Polls Continue to Mark Rise of Germany’s Political Right

As a two-month campaign to vilify the conservative and nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) as little better than neo-Nazis begins to run out of steam, recent political polls conducted by Politpro.eu, Statista, and INSA show its popularity stabilizing as voters’ broader rightward turn solidifies.

Founded in April 2013, the AfD quickly gained a significant place in Germany’s multiparty system.

Within four years it placed third out of six parties in elections to the Bundestag (a legislative chamber roughly equivalent to the United States House of Representatives) with 94 seats and 12.6 percent of the vote.

Numbers for the leading Christian Democratic Union (CDU) were 246 seats and 32.9 percent of voter support, while those for the second place Social Democratic Party (SPD) were 153 and 20.5 percent.

The years 2022 and 2023 saw the AfD shoot almost to the top as part of the most dramatic shift in German politics since the country’s post-Cold War reunification.

Polls showed support rose from 10 percent in July 2022, to 15 percent in October, to 19 percent. By June 2023 the AfD’s 19 percent support made it the second most popular party in Germany—a position strengthened when support rose to 22 percent before the year ended.

At the same time, the three parties in a coalition government since the 2021 Bundestag elections had just 33 percent support between them—14 percent each for the leftist SPD and leftist Greens, 5 percent for the socially liberal/economically capitalist Free Democratic Party (FDP).

The only party to surpass the AfD—the CDU—almost equaled that combined total with 32 percent support and owed that to a move back towards its historical conservatism.

The dramatic rise was due to the same factors driving voters throughout Europe to new (or newly popular) conservative and nationalist parties.

Under former CDU leader and chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, socially liberal globalists became increasingly powerful within the historically conservative party.

The AfD maintained stauncher conservative positions—including strong support for traditional marriage and family life, for the preservation of national independence (in the face of the European Union’s increasing power), and German culture (in the face of “European integration” and Islamization), as well as for border security (including expulsion of illegal immigrants).

According to the AfD’s “Manifesto for Germany,” there is nothing unusual in what the party calls for.

It states that no distinction is to be made between immigrant citizens and those German-born.

Immigration will be both favored in moderation and kept at moderate levels.

Cultural assimilation, not race, is a central concern and will be required of immigrants.

Existing laws require the deportation or imprisonment of illegal immigrants—but legal processes for enforcement will be revised to make them more effective and deportation will be a priority.

Beginning with an article published by the fact-checking organization Correctiv on Jan. 10, 2024, AfD’s opponents have used a small non-partisan meeting, which included a handful of AfD members, to suggest the party supports a more radical agenda.

Held on Nov. 25 at Potsdam, it involved 22 people—including six from the AfD and five from the CDU. Others were more independent or had a history of working with both parties. One participant was former neo-Nazi Martin Sellner.

Immigration was among the topics discussed, but not the main theme as many reports suggested.

Most discussions of the topic concerned the deportation of illegal immigrants and assimilation.

At one point, Mr. Sellner is alleged to have suggested devising laws to bully immigrant citizens who refuse to assimilate out of the country alongside giving them positive incentives to leave.

Correctiv alleged Ulrich Siegmund, leader of the AfD in the Saxony-Anhalt state parliament, also favored harassing methods of enforcing cultural conformity.

However, Correctiv is accused of being biased as it is partly government-funded (or even working on behalf of the government) and there are whispers of maybe even intelligence services help.

Three state elections where the party is leading in the polls are coming up this year, which can explain the campaign against the AfD.

Correctiv did not reveal how it got information from the meeting, however it has been accused of wiretapping the event.

The AfD’s national leadership condemned the meeting as soon as the details of these discussions became known.

It reiterated the party made no distinction between German-born and immigrant citizens and that its foreknowledge of plans for the meeting had not included knowledge that Mr. Sellner would even be present.

For his participation in the meeting, AfD member Roland Hartwig was fired from his job as a strategic adviser to AfD chairwoman Alice Weidel.

Half a dozen of those reported to be in attendance issued public statements saying they had not been present when the objectionable suggestions were made.

Despite that, Correctiv has not altered the claims that the Potsdam meeting was a de facto AfD gathering whose proposals were equivalent to the AfD’s party line, aimed at broad expulsion of immigrant citizens and favored expulsion on racial grounds.

Many reports from numerous other media outlets have repeated Correctiv’s accusations as fact.

Commentator and activist Deal Hudson—who has served as an adviser to George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, worked for the Republican National Committee, and edited Crisis Magazine—explains this as a way of “controlling public thinking to advance an agenda.”

Polls conducted by Politpro.eu, Statista, and INSA demonstrate that hostile reports have had limited impact on the popularity of the AfD and virtually none on that of socially conservative and nationalist politics.

All three showed the AfD firmly maintaining greater support than it had before June 2023, with a 3 percent to 5 percent lead over the SPD and at least that much over the Greens.

Just one INSA poll (dated March 11) has the AfD down to 18.5 percent.

Four subsequent INSA polls (March 16, March 18, March 24, and March 25) show the AfD going back and forth between 19 percent and 19.5 percent.

Politpro.eu had its support at 19.5 percent on March 18th and 18.1 percent on March 22. Statista’s most recent poll (March 8) had the AfD at 18 percent.

Support for the other seven parties with representatives in the Bundestag has remained at about pre-Jan. 10 levels.

The one party to see a substantial increase in support since Jan. 10 was legally established just two days earlier—the Bundnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW).

Combining “hard right” social conservatism and nationalism with “hard left” socialist economics, it has consistently polled between 5 percent and 8 percent since Feb. 1.

[Sounds rather like the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. Old thinking lingers. Another Nationalist party emanating from the Left ]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/polls-continue-to-mark-rise-of-germanys-political-right-5617109

****************************************************

Most gender-confused children grow out of it, landmark 15-year study concludes

The majority of gender-confused children grow out of that feeling by the time they are fully grown adults, according to a long-term study.

Researchers in the Netherlands tracked more than 2,700 children from age 11 to their mid-twenties, asking them every three years of feelings about their gender.

Results showed at the start of the research, around one-in-10 children (11 percent) expressed 'gender non-contentedness' to varying degrees.

But by age 25, just one-in-25 (4 percent) said they 'often' or 'sometimes' were discontent with their gender.

The researchers concluded: 'The results of the current study might help adolescents to realize that it is normal to have some doubts about one’s identity and one’s gender identity during this age period and that this is also relatively common.'

It comes amid a massive boom in transgender children receiving drugs to change their gender in the US - as critics say doctors and parents are not challenging young people enough.

Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center who was not involved in the research, told DailyMail.com: 'This study provides even more reason to be skeptical towards aggressive steps to facilitate gender transition in childhood and adolescence.

'The fact that rates of satisfaction are lower even just a few years later suggests that for the vast majority of people, prudence and caution, rather than a rush towards permanent surgeries or hormone therapies, will be the best approach for teenagers struggling to make sense of the world and their place in it.

'As such, policies that prohibit gender transition for minors make a great deal of sense.'

The study is one of the longest into the issue of gender in children - but the researchers point out it has some limitations.

For one, it looked at a mixture of children from the general population and kids who were receiving mental health care - though not specifically for anything related to their gender.

Therefore it does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of children clinically diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

The researchers, from the University of Groningen, analyzed the data of 2,770 people who were part of the Tracking Adolescent's Individual Lives Survey.

Participants were asked to respond to the statement 'I wish to be of the opposite sex' at six different points over 15 years.

They were given a multiple choice: 0-Not True, 1-Somewhat or Sometimes True, and 2-Very True or Often True.

The same prompt was given every two or three years from the start of the study in March 2001 until the end.

Researchers looked for those expressing 'gender non-contentedness,' or unhappiness with being the gender aligned with their biological sex.

The study, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that overall 78 percent of people had the same feelings about their gender over the 15 years.

Around 19 percent became more content with their gender and just about 2 percent became less comfortable.

Participants were also asked to evaluate their self-worth by rating how they felt about their physical appearance and self esteem.

According to the findings, females were more likely to report being unhappy with their gender and both increasing and decreasing 'non-contentedness' were associated with lower self-reported self worth, more behavioral problems and an increase in emotional struggles.

The authors said: 'Gender non-contentedness, while being relatively common during early adolescence, in general decreases with age and appears to be associated with a poorer self-concept and mental health throughout development.'

Brown told DailyMail.com: 'As anyone who has ever been a teenager knows, puberty and its aftereffects can be a confusing time of hormonal surges, physical changes, and social insecurity.

'It isn't surprising that the highest rates of being dissatisfied in one's body would peak during this time.'

Rates of gender dysphoria, a clinical diagnosis by a healthcare professional that differs from gender non contentedness, have soared in every US state except one since 2018 - with the average age of diagnosis trending younger.

An analysis of insurance claims conducted by Komodo Health Inc found between 2017 and 2021, approximately 121,880 children aged six to 17 years old were diagnosed with the condition.

In 2021, 42,000 were given the diagnosis, a 70 percent increase from 2020.

And children under 18 years old now make up one-fifth of new diagnoses each year.

In the United States, 1.6million people ages 13 and older identify as transgender.

A report by the health data analytics firm Definitive Healthcare shows the rate of gender dysphoria increased in every state except South Dakota from 2018 to 2022 across all ages.

The sharpest rises over those five years were seen in three Republican-led states: Virginia (274 percent) Indiana (247 percent) and Utah (193 percent).

South Dakota saw a decline of 23 percent between 2018 and 2022.

Meanwhile, the report also found the number of sex change surgeries being carried out each year is rising rapidly - climbing by up to 40 percent in some years.

Greater social acceptance and increased awareness about the condition on the part of doctors can partly explain the increase in cases.

Unlike other countries, such as the UK, there is no federal lower age limit for when children can get 'top' or 'bottom' operations in the US, which leaves it up to the states.

Maine pushes to become 'transgender sanctuary' for out of state minors

The 'Act to Safeguard Gender Affirming Health Care' would enable certain out of state teens to access treatments without their parents' consent regardless of their own state's laws.

In The Netherlands, debate over the issue has ramped up as more Dutch experts have voiced their concerns over the potential adverse effects of puberty blockers and hormonal therapies for minors who wish to transition.

And in the US most recently, trans rights were thrust into the spotlight after critics slammed President Joe Biden for declaring Easter 'Trans Visibility Day.'

However, the president said he did not make this declaration, but that the awareness day is celebrated every year on March 31 and only coincided with Easter this year by chance.

Dr Jay Richards, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family, told DailyMail.com: 'We’ve known for over a decade that most kids who experience distress with their sexed bodies resolve those feelings after they pass through natural puberty.

'Indeed, we can infer from the DSM 5 [2013] and other sources that as many as 88 percent of gender-dysphoric girls and as many as 98 percent of gender-dysphoric boys in previous generations desisted if allowed to go through natural puberty.

'These two facts make it clear why “gender-affirming care” on minors is such an outrage. It leads, in the end, to sterilization and in many cases to a complete loss of natural sexual function.

'There is no good evidence that this helps minors long term. Moreover, it medicalizes what could very well be temporary psychological symptoms.

'History will judge this medicalized “gender-affirming care” on minors as we now judge eugenics and lobotomies.'

The research was published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13263725/trans-kids-change-sex-adults-study.html

*************************************************

John Stossel: Trade Is Evil?

Leaders of both parties agree: We must reduce globalization.

“China is ripping us on trade,” says Donald Trump.

Our trade deficit is “an immorality,” says Nancy Pelosi.

But it’s not.

In my new video, Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute points out, “Selling us stuff is hardly ripping us off.”

He’s right.

Our video debunks common misunderstandings about trade.

* Myth No. 1: America is “losing.”

People often say that because America runs a trade deficit.

But trade doesn’t need to balance. I have a trade deficit with my supermarket. They get more of my money every year. So, what? I don’t “lose.” I get food without having to grow it myself.

That’s a win for me and the food producer regardless of whether the food was grown locally or came from Mexico.

“Imports are great,” says Lincicome. “It means I can focus on what I want to do for a living and not go make my own food or make my own clothes. I can use those savings and buy other things that makes me better off.”

As long as trade is voluntary, trade is a win for both parties. It has to be; neither side would agree to it unless they think they get something out of the deal.

* Myth No. 2: Imports take jobs from Americans.

Globalization “moved so many jobs and so much wealth out of our country,” says Trump, “Workers have seen the jobs they love shipped thousands and thousands of miles away.”

I say to Lincicome, “Some people do lose jobs.”

“True,” he replies, “We lose about 5 million jobs every month.”

But trade isn’t the main reason. “Jobs are lost due to … changing consumer tastes and from innovation. We make more stuff with fewer workers. That’s productivity.”

Productivity increases are good.

Trade and productivity improvements are reasons why the number of Americans who do have jobs has risen.

“We’re at historically high manufacturing job openings,” says Lincicome, “Manufacturers in the United States say they can’t find enough workers.”

Trade lets Americans focus on what we do best. Sixty percent of America’s new jobs come from companies engaged in international trade.

But Trump says, “We don’t make anything anymore!”

President Joe Biden agrees, “American manufacturing, the backbone of our economy, got hollowed out!”

* That’s Myth No. 3.

Manufacturing output in the U.S. is near its all-time high. We make more than Japan, Germany, India and South Korea combined.

Fortunately, real life ignores politicians’ ignorance.

* Myth No. 4: Trade and open markets create “a race to the bottom.”

That’s how Jon Stewart decries globalization on his show, saying, “Globalization allowed corporations to scour the planet for the cheapest labor and loosest regulations!”

That is true; companies do that. But Lincicome replies, “This ‘race to the bottom’ is a myth. We Americans are spoiled. We look upon jobs in the developing world, factory jobs, and say, ‘Oh, how terrible this is that these people work for such low wages.’ But the reality is that their alternatives are far, far worse … subsistence farming … sex work.”

Trade is what lets people in poor countries escape subsistence farming and sex work.

And child labor, too.

“No parent wants his kid to go into the factory or farm,” Lincicome points out. “They do it because they have no choice. As we get wealthier, child labor disappears. … Factory owners in Vietnam now complain that kids these days … don’t want to work in the textile factory. That’s not great for that factory owner, but it’s great for those workers!”

* Myth No. 5: Globalization destroys the environment.

“It’s undeniably true that as a nation starts along its development path, that it’s going to pollute more,” concedes Lincicome. “But as countries get wealthy, they become better environmentally.”

Only when people get wealthy enough to think beyond their next meal do we start to care about the environment. It’s why pollution is dropping in America and other capitalist countries.

“The best thing that we can do for the developing world is to help countries get rich,” says Lincicome. “Globalization is part of that recipe.”

Trade is a win-win. It brings us more stuff at lower prices.

The more we trade, the better off we are

https://heartlanddailynews.com/2024/04/john-stossel-trade-evil-globalization/

*************************************************

Truth Telling, circular arguments, and the wrongful conviction of colonialism

The breast-beating about Australia's colonial past is just a pathetic Leftist attempt to make their fellow citizens feel guilty. It is a basic precept of natural justice that we are not responsible for what others do. And that includes our ancestors. So individuals today should feel no guilt about what some people did in the past.

If the past is to be judged by modern standards, I would have a good claim to have been affected by injustice. Two of my ancestors came out to Australia chained up in the holds of little wooden ships. They were convicts whose offences would be treated as trivial today.

So do I feel aggrieved and complain about how they were treated? To the contrary, Australians with convict ancestry usually feel proud about it these days: Proud to be descended from tough survivors.

Just when you thought Australians had voted firmly against the Voice to Parliament and its entire grievance baggage, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney says she is in active discussions with Cabinet to develop a model for a ‘Truth Telling’ process, flagging that it could be included in the school curriculum.

The phrase ‘Truth Telling’ is, I believe, code for weaponising the past. The Burney-preferred meaning of the phrase matches the Oxford Dictionary (Woke edition):

‘Recognition or acknowledgement of historical injustices affecting Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people following the colonisation of Australia, and re-evaluation of the impact of the discrimination and often violent treatment they have faced since that time.’

As a guide, look to the purpose of the Yoorrook Justice Commission which former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews green-lit in 2020. It exists to ‘investigate historical and ongoing injustices committed against Aboriginal Victorians since colonisation, across all areas of social, political, and economic life’. This is a circular argument that starts with the conclusion it is trying to prove.

That rings a bell. The original mandate from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the IPCC did not seek to explore possible reasons for any warming; it was to address ‘dangerous human-caused climate change’. That set the agenda, which became the ruling orthodoxy – a circular argument that starts with the conclusion it is trying to prove.

A circular argument is a useful device when evidence is absent or too weak to prove an allegation.

A good (bad) example of this is the prosecution’s case against Robert Xie, tried for the murder of five members of his wife’s family.

‘The Crown does not know exactly what time it was that the murders occurred,’ said prosecutor Tanya Smith, in her opening address in trial 4 (the final one). ‘But our case is that it must have occurred after 2 o’clock in the morning, because you will hear that it is accepted that the accused had been at home with his wife using the internet until around this time. So it is at some point after 2 o’clock and before 5.30 am.’

In other words, the murders must have been committed after 2 am because ‘we accept he was busy on his computer until then’.

The prosecutor didn’t say ‘we will show you evidence that the murders occurred after 2 o’clock in the morning’. That was not possible, as there was no such evidence. In my opinion, there was no direct evidence against Xie. The Crown’s case had been built around Robert Xie’s computer-proven alibi but challenging his after-2 am alibi of being in bed asleep beside his wife.

Indeed, the forensic pathologist agreed with defence counsel that it was possible that at least one of the victims (Min) could have been killed well before 2 am. With the jury absent, the judge recognised evidence to that effect. And the jury bought the Crown’s circular argument. (Xie was sentenced to life imprisonment.)

Like the IPCC taking as proven the ‘dangerous human-caused climate change’, and the Yoorook Commission taking as proven ‘historical and ongoing injustices committed against Aboriginal Victorians’, Linda Burney’s Truth Telling will likely consist not so much of ‘truth telling’ but of grievance gathering, a regurgitation of how evil the white settlers were – and are. Apologies and atonement not accepted.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should be the mantra, as in court. For if Truth Telling is merely another example of evidence-free, biased ‘Blak’ history, it will be as catastrophic as a wrongful conviction. In this case, perhaps the wrongful conviction of colonialism.

As Ramesh Thakur observes, ‘The colonial legacy is mixed rather than uniformly evil or virtuous. Every culture and civilisation has stains in its history.’

The controversial Canadian-American author, Bruce Gilley, professor of political science at Portland State University, argues extensively in his recent book, The Case for Colonialism, that colonialism was not always harmful and had significant benefits, such as the enabling of human flowering through ‘expanded education, improved public health, the abolition of slavery, widened employment opportunities, improved administration, the creation of basic infrastructure, female rights, the enfranchisement of untouchable or historically excluded communities, fair taxation, access to capital, and the generation of historical and cultural knowledge…’ Some of these apply to the Australian experience.

He says:

‘The origins of anti-colonial thought were political and ideological. The purpose was not historical accuracy but contemporaneous advocacy. Today, activists associate “decolonisation” (or “postcolonialism”) with all manner of radical social transformation, which unintentionally ties historic conclusions to present-day endeavours. One failure of anti-colonial critique is perhaps most damaging. It is not just an obstacle to historical truth, which itself is a grave disservice. Even as a means of contemporary advocacy, it is self-wounding. For it essentially weaponises the colonial past…’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/04/truth-telling-circular-arguments-and-the-wrongful-conviction-of-colonialism/

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************