I have never learnt to bike with hands on the handle

my hands at 10 to 10

I’m not sure if you are a terrible driver and bad typer or great driver and good typer…

1. Claiming the BfV is biased against the AfD has to be your attempt at satire. The same BfV that was run by Maaßen for 6 years? The same BfV that covered up their involvement with the NSU?

2. For the assessment of the BfV the publicly stated policy goals of the AfD may or may not have mattered (if I wanted to destroy German democracy I wouldn’t write that into my election program either). The BfV has come to the conclusion that the AfD’s actual goals are incompatible with the FDGO, because they are based on their understanding of what “German” means (which for the AfD is primarily an ethnic designation).

3. Here are two examples of policies that the AfD fought for (its from their Grundsatzprogramm):

• No more citizenship for persons who are born in Germany and reach adulthood while living here unless one of their parents is German. This is discrimination based on ethnicity. This violates Art.3 Abs. 3 of the Grundgesetz.
• AfD wants to suspend the right to Asylum. This violates Art 16a, Abs 1 of the Grundgesetz.

“The ethnicity-and ancestry-based conception of the people that predominates within the party is not compatible with the free democratic order,”

The report was intended for publication at a later date specifically because it had not passed the full review process yet. That’s why it’s not public. A news magazine with a reputation for investigative reporting (think German NYT but a bit more conservative leaning) has gotten their hands on at least part of the report and chose to write about it.

That is why the report is not public (yet), because it is still undergoing the internal audits you are asking for.

Yes it matters how it’s done. And they are trying to do it right. How the report got to the magazine and the motives of potential leakers are pure speculation at this point.

From what I have read (hence from what is known) it’s a 1000 page document compiled by an organisation that has had it in the past trouble when it came to persecuting right wing extremism (they covered up their involvement with a right wing terror group and a former head of the BfV was kicked out for passing information about the early stages of this investigation into the AfD to the AfD, to name just two recent examples).

If such a report makes it through such an organisation I expect it to hold more than just hear say and speculation.

no legal implications follow from this report,

That is not entirely correct. If the BfV internally accepts the report as factual it can use a wider array of tools to observe and investigate the AfD. It’s content could (again, after the review process has been completed) be published and used as evidence for administrative and legal proceedings of whatever nature. (eg a prospective teacher was prohibited from joining the Bavarian education system because of her left wing extremist political views. If the AfD is classified as a right wing extremist organisation the same could happen to AfD members).

The Bundesverfassungsschutz has released a 1000 page report detailing their investigation and assessment. I find it unsurprising that the AfDs advertising material for an election hides their anti democratic aspects.

No. Banning opposition parties BECAUSE THEY ARE OPPOSITION PARTIES would be undemocratic. Banning opposition parties because they are anti democratic is not.

What you are saying is like “killing someone is murder”, while ignoring the fact that self defence is a thing that happens, is legal and is moral and IS NOT MURDER.

Germany is Europes biggest country by population and GDP (not counting Russia and Turkey for population). It makes perfect sense for them to be the biggest spenders on defence as well.

Ironically the ultra right wing AfD party is actually against the rearmament, but that is mostly because they are Putin’s puppets. (They claim fiscal responsibility concerns but this is a laughably transparent excuse)

This is very much not that!

A government hosted service would have to be in compliance with record keeping requirements. Conversations like this chat group are subject to the presidential records act and would need to be kept in case of future FOIA requests.

Signal does not do that. In fact, Signal can’t do that (because they can’t see the messages). So using Signal instead of proper government communications channels is a deliberate way to not leave a paper trail. Almost like they think they have something to hide.

I trust the French government more than I trust Google. But the good news is, you don’t have to: its fully open source and you can self host. Instructions are available here: https://github.com/suitenumerique/docs/tree/main/docs