YHK - yet another hacker news clone

My point was that this news is of the hack, and not of bombshell revelations from the emails themselves, which kind of indicates there's nothing there.

If you found the smoking gun, you would say "look I found a smoking gun!".

So the leakers may have already been under some pressure to not end up in jail for doing the right thing.

it also dates back to the funding times of the AfD at which point the AfD had not yet been clearly right radical, but a side publishing it might very well be scanned by bots and then someone decent who was shortly a member during the early days and left due realizing this is going in a very bad direction might "permanently" be described as AfD member or similar in search, agent questions, e.g. done when they look for a new job

but I think the more relevant point here is probably the reduction of legal consequences and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever provided the site and the hacker are two different entities

lastly this seem to have been an exceedingly trivial but AI supported hack, so there is some chance the was done by a young and very inexperienced person who got more then they bargained for and try to somehow balance personal risk with the hope that this helps with convincing more people how bad the AfD is or similar

either-way multiple new sites and other sources have downloaded the sources and verified random samples where possible and it seem the dump is actually fully authentic

AfD is a right-wing nationalist party which - like many if not most right-wing parties - does have its cadre of people with more extreme views. There'll be right-wing extremists in CDU/CSU (Christian democrats and Christian social union) as well but far fewer than in AfD since that party is more right-wing than CDU and CSU.

The same is true for left-wing parties like the communist party which calls itself 'Die Linke' where you'll find a large host of extremists. It also happens to be the party which under another name was responsible for the Stalinist government of what was ironically called the 'German Democratic Republic', three words with only one - German - being truthful. The same goes for Die Grünen (the greens) which is a far-left party grown out of the environmentalist movement which has taken up the 'progressive omnicause' of climate, migration and "palestine" as their leitmotif. You'll find left-wing extremists in the SPD (social democrats) as well but far fewer than in Die Linke and Die Grünen since those parties are further to the left.

As to AfD as a party being "far-right", well... not really. Their program isn't extreme right-wing, it mixes centre-right with centre-left policies. Their leader, Alice Weidel isn't extreme right-wing - she'd have to banish herself for being a lesbian in a union with another lesbian which tends to not go over that well in far-right circles. What supposedly makes them "far-right" is the same as which supposedly makes other similar parties in other countries - PVV in the Netherlands, SD in Sweden, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Reform in the UK, RN in France etc. - fit under that category: their stance on migration from mostly non-western, largely islamic countries. They oppose such migration because they consider the large influx of people who either do not want to assimilate or integrate or, even if they wanted to do so can not due to their sheer numbers as a threat to their cultures and societies. Many people agree with these positions which has given these parties a boost and often brought them into significant minority to actual majority positions. This is seen as a threat by those who consider immigration from those regions and cultures to be necessary for some reason - Protestant Christian idealism, import of new voters to replace the traditional workers who moved to AfD and similar parties, payment of some imagined debt of honour related to historical colonialism, import of conflicting cultures to destabilise society (i.e. 'deconstruction') to make it ready for revolution, etc. - giving rise to the application of labels like "far-right" - especially powerful in a country like Germany which has been ruled by extremists (left and right) before with disastrous results for both the country as well as the world - to dissuade people from voting for them. Since these groups tend to have control over most of the mass media they have used them to try to convince the populace that these parties need to be banished, forbidden, excluded and shunned.

What these "progressives" do not seem to have counted with is the strong rise of such parties every time they urged them to be excluded, disbanded or forbidden. Disbanding a party which only gets a few votes is doable given the control these groups have over the mass media. Doing the same to a party which gets 1/3 of the vote is a wholly different thing and raises the question who is the more "extreme", the "progressives" who want to use what are considered to be "Soviet-style" tactics to get rid of their opposition or the parties threatened with banishment? It gets even more fraught with error when those "progressives" call for the protection of "Our Democracy". Whose democracy is it, who is the "δῆμος" (dèmos, ancient Greek for "ordinary citizens" or "common people") they're talking about? If those ordinary citizens want to vote the opposition into power should they be allowed to do so? The answer is clearly "yes" for those who take the word Democracy seriously but just as clearly "no" for those who consider their own ideology more important than the will of the masses. These "progressives" often claim that once parties like AfD come into power they'll get rid of "Our Democracy" as a justification why they should not be allowed to participate in elections and, should they happen to have been able to do so and won a large number of votes their representatives should be excluded from any and all positions of power. Again, Quo Vadis, Democratia?

Even if the risk were real, should a democracy be allowed to vote itself out of existence by handing over power to one of the extremist groups whether those be far-right, far-left, islamic or otherwise? Is Popper's paradox of tolerance for the intolerant to be ignored?

But that's not an infinite excuse to extrapolate from one person's statement to the whole of uk political establishment. Not to mention he's not a totally neutral party either. According to wikipedia he's against the conservative party and supports Reform UK.

"In 2025 he dropped calls for the creation of a start-up party to replace the Tories and in a blog post in March talked up Reform UK."

> b) he didn't resign in disgrace.

You're right. I edited my comment.