Volker Schnurrbusch, October 8, 2025, EU Digital Rules

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)10-08(3-0217-0000). 

Frau President. Valued colleagues.

The core of the EU is the Common Market. Yet what does this Commission do? It builds one hurdle after another. It would be nice if we too had a Silicon Valley. Yet instead of complaining that a few U.S. firms dominate the tech market and the platforms, it would be the duty of the EU to promote the entrepreneurial spirit which first made this dominance possible. Why does the risk capital flow to California and Texas and not to Germany and France? Why do IT professionals emigrate from Asia to the U.S.A. and not here? Why do we experience the emigration of our programmers? 

Because this Commission is hostile to business and growth; because it constructs ever higher bureaucratic hurdles; because it understands the market not as the exchange of ideas but as something un-regulated which is to be surveilled. Thus it invents tools like the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. The EU wants to control, it blocks entrepreneurial freedom, and it wants to censor freedom of opinion on the internet so that only its own propaganda will be spread, as in Roumania, as in Moldavia, as in Georgia, and lastly also in the Ukraine. We reject that. 

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Espendiller, September 16, 2025, Fiscal Policy, II

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/23, pp. 2316-2317. 

…We here in Germany need to do our household chores, and we require the money, much too much of which at the moment is being transferred to the European Union, in our own country. We therefore reduce our contribution to the EU by about 18 billion euros. And now one may call  me out, that it does not go, there are binding treaties. Then good, it agrees with the treaties. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Ach!

Yet treaties are not laws of nature and can be changed. Best example: Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady” of Great Britain. When it was very bad in her country, she negotiated with the EU and extracted the so-called “British rebate”. Great Britain thus every year saved billions in contributions to the EU. Why should that not also work for Germany? Germany is ultimately the largest net payer to the EU and the stability anchor in the euro area. When Germany falls, the euro also falls. And against this background, we are very optimistic that the EU would prefer to agree with Germany rather than lose us completely. It thus may go, if one really wants to. 

Where do we save? The Federal government provides a large portion of its new debts for military expenditures. As you know, we have ever criticized the bad equipment of the Bundeswehr and committed ourselves in recent years to corresponding budget increases. Yet the present Federal government here exceeds every reasonable measure and schedules for this year debt-financed increases which, in fact, it simply cannot expend this year. For this reason, we in an AfD budget expend 10.7 billion euros less for military spending and thereby come to a total outlay in the defense area of 76.9 billion euros. And that is again very much money. Yet also in the following years, the Federal government in the military area simply wants to expend too much and too quickly. Decades-long shortcomings plainly cannot be compensated with a wave of the hand. 

Yet you not only thereby worsen Germany’s position, but also with delivery of military material to the Ukraine. In 2025, you want to spend all of 8.7 billion euros for the weapons deliveries to the Ukraine. And these costs we eliminate completely. You only prolong the unnecessary dying in the Ukraine. Besides, the Ukrainians themselves have meanwhile grasped this, which is why the number of deserters ever further increases. Yet that interests no one in the government, because reason is on vacation. 

Less reasonable besides are the exorbitant costs for a misguided climate policy. We do not at all save the climate with the deconstruction of industry in Germany. Here too, the red pencil. And we therefore can save with the elimination of the senseless climate projects of the climate and transformation funds around 37.6 billion euros, and indeed completely. 

Still what? The Sozial budget of Bärbel Bas is next, which blows up in our faces. It is absolutely right that we support the pension account with tax monies. That, our pensioners after a life of hard work have honestly earned. Yet it is wrong that we extend it, at the cost of the working middle, to millions of Bürgergeld recipients who are fully capable of earning. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): That’s just not right! What nonsense                                                are you then telling?

Moreover, it thus comes to that around 50 percent of the Bürgergeld recipients have a foreign citizenship. That is further evidence for the uncontrolled mass immigration into our social system. By means of a corresponding adjustment of our laws, we may end this social injustice, and here save an additional 14.6 billion euros. 

And still more money is to be found in the Federal budget: One billion euros as a “reconciliation payment” to Namibia can, for various reasons, go. 

In regards the political foundations, we eliminate means to the sum of 444 million euros. In addition, the Federal government plans to expend one billion euros for the performance of integration courses. The driver’s license in Germany needs to be paid by oneself; we can thus expect a German course will be paid by oneself if then one wants to have the German citizenship. 

The Union-led Federal government in addition herein continues to breed its own political opponents and carry on the financing of the leftist “Democracy Lives” programs. With its abolition, we save an additional 200 million euros. 

This and much more we can eliminate and, except for a few lobby groups, no one in Germany would notice. 

Yet what millions of people in Germany would notice in the purse are the reliefs of our AfD budget, the key points of which I want to here go into. 

We are of the opinion that the present climate policy damages the economic position and burdens the consumers with charges. The CO₂ price and the CO₂ emissions trade we therefore eliminate completely. 

And the trucking fee we cut by around 2.25 billion euros so as to lower the transportation costs in Germany. Everyone who drives to work with an auto, or who plans the next large purchase for the family, will notice that in the supermarket balance. These alone are 23 billion euros of relief for the consumers in Germany. 

And while we’re especially on the families: When both parent spouses are earning so as to feed the family and somehow pay for their own home, the budget account also suffers under the enormously high non-wage costs [Lohnnebenkosten]. This money does not at all land in one’s own account, but goes directly to the state. In our finance planning, enough money is available so that we can stabilize the social security system with 7.7 billion euros. This would prevent that in this year the contribution rate and with it the non-wage costs increