description is factually accurate and frequently cited by the Left—without issue.
Even a tweet by Tino Chrupalla from November 26, 2022, is flagged in the report under "Equating with National Socialism." He wrote:
"And Interior Minister Nancy Faeser stood in the stands with a colorful armband. German government officials wearing armbands. I’d hoped we’d never see that again."
One remembers the awkward image: Faeser in casual wear, her counterpart dressed formally—and no armband. Even the BfV admits this comparison was only "implicit." (p. 586) Did Chrupalla equate Faeser with Nazis—because of a rainbow armband? Absurd.
These and other examples of language, vocabulary, and personnel choices are cited—yet how solid is this evidence? Where does legitimate opinion end and hostile agitation begin?
It’s like looking in a mirror: it’s not the AfD undermining the constitution, but the BfV. They’ve crossed the line. Historical comparisons are tricky, sure—but this isn’t about taste. It’s about whether exaggerated comments justify obstructing a party’s work. Other politicians make Nazi comparisons all the time—appropriate, offensive, random, justified or not. What matters is the party affiliation.
MP Stephan Protschka was flagged simply for asking on Twitter on August 13, 2021: "I'm now a second-class citizen, I'm #unvaccinated. Do I need to wear an armband now?" (p. 536)
And MP Barbara Lenk (now Benkstein) from Saxony? She shared a meme from Inglourious Basterds showing Christoph Waltz’s SS officer asking, “You’re hiding unvaccinated people under your floorboards, aren’t you?” According to the BfV, she “intentionally equated the suffering of Jews with the situation of the unvaccinated, thereby trivializing Nazi crimes.” (p. 537)
That’s quite a leap. Sure, one can argue about these comparisons—but they are not evidence of a plan to overthrow the state. Meanwhile, constant accusations of fascism from established parties and media go unchallenged—even when the Süddeutsche Zeitung accuses dachshund owners of Nazism. Ridiculous, but apparently not extremist. The double standard is relentless.
And it’s exhausting. How much taxpayer-funded brainpower has been wasted on this?
A key focus of the BfV is what it calls the AfD’s ethno-nationalist worldview. The report claims that the now-dissolved faction “Flügel” sought to preserve an “organic, unified people.” Yet the party leadership, its conventions, and platform have all distanced themselves from that view—and many immigrants are members. But the BfV smiles knowingly. With their language analysis tools, they look past words into minds and hearts to find the real ideology.
They argue that certain population groups are being excluded from society and subjected to unconstitutional discrimination. This is supposedly proven by a mishmash of cherry-picked, out-of-context statements—or worse, empirical observations. Beware of writing about crimes by foreigners:
“Such statements are meant to stoke fear among ethnic Germans of becoming a minority, and rely on fear-driven communication.”
So we can’t report on schools where non-German-speaking children are the majority—because it might scare people. At this point, the intelligence agency crosses a major line: facts may no longer be reported if they disrupt the mandated sense of harmony. Even calls for better integration and language proficiency are considered “hostile to the constitution.”
Under this logic, police crime statistics showing certain group overrepresentation become “fear messaging.” Terms like “knife migration” or references to backward views of women are now off-limits. Naming undeniable facts has become unconstitutional. A pink veil must be drawn over reality to hide its bloody parts. That’s the BfV’s—and the Interior Ministry’s—vision.
Many constitutional scholars have long concluded that the ethno-cultural concept of the people is legally irrelevant. But according to the BfV, the truth can only be described if it aligns with the federal government’s narrative. Facts, in other words, are now unconstitutional.
The key legal point: the AfD’s overall conduct “does not quantitatively or qualitatively rise to the level required to define it as aiming to abolish the free democratic order.”
In plain English: the AfD supports democracy and the rule of law. And only those who don’t can truly be considered enemies of democracy. So why the stigma?
Elsewhere, the report contradicts itself, stating that even “aspirations against the democratic order” justify labeling a party an extremist case.
How does that add up? The answer is nearly fantastical.
“Predictive” evaluations are now allowed—i.e., the BfV acts as a prophet of democratic reliability. That’s what it says from page 1010 on.
The agency claims to know where things are headed—and slams the brakes. And that is where the real danger to democracy and the rule of law begins. The threat isn’t the AfD—it’s the agency that projects baseless claims onto the party and issues arbitrary “forecasts” of future misconduct.
Why it’s supposedly unconstitutional to advocate limiting immigration is never explained. You can be for or against immigration—the Basic Law says nothing on the matter. Migrant-founded parties, by definition ethnic in orientation, aren’t scrutinized. But criticize Islam? That’s now considered “hostility toward minorities and foreigners.” According to the BfV, all forms of Islam must be protected, and public debate about its cultural impact suppressed. If a social problem has Islamic roots—boom: unconstitutional.
This allergy to debate runs through the entire report. Not just individual views are criminalized—any criticism is broadly forbidden. Because criticism might shake public trust. The question is no longer whether critique is justified—only whether it undermines faith in democratic processes.
That opens the floodgates. All criticism can now be labeled an attack on trust. Instead of exposing policy or media failures, the messenger is discredited.
Bottom line: no more criticism—it might upset people to hear about corruption, misconduct, or illegal practices. Even criticism of COVID policy is explicitly mentioned. That, too, is unconstitutional.
It’s a bleak picture the BfV paints: a muzzle society where actual or alleged problems must not be discussed. Absurdities follow.
AfD MP Florian Jäger compared the treatment of the unvaccinated during COVID restrictions to that of Jews in Nazi Germany. He specifically likened Markus Söder’s warning about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” to Goebbels’ incitement against Jews. In both cases, Jäger said, public rage was stoked.
Absurd: For this warning against incitement, Jäger himself was convicted of incitement (2021 and 2022)—only to be acquitted by Bavaria’s high court in 2023. The BfV knows this, and even admits its stance is shaky: “Regardless of its criminal classification, the statement is still to be seen as—albeit weak—evidence of antisemitic tendencies in the AfD.”
The report adds: “Florian Jäger left the AfD in July 2024.” (p. 535)
The BfV knows better than any court.
With this method, the report stirs together an unpalatable mix of suspicion, faulty logic, claims, and insinuations. There’s no way to fight it. The fact that Jäger left the party, or that other figures were expelled—none of it helps the AfD. What matters is the “forecast” that suggests danger.
The AfD can do whatever it wants—it’s never enough. Even though the party has frequently expressed solidarity with Israel and strongly condemned the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, the BfV still insists on labeling it antisemitic: “It remains questionable,” the report says, “whether the AfD’s responses to the terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel reflect a rejection of the previously established indicators of antisemitic tendencies.” (p. 537)
The BfV quotes pages of anti-Hamas statements from Weidel, Chrupalla, and the AfD’s federal board—but refuses to acknowledge them: “The cited statements concerning the murder and abduction of people by Hamas in Israel do not eliminate the indicators of antisemitism in the AfD.” (p. 539)
Ah, the verdict is final: the antisemitism label remains. No appeal.
This is how debate ends in a country: words are redefined with malicious meaning, and anyone who uses them—knowingly or not—is guilty of extremism. But the report has an unintended effect:
Anyone who digs through this mess of words will find themselves in there somewhere. Everyone’s said the “wrong” thing at some point.
“On June 29, 2021, Karsten Hilse, citing an inaccurate and misleading report from Tichys Einblick titled ‘Education Ministry considers social credit system after Chinese model for Germany,’ claimed that the heirs of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were planning communist reeducation programs in Germany.”
Why the Tichys Einblick report was supposedly “inaccurate” or “misleading” is never explained. The BfV simply declares it so (p. 599). It referred to a student rating system that actually does resemble Chinese models. But writing that is no longer allowed. Harsh criticism is forbidden—it might shake someone’s trust in the wisdom and virtue of a politician. And that’s already “far-right.”
The impression is hard to avoid: state power is being used to do politics. Aggressively. It’s political hackwork, dumped over the country like toxic sludge.
AfD report or a look at the mirror
The AfD report is a look at the mirror - one sees the authors' hostility to democracy
The report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution [Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV)] is public, although not voluntarily. Now one understands why: It says more about the Verfassungsschutz than it says about the AfD. And it reveals a lot of anti-democratic thinking - among the authors who are public servants.
This document, marked classified - around 1,000 pages long - is to prove that parts of the AfD systematically act against central values of the free democratic basic order. On Tuesday night [May 13], several media published the paper after requests have been dismissively rejected. The confidentiality itself has been a scandal: The AfD was to be publicly denounced, citizens were to be discouraged from joining, and political partners were to be blocked - and that with hushing and mumbling without evidence. A few skinny lines of a press statements were supposed to suffice.
Spy methods instead of protecting the constitution
It is politics with intelligence agency methods - claims are being made in secrecy, but they generate political effects. Instead of reporting, intelligence agency methods are being used. The watchdog agency Verfassungsschutz thus became a domestic secret service that, directed by the Minister of the Interior, acts against the opposition - an outrageous procedure.
Because the fact that an intelligence agency surveils a large opposition party is a drastic intervention in the democratic process. Even more dramatic is that the intelligence agency is specifically targeting the AfD - without a justification, without a court assessment, without the possibility to defend yourself against that. What does that remind you of?
And what is the Verfassungsschutz basing its suspicion of extremism on? Now we know - from a confidential document for which its mere publication is already illegal. That is not the praxis of a democratic state bound by the law in which fundamental political questions are negotiated publicly.
Nothing new about the AfD
There's nothing to learn about the AfD that isn't already known or can't be googled in seconds. The report simply strings together public quotes. Anyone expecting the ominous headline "confirmed enemy of the constitution" to reveal some hidden conspiracy to overthrow the state—arms caches, assassination training camps—will be disappointed. It's all about paperwork, out-of-context quotes, exaggerated claims, and shaky constructions.
Example: In Germany, there is an unchecked wave of antisemitic violence by Hamas supporters against Jews—people being assaulted, threatened, and harassed. Is the AfD involved? No. In fact, the federal leadership, including Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, is quoted at length criticizing Hamas. But the Office for the Protection of the Constitution dismisses this: "The cited statements concerning the murder and abduction of people by Hamas in Israel do not eliminate the indicators of antisemitism in the AfD."
That's quite a stretch. And there's no explanation. This is the method: make the most threatening claims, ignore counterarguments, and certainly don’t include them. The analysts? They think differently and so they cite "statements."
Target of these supposedly antisemitic statements, for example, is Klaus Schwab—who isn't Jewish—but is described with negative stereotypes "typically associated with Jews." Thus, not only is the dignity of Jews allegedly violated, but that of non-Jews as well—by being "effectively declared Jewish under an antisemitic framing."
How does that work? The BfV knows: "ambiguous terms" are combined such that their antisemitic meaning only becomes clear in context, though isolated, they could mean several things. Very crafty, this AfD. And there's no way to defend against it: the BfV alone decides what something really means. The agency engages in bizarre semantic acrobatics.
Certain words are now officially coded as "far-right." Use them—intentionally or not, jokingly or seriously—say "population replacement" or "overforeignization," and bam: you're far-right, and it's official. But should we really be treating a party supported by over 20 percent of voters as extremist because of some words? Apparently yes. That’s the method: linguistic denunciation. Conveniently, this works well with programs like Microsoft Word. Just search for terms like "block party," "cartel party," or "system party"—if an AfD member uses one, they’re flagged as extremist. The bolder the claims, the faster the process.
...And From That, a Massive Threat
Then it escalates. On November 11, 2023, Saxon MP Rene Bachmann shared a Facebook post from David Bendels, editor of Deutschland-Kurier, with the comment:
"Here’s another reason to turn away from the system media and toward reality. That’s why Deutschland Kurier instead of Spiegel!"
A bit of self-promotion—immediately twisted into a massive attack. The BfV seriously claims that urging people to reject the "system media" amounts to slandering the entire German press landscape. (p. 568)
And suddenly, the state is under threat:
Instead of expressing "a pointed political opinion," these statements, through their "defamatory generalization," aim to fundamentally question "democratic institutions and structures." Therefore, they violate "the principle of democracy itself." (p. 571)
So: if you're dissatisfied with the media landscape, you're attacking democratic structures? Media criticism is now state criticism. Bendels and others were right to worry—there really is a united front of media, parties, and politics.
Historical Comparisons Now Taboo
Even neutral warnings about Germany’s past are now cause for scrutiny. Nearly half a page is devoted to this:
On February 22, 2024, Bavarian AfD leader Stephan Protschka posted a graphic on Telegram stating:
"... 1933 must not repeat itself! Citizens were defamed by the Nazis.
