Is prohibiting a neo-fascist party, like the German AfD, the right course of action?

A post-material perspective on why neglecting the evolution of collective consciousness will inevitably throw democracy back to square one.

In these times marked by the dismantling of democracy and the rule of law, my American friends may find some food for thought in what happens abroad.

On May 2, the German domestic intelligence services¹ (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV) classified the German far-right political party AfD ("Alternative für Deutschland" - "Alternative for Germany") as a “proven right-wing extremist endeavor.” Their assessment is based on a review that considered a wide range of statements and positions by high-ranking party representatives and concludes that a party that promotes the spread and deepening of prejudices, resentments, and fears based on ethnocultural background toward minority groups cannot be considered in line with the constitution and the democratic principles based on the rule of law.

As you might already know, recently Elon Musk and JD Vance have come out in defense of it. Musk actively interfered in the German February elections in favor of the AfD. Also, Marco Rubio and JD Vance criticized the choice, naming the decision as “tyranny in disguise” by “bureaucrats trying to reestablish the Berlin Wall.” Of course, this is no coincidence. The neo-fascist AfD can be viewed as the German alter ego of the US MAGA-like Republican Party.

The BfV’s statement doesn’t imply that the AfD is outlawed; the party can appeal the BfV’s assessment. The government must then submit a request to the Federal Constitutional Court. However, only the latter, which is independent from the government and political affiliations, has the authority to ban parties. There is still a long way to go before a prohibition can be implemented. Nonetheless, this recent decision by the BfV has advanced the necessary procedures a step further, which has, as expected, sparked a heated debate in the German political landscape.

There are many compelling reasons to shut down the AfD. It is undeniably an extremist far-right neo-fascist movement that uses ethno-nationalist rhetoric to promote a vision of society that discriminates against immigrants, Muslims, and other minorities. Party leaders have made inflammatory remarks about immigrants, asylum seekers, and individuals of Turkish or African descent. Authoritarian ideologies are an integral part of their mindset. The AfD plans to carry out mass deportations without due process, akin to the situation currently unfolding in the US, and which it euphemistically refers to as 'remigration.'

However, legal scholars, politicians, and civil society groups vigorously debate the advantages and disadvantages of prohibiting a political party, particularly one with significant public support. The ongoing dilemma remains: how tolerant should tolerance be in the face of intolerance? This issue has arisen multiple times throughout Germany's history.

Examples of typical objections to banning a political party, an extremist movement, or a wannabe dictator that actively seeks to overthrow democratic institutions in favor of an autocratic system include the concern that such a ban may backfire and ultimately strengthen them. Because it could grant the movement or political authority "martyr" status, rallying more support under the banner of political persecution. Additionally, a ban may exacerbate political polarization, driving wedges between groups and creating more hostile political environments. The question is whether freedom of expression and association—including for these radical views—should be tolerated in liberal democracies. However, aside from these principled considerations, the primary concern is that repressing a movement that has taken root throughout society could provoke violent reactions and, in the worst-case scenario, even lead to a civil war. Therefore, it may be wiser to refrain from interfering with constitutional court rulings and accept its existence while fighting back with a political resistance.

I understand these concerns and, therefore, do not have a strong opinion on the subject. However, this latter path is essentially the choice the US has made recently, and it definitely doesn’t look convincing or inspire optimism, which makes me (cautiously) favor a ban.

That said, and no matter what your opinion is, let's not nurture the illusion that outlawing a political movement or a president, in and of itself, will make a significant difference in the long run. While it may give time for democratic institutions to strengthen, sooner or later, the same extremist forces will reorganize and reemerge under different names and behind different masks. The same spirit and mindset will resurface, of course, in the name of “liberty,” “freedom,” and “inalienable rights,” and the cycle will begin all over again.

In fact, history shows that a ban addresses the symptoms, not the causes. The clear demonstration comes from Germany’s history itself.

Let’s not forget how the Nazi Party—the “National Socialist German Workers' Party” (NSDAP)—had already been banned in 1922, long before Hitler came to power. Hitler was already locked up. I don’t need to explain how that story ended. But the question is: how could the Nazi Party make such a comeback? Historical events are rarely caused by a single factor, but a significant reason lies in the fact that the fascist mindset, culture, and spirit had already permeated the institutional structures that could have thwarted its resurgence. Decades of authoritarian tradition, anti-democratic thinking, and nationalist ideology were part of large segments of society, including the very same people—that is, judges, police chiefs, civil servants and the military—who were supposed to protect the nation from putsches. Legal, political, and institutional barriers—such as the separation of powers, constitutional courts, and independent judges—supposed to protect against the forces driving the rise of tyranny are only effective if they themselves are not tainted by the same spirit.

