'What to do if Family Members Vote AfD? Visit a Counselling Centre'

Believe it or not, this is perhaps the most telling piece of nonsense you're going to read about the German election mania

There’s literally nothing good or bad that can be said about the German election that hasn’t been mentioned one way or another already.

Hence, today we’ll do one more posting about this insanity festival before moving on to other topics for a few days.

Today, I’ll have a nice one for you: the first time in my memory that this has happened in Germany, Watson.de sent someone to therapy over family members voting for AfD.

This ‘crazy uncle' [insert name]’ trope has a long history in American TV and culture, and, of course, Europeans have long looked upon variations of ‘how to get through Thanksgiving with your crazy uncle [insert name]’, and we’ve done so with exquisite, if condescending, bewilderment.

Now, however, it looks like the shoe’s on the other foot, hence let’s find out just how much humour our German friends have.

Lastly, I’m unsure if this entire piece below isn’t satire; it could very well be, but then again, I’m also aware, and keenly so, of the limits of German humour.

Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine. Enjoy ^_^.

---

What to do if Family Members Vote AfD? Visit a Counselling Centre

Via Watson.de, 22 Feb. 2025 [source]

I would say that I am a family person. I actually like being surrounded by the people who raised me. I really do [eigentlich], but in recent years things have become unpleasant at the well-laid dinner table as soon as things got political [I kinda feel you, unnamed writer, as family members bring up topics (e.g., the modRNA poison/death juice) and as soon as I respond, the subject is changed; or I’m literally called a few names…].

Racist and sexist slogans are now part of the standard repertoire. Almost every man in my family votes for AfD and almost the entire world view of the party, parts of which are firmly on the far right [that is the mantra, which must be totem-like embraced in all utterances, as if to make oneself believe it’s actually true (hi, George Lukács and your reification theorem)], has been adopted.

When I try to argue against this, I’m told: ‘You’re young and stupid. We have life experience, you don’t’ [fun fact: one of my younger, very ‘woke™’ brothers, is typically the one losing his shit and starts yelling]. They demote me to the little princess that I always was and always will be for them. So what can I do? Are there any strategies that have already proved successful here? [have a better argument?]

I think it’s not just hate that drives them, but also care: as if they actually wanted to protect me and my future. Instead, they do the opposite [note—while I don’t know who penned this piece, I suppose it is about this trope: ‘If you're not a socialist before you're twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head’ (change my mind)].

They were the ones who created a world in which I could grow up carefree. And they are the ones who are destroying this world by putting a cross on the ballot paper—without even realising it. What the hell am I supposed to do now? [huhum, perhaps you acting all ‘carefree’ was a series of bad choices and now you’re struggling with the consequences of your actions?]

My Last Hope: Counselling Against Right-Wing Extremism

I stand in front of the Treffpunkt, a historic place in the centre of Berlin, with this question. I read quotes from famous people emblazoned on the façade. It’s cold outside, so I walk in quickly.

Janine Budich is waiting for me in the foyer. I talk to her and Matthias Müller from the Mobile Counselling Centre against Right-Wing Extremism Berlin (MBR) about my situation today. Since 2001, they have been a contact point for anyone who wants to become confident in speaking and acting on specific right-wing extremist, right-wing populist, racist and anti-Semitic issues [is there a thing one couldn’t approach these heroes of the working class?]. They tell me that the number of requests for counselling has increased in recent years.

What do I want anyway?

I explain my problem to the two of them. Then Matthias asks me what exactly I want.

I sigh. In my mind’s eye, (grand)parents appear, asking their grandchildren what they actually want for the future—and taking their worries seriously [this is shameless, as if her grandfather didn’t ask: I’m sure he did, and I’m equally confident that you, dear writer, didn’t like his answer].

I don’t want every family member to choose the same thing as me, I say [would be hard to coerce them to do so, albeit if done in the name of #ourdemocracy or whatever, I suppose one could pull this off mentally]. I wish they were more interested in what concerns me [these are the hard limits of narcissism: me, me, me, but why aren’t they more interested in me, me, me?]. That we—the younger ones in the family—are no longer sitting at the imaginary children’s table in their minds [you are, factually, because ‘your’ politics are driving Germany over the cliff]. Because apart from me, there’s also my cousin, my other cousin, and my boyfriend. I explain that I would like things to become more rational. No more enemy stereotypes, no more provocations [by whom? is not listening (on part of the grandparents) already a micro- or macro-aggression?].

Without Basic Values, Nothing Works

Matthias asks whether I would also like my positions to be adopted. I would be lying if I said that I wouldn’t like that [ah, so this is where the alleged ‘pushback’ stems from: you cannot convert your grandfather]. At least when it comes to my core values, such as acceptance, diversity, impartiality, and respect for others [all these things are, by logical deduction, ‘core values’ not shared by the author’s grandfather (I’ve rarely read something as mean-spirited and vile directed at one’s elders)].

Matthias has stuck post-its on the large whiteboard directly opposite me. He says that basic values can be defined within the family [but, you see, Matthias (if I may), then one would have to find a minimum compromise, which the author clearly doesn’t want to do…] The first 20 articles of the German constitution could be used as a guide. He explains:

Despite all the differences, there needs to be a framework. This means that we may have different ideas on how to deal with the existential crisis [remember, it’s a dinner conversation], the climate crisis, or the economy, but these fundamental values must not be called into question [so, who gets to decide these ‘core values’?]