Dissenters were betrayed
The media were controlled
Reporting hotlines were set up
The people were divided
Parties were banned."
Supposedly, this equates the present to the Nazi era. Really? Where? The description is factually accurate and frequently cited by the Left—without issue.
Even a tweet by Tino Chrupalla from November 26, 2022, is flagged in the report under "Equating with National Socialism." He wrote:
"And Interior Minister Nancy Faeser stood in the stands with a colorful armband. German government officials wearing armbands. I’d hoped we’d never see that again."
One remembers the awkward image: Faeser in casual wear, her counterpart dressed formally—and no armband. Even the BfV admits this comparison was only "implicit." (p. 586) Did Chrupalla equate Faeser with Nazis—because of a rainbow armband? Absurd.
The End of Free Speech Begins Here
These and other examples of language, vocabulary, and personnel choices are cited—yet how solid is this evidence? Where does legitimate opinion end and hostile agitation begin?
It’s like looking in a mirror: it’s not the AfD undermining the constitution, but the BfV. They’ve crossed the line. Historical comparisons are tricky, sure—but this isn’t about taste. It’s about whether exaggerated comments justify obstructing a party’s work. Other politicians make Nazi comparisons all the time—appropriate, offensive, random, justified or not. What matters is the party affiliation.
MP Stephan Protschka was flagged simply for asking on Twitter on August 13, 2021: "I'm now a second-class citizen, I'm #unvaccinated. Do I need to wear an armband now?" (p. 536)
And MP Barbara Lenk (now Benkstein) from Saxony? She shared a meme from Inglourious Basterds showing Christoph Waltz’s SS officer asking, “You’re hiding unvaccinated people under your floorboards, aren’t you?” According to the BfV, she “intentionally equated the suffering of Jews with the situation of the unvaccinated, thereby trivializing Nazi crimes.” (p. 537)
That’s quite a leap. Sure, one can argue about these comparisons—but they are not evidence of a plan to overthrow the state. Meanwhile, constant accusations of fascism from established parties and media go unchallenged—even when the Süddeutsche Zeitung accuses dachshund owners of Nazism. Ridiculous, but apparently not extremist. The double standard is relentless.
And it’s exhausting. How much taxpayer-funded brainpower has been wasted on this?
Saying “Germany” is Suspicious
A key focus of the BfV is what it calls the AfD’s ethno-nationalist worldview. The report claims that the now-dissolved faction “Flügel” sought to preserve an “organic, unified people.” Yet the party leadership, its conventions, and platform have all distanced themselves from that view—and many immigrants are members. But the BfV smiles knowingly. With their language analysis tools, they look past words into minds and hearts to find the real ideology.
They argue that certain population groups are being excluded from society and subjected to unconstitutional discrimination. This is supposedly proven by a mishmash of cherry-picked, out-of-context statements—or worse, empirical observations. Beware of writing about crimes by foreigners:
“Such statements are meant to stoke fear among ethnic Germans of becoming a minority, and rely on fear-driven communication.”
So we can’t report on schools where non-German-speaking children are the majority—because it might scare people. At this point, the intelligence agency crosses a major line: facts may no longer be reported if they disrupt the mandated sense of harmony. Even calls for better integration and language proficiency are considered “hostile to the constitution.”
Under this logic, police crime statistics showing certain group overrepresentation become “fear messaging.” Terms like “knife migration” or references to backward views of women are now off-limits. Naming undeniable facts has become unconstitutional. A pink veil must be drawn over reality to hide its bloody parts. That’s the BfV’s—and the Interior Ministry’s—vision.
Many constitutional scholars have long concluded that the ethno-cultural concept of the people is legally irrelevant. But according to the BfV, the truth can only be described if it aligns with the federal government’s narrative. Facts, in other words, are now unconstitutional.
No Coup Planned? Criticism of Islam Now Taboo
The key legal point: the AfD’s overall conduct “does not quantitatively or qualitatively rise to the level required to define it as aiming to abolish the free democratic order.”
In plain English: the AfD supports democracy and the rule of law. And only those who don’t can truly be considered enemies of democracy. So why the stigma?
Elsewhere, the report contradicts itself, stating that even “aspirations against the democratic order” justify labeling a party an extremist case.