Of course, after the end of WWII, the party was dismantled. But guess what? Only half a year later, it was reconstituted under a different name as the “Socialist Reich Party (SRP)”. The neo-Nazi SRP obtained ‘only’ 8.1% of the vote in the parliamentary elections of 1949, but with a clear upward trend visible in the following several regional elections until 1952, scoring locally between 10% and 30% approval.² Finally, in 1952, the Federal Constitutional Court banned the SRP, initiating a period during the Cold War when far-right extremism was suppressed and kept dormant.

Shortly after, in 1956, the far-left party “Communist Party of Germany (KPD),” which adhered to Marxist-Leninist ideology and promoted a Marx’s famous “dictatorship of the proletariat,” was banned as well. Although it was a small party, it maintained a 5.7% representation in the German parliament until 1953.

The authoritarian spirit appeared to be extinguished until the fall of the Soviet Union. The "National Democratic³ Party of Germany (NPD)" was founded in 1964 but gained some significant influence in the German political landscape only after the turn of the millennium. Its platform embodies a far-right extremist worldview. Despite some notable successes at the local level, where it secured up to 9% of the vote, the party never made it into the German parliament. In 2017, after a second attempt to ban the NPD, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that although the NPD pursues anti-constitutional objectives aimed at abolishing the existing free democratic basic order, it found no concrete indications suggesting that the NPD's actions could lead to success. In other words, "You are clearly anti-constitutional and opposed to the democratic order, and you deserve to be banned. But who cares… you are Mr. Nobody." In my view, this is a doubtful argument. What if the NPD had gained support in the upcoming elections?

Interestingly, this reasoning was similarly assumed to apply to the AfD. After its founding in 2013, the party narrowly missed the 5% electoral threshold needed to enter the Bundestag, the German parliament, and did not exceed a 15% approval rating until 2022. Around the same time of its foundation, another xenophobic movement materialized seemingly out of nothing: the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes, PEGIDA) successfully organized mass rallies, drawing together significant segments of society around clear anti-Islam and far-right extremist ideologies. However, after dominating headlines for a few years, the movement faded from public view. Did the NPD’s and PEGIDA’s spirit vanish? Of course not; they simply combined and transfused its vital lifeblood into the veins of the AfD.

Despite its evident disdain for core democratic principles, there was a consistent tendency to downplay the AfD’s influence on the ‘mass mind.’ The final awakening came in the February 2025 national elections where it received 20.8% of the vote, and only few months later enjoys a 24.8% approval rating in the polls. The wishful thinking that ignoring these forces would curb authoritarian trends has brought us back to square one.

If one looks at where the AfD actually enjoys the highest approval, the following chart speaks volumes.

First party after the 2025 national elections.

The fountain blue-colored administrative districts are those where the AfD has emerged as the majority party, receiving up to 50% of the votes in some areas. The polarization of society is not only social but also geographical, and the extent is staggering. The blue area closely corresponds to the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).

This cultural divide did not emerge overnight. The GDR was part of the former Soviet bloc and had a far less established tradition of exercising democratic rights. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the prevailing ideology was the far-left communist doctrine, which was the only one allowed. Today, everyone over the age of 36 was born into a single-party authoritarian regime and raised by parents who had been acculturated under this ideology for their entire lives. As a result, the concept of a pluralistic society, governed by the separation of powers and the rule of law capable of challenging the ruling autocrat, had much less opportunity to develop in the collective consciousness compared to West Germany. For more than four decades, what was assimilated and became normalcy on one side was denied to the other. German history highlights the futility of distinguishing between far-left and far-right extremism, as if one side would be so different or so much better than the other. The transition from a Marxist-Leninist ideology to the present neo-fascist worldview found no obstacles and occurred, in historical terms, very quickly.

More importantly, it demonstrates that democracy, self-government, a free press, and liberal values cannot be established solely through political and institutional safeguards. One cannot just “export democracy”⁴ with a container ship. These ideals, values, and moral principles have to be learned, understood, and assimilated generation after generation and need to be deeply embedded in the culture, minds, and hearts of the people.

This is to say that certain ideologies, such as authoritarian leanings with their illiberal tendencies, cannot be eradicated solely through constitutional court rulings. As I mentioned, I support the outlawing of forces of intolerance, and I believe the U.S. made a significant mistake by exempting Trump from accountability. But even if the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances had functioned properly, history demonstrates that these external structures are necessary but insufficient conditions for maintaining a pluralistic society grounded in human values. To avoid relapses, the internal structures must keep pace.