Janine asks whether the democratic system itself is rejected within my family [lol, this is getting way more stupid by the line]. I hesitate. I actually have the feeling that they want a direct democracy with referendums at federal level, which is what the AfD and others want. In their eyes, our parliamentary system is much more a kind of sham democracy. As if we were only being indoctrinated with the illusion of being able to have a say in decisions [q.e.d., I’d add].

Janine says with relief that this is an important difference.

I interject that I fear they would still prefer a Germany without democracy but with AfD than a democratic Germany without AfD politics [you see, that is how #ourdemocracy works™].

My Love as Leverage Against my Family

Sometimes I would like to shake them or even threaten to break off contact [did the elders ever threaten that?]. But isn’t that ultimately counterproductive? Janine explains [the cult thinking]:

You have to take the desire to break off the relationship seriously and think it through for yourself. You have to communicate when red lines—both politically and in your dealings with someone—are repeatedly crossed. That’s something you have to work out for yourself, it’s different for everyone [spoken like a true cult (sub)leader].

Nevertheless, it doesn’t have to mean breaking off the relationship. Instead, I could just end the conversation or leave the party. She advises me to always remain objective and specific [lol; good luck].

I can also be brash. However, wishes and emotional needs could also create pressure on the other party [see, it’s the same with other opinions or voting preferences in #ourdemocracy]. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to want to be recognised and to express this. Sometimes, however, you have to say something three or four times before it is recognised [or still ignored].

Tips for Family Reunions: Small Groups, New Seating Arrangements

According to Janine and Matthias, it can help to concentrate on smaller groups for the time being instead of discussing dicey topics in large groups. In general, they advise me to avoid debates if alcohol is involved.

Matthias suggests sitting down in a more mixed group at parties. We young, non-right-minded people in the family could discuss things in advance and then pass the ball to each other [sure, treat granny’s 80th birthday like you would approach, say, a pro-AfD march in Berlin: it’s going to be a blast]. It is also important to set the topics ourselves—and then involve the others [in case you’ve not read it yet, here’s Rule No. 10 by Saul Alinsky: ‘The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.’ (Wikipedia)].

Is empathy perhaps the right approach to start a conversation, I ask. Janine says yes. Asking questions is also good so that I can better assess the situation. Matthias adds:

You can show measured understanding, but you should reject these generalisations and also repeatedly counter them with your own narratives so that these supposedly plausible arguments also have a counterpart. For example, a personal experience that is different [Rules No. 12 and 13 read: ‘The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative’, and ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’]

I go through the situation mentally and get a lot of headwind. Janine explains that this is difficult to endure and that I need to be in a good mood myself.

However, crisis rhetoric is no longer an option, explains Matthias. It’s more about feelings or perceived truths than facts [like, the wonderful make-believe world of young, hip, lefties from Berlin?] I also encounter this in my family time and again. For example, when people claim that there is no more freedom of speech.

Janine presents me with a circular model that depicts right-wing extremism in four different degrees of ideological density, integration, and organisation [sadly, there’s no picture of this ‘circular model’]. At the very centre is the deep right-wing extremist circle, which is professionally organised and rhetorically skilled:

You can’t get into any kind of conversation there at all. These are people who want to take up space to spread their propaganda.

The further out on the fringes, the less people are taken in by far-right thinking. My family is on the outside [do we know this for sure?], which is why it is important to stay in dialogue with each other so that they don’t slip into the inside.

As I leave the building, I am once again met with icy cold, but the sun is shining on my face. The conversation with Janine and Matthias has given me hope—even if not for the upcoming election. But I leave the conversation with the certainty that Germany will vote again in 2029. And hopefully I will have made the most of the time between now and then.

---

Bottom Lines

It’s hard to find more absurd, projection-rife pieces, with perhaps the ‘Nazi-O-Meter’ of yesteryear serving as close runner-up:

Are you a Nazi? Stern 'Journo' Stephan Maus is Happy to Help you find out…

The most striking aspect here is that I actually sympathise with the author to a certain degree—even though it’s typically yours truly who’s on the receiving end of a lot of snark (bring it on) and name-calling. It’s rare to hear any kind of counter-argument, hence the name-calling (that’s also true for job-related meetings).

So, what else can we deduce?

The education system is in tatters, and the echo chambers of esp. legacy media journos™ must be getting ever smaller and smaller.

I’m unsure if I would seek counselling or therapy over anyone’s opinions; I also sleep quite well, but then again, I also work all day and spend a good deal of time outside. If I would be living in Berlin, write for such media outlets during the day and ‘hang’ around bars in hip quarters at night, I think I’d be losing my marbles, too.

So, here’s to many more of such absurd pieces, for they offer tremendous insights into the inner workings (sic) of those who, in this day and age, are trying to make it in legacy media.

Change will come soon, and the main question on my mind right now is this: will AI™ be as creatively lunatic once the Borg™ will have taken over ‘journalism’?