The Dark Legend, a pointer?

Exactly the point I've been making, glad to see that you acknowledge it. History shows the dangers of Far-Right parties once in power, that's when it shows that opening the path for far-right politicians was and is a big mistake.

My point is few seem to understand the dangers before the Far-right are elected into power. The signs are there to see, otherwise they would not be designated Far-Right by those expected to know. As for the AfG I don't see them objecting to being referred to as far-right, the only comment I have heard from one of them was "its about time we were given the opportunity to have our say". 

'Have their say' yes, give them real power? Absolutely no.

And yet, ten pages on, you are still unable to say what they are.



And who are those expected to know and how are they expected to know? Again, you have been unable to define either.



As for the Afd, it's not your shout. And just as well since you clearly don't understand the issues that you assure the rest of us are such an issue.

1, A lie, typical of Rightist deception. 
I choose (repeated for the umpteenth time) not to comment on what they are, I prefer to allow history to expose the Far right for the dangerous area of politics they represent.

2. See my post that refers to the BBC, (above). 

3. It is not the issues the 'Alternative for Germany' party hide behind that are the problem, the problem arises when the Far-Right politicians take power.

Your opening comment gives you away, and places the rest of your post as the usual excuse making garbage you inevitably come up with. 

Once again in your naivety, you ignore history. 

Be a man, and admit you are a Rightist. 

Seeing as Sandypine has given you a rundown of what looks like the AfD manifesto policies which look rather sensible to me, perhaps you can garner evidence that this party are far-right extremists hiding their agenda behind the words Sandypine posted?

Otherwise, we can strike that off as unsubstantiated, bias opinion from you. 

Not so, my opening comment was as regards the basis of the  'investigation' and the link to 'prove' that any group were far right based on a BBC investigation. This is the same BBC than managed to ignore accusations of widespread rape of young vulnerable girls and acted  to see those making such accusations in court as racists and hate mongers in a similar investigation; the same BBC that cannot call a terrorist a terrorist and produce mealy mouthed totally inaccurate reasons as to why not, that any half interested person could put their fingers on as rampant hypocrisy; the same BBC who are supposed to 'assess' scientific and political reports as they are produced and rarely assess any that indicate badness or extremism from the right or that climate change is going to end the world shortly; the same BBC that overloaded stories of Brexit disaster imminent before and after the referendum and loaded all discussion with Remain advocates. I did however give you the good grace of reading it and assessing what it said and made comments accordingly I was hoping for the good grace to be reciprocated, in vain it seems
People have lost trust in the BBC based on experience over the last twenty to thirty years and some of the above are reasons why. Many people have been on the ground at various events and observed that editorially how the BBC present a situation was often at odds with personal experience. So a BBC investigation risks not being an unbiased investigation it starts as an investigation find a specific circumstance and report that alone. As I said if I searched specifically for a Muslim extremist supporter in the Labour party I would probably find it but that is not an investigation of the  Labour party and I would be disingenuous if I said it was.