German history shows that autocratic forces are like subterranean rivers that flow beneath the Earth's surface in caves or channels, regularly reemerging above ground. You cannot eliminate them by merely shutting down one of their sources. Trumpism, the AfD, fascism, Nazism, Stalinism—whatever the ‘-isms’—are not just intellectual constructs; they are living forces that permeate the collective consciousness and stick to whatever or whomever is receptive to them. Many are still drawn to the alluring siren song that tempts them to abandon their own discernment, and promising them a bright future where everything is turned upside down: falsehood becomes truth, tyranny becomes freedom, injustice becomes justice, and so on.⁵

Of course, the underlying grievances or social conditions that fuel extremism must be addressed. Better tools, such as intelligence monitoring, deplatforming disinformation, education, and political engagement, are effective countermeasures. However, it is time to give the post-material worldview a chance. We should not view these ‘-isms’ merely as ideologies, creeds, or philosophical doctrines triggered solely by material and economic necessities. The ‘hostile forces’ that seek to pull us back into a dark age are real manifestations of spiritual energies, powers, and subtle psychological influences rooted in a collective unconscious. They cannot be defeated by simply addressing unemployment, the price of eggs, or any other material scarcity. These occult powers will always resort to lies, fake news, and any form of deception until there are “open minds” willing to accept them. It is not only in their very nature but also their mission and raison d’être. They are not merely an unfortunate accident; their existence has evolutionary significance and reflects the logic of the evolution of consciousness. Nature will always tolerate falsehood until the unconscious mass-mind remains receptive to it. No political machinery will shield us from the necessity of facing that lesson repeatedly.

We should look at history from a post-rational perspective, where everything is a flow of psychological positive and negative energies and forces, which can be either manifest or resting temporarily. We nurtured the delusion that the negative ones had been defeated, failing to recognize that they merely went underground, like subterranean rivers. They remained largely present in the subconscious caves of society and would inevitably reemerge to cause havoc once again. These forces are specialized in disguising themselves with appealing masks, appearing as the opposite of what they truly are. The only effective way to defeat them is not through a system of political and technological paraphernalia, but by developing in the masses discernment and a heart-based worldview, where one becomes able to recognize and see them for what they are.

Since Marx, we have not rid ourselves of the illusion of economic materialism, which posits that if we address our material needs, everything else will fall into place magically. It is time to recognize that there are also 'soul-factors' that shape our lives and the history of nations and the world. Those who lead the multitudes must be at the forefront of developing that kind of awareness and sensitivity—I would say, an almost extrasensory perception—of the mass-mind rooted in a collective unconscious. From this understanding, they can discern what people truly need and determine the right course of action to prevent the backsliding of mass consciousness. The masses require visions, grand projects, hope, and, above all, endeavors that provide meaning and purpose in their lives. The American Dream and the pursuit of endless material growth are dead, and there are compelling reasons to believe this is a positive development. Only by identifying the true soul-factors and acting accordingly can we move forward. What we urgently need is not endless GDP growth or some sci-fi technological progress, but spiritual progress and a collective transformation and evolution of consciousness.

The subscription to Letters for a Post-Material Future is free. However, if you find value in my project and wish to support it, you can make a small financial contribution by buying me one or more coffees! You can also support my work by recommending me on Substack. Thank you in advance!

1. The BfV comprises all the German domestic intelligence services that gather information on extremist and terrorist efforts, as well as on activities by foreign intelligence services aimed at protecting the free democratic basic order in Germany.

2. If this doesn't seem significant, it may be helpful to remember that Hitler came to power after the NSDAP received only 33% of the votes in a parliamentary election in 1933.

3. Isn't it interesting how authoritarian movements and regimes often label themselves as "democratic"? Before its reunification, East Germany labeled itself the "German Democratic Republic."

4. Similar arguments can be made regarding the illusion that democracy can be exported through military force, as demonstrated by US’s interventionism in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

5. In fact, most supporters of the AfD see no contradiction between its political ideas and democratic principles. On the contrary, they view the party as a champion of their freedoms, rights, and protection against foreign threats. Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine they praised Putin as a strong statesman worthy of emulation (and many still do). Something reminiscent of Trump supporters, who similarly fail to recognize any authoritarian tendencies in him. When confronted, they stare at me with indignation, as if to ask where I could possibly perceive violations of fundamental rights and principles of freedom and the rule of law in AfD-like ideological thought patterns.