How does that add up? The answer is nearly fantastical.
“Predictive” evaluations are now allowed—i.e., the BfV acts as a prophet of democratic reliability. That’s what it says from page 1010 on.
The agency claims to know where things are headed—and slams the brakes. And that is where the real danger to democracy and the rule of law begins. The threat isn’t the AfD—it’s the agency that projects baseless claims onto the party and issues arbitrary “forecasts” of future misconduct.
Why it’s supposedly unconstitutional to advocate limiting immigration is never explained. You can be for or against immigration—the Basic Law says nothing on the matter. Migrant-founded parties, by definition ethnic in orientation, aren’t scrutinized. But criticize Islam? That’s now considered “hostility toward minorities and foreigners.” According to the BfV, all forms of Islam must be protected, and public debate about its cultural impact suppressed. If a social problem has Islamic roots—boom: unconstitutional.
This allergy to debate runs through the entire report. Not just individual views are criminalized—any criticism is broadly forbidden. Because criticism might shake public trust. The question is no longer whether critique is justified—only whether it undermines faith in democratic processes.
That opens the floodgates. All criticism can now be labeled an attack on trust. Instead of exposing policy or media failures, the messenger is discredited.
Bottom line: no more criticism—it might upset people to hear about corruption, misconduct, or illegal practices. Even criticism of COVID policy is explicitly mentioned. That, too, is unconstitutional.
It’s a bleak picture the BfV paints: a muzzle society where actual or alleged problems must not be discussed. Absurdities follow.
AfD MP Florian Jäger compared the treatment of the unvaccinated during COVID restrictions to that of Jews in Nazi Germany. He specifically likened Markus Söder’s warning about the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” to Goebbels’ incitement against Jews. In both cases, Jäger said, public rage was stoked.
Absurd: For this warning against incitement, Jäger himself was convicted of incitement (2021 and 2022)—only to be acquitted by Bavaria’s high court in 2023. The BfV knows this, and even admits its stance is shaky: “Regardless of its criminal classification, the statement is still to be seen as—albeit weak—evidence of antisemitic tendencies in the AfD.”
The report adds: “Florian Jäger left the AfD in July 2024.” (p. 535)
The BfV knows better than any court.
With this method, the report stirs together an unpalatable mix of suspicion, faulty logic, claims, and insinuations. There’s no way to fight it. The fact that Jäger left the party, or that other figures were expelled—none of it helps the AfD. What matters is the “forecast” that suggests danger.
The AfD can do whatever it wants—it’s never enough. Even though the party has frequently expressed solidarity with Israel and strongly condemned the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, the BfV still insists on labeling it antisemitic: “It remains questionable,” the report says, “whether the AfD’s responses to the terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel reflect a rejection of the previously established indicators of antisemitic tendencies.” (p. 537)
The BfV quotes pages of anti-Hamas statements from Weidel, Chrupalla, and the AfD’s federal board—but refuses to acknowledge them: “The cited statements concerning the murder and abduction of people by Hamas in Israel do not eliminate the indicators of antisemitism in the AfD.” (p. 539)
Ah, the verdict is final: the antisemitism label remains. No appeal.
This is how debate ends in a country: words are redefined with malicious meaning, and anyone who uses them—knowingly or not—is guilty of extremism. But the report has an unintended effect:
Anyone who digs through this mess of words will find themselves in there somewhere. Everyone’s said the “wrong” thing at some point.
“On June 29, 2021, Karsten Hilse, citing an inaccurate and misleading report from Tichys Einblick titled ‘Education Ministry considers social credit system after Chinese model for Germany,’ claimed that the heirs of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were planning communist reeducation programs in Germany.”
Why the Tichys Einblick report was supposedly “inaccurate” or “misleading” is never explained. The BfV simply declares it so (p. 599). It referred to a student rating system that actually does resemble Chinese models. But writing that is no longer allowed. Harsh criticism is forbidden—it might shake someone’s trust in the wisdom and virtue of a politician. And that’s already “far-right.”
The impression is hard to avoid: state power is being used to do politics. Aggressively. It’s political hackwork, dumped over the country like toxic sludge.
Last edited:
will destroy itself, we need only wait.
Have they done this before?
Can you compare those cases to today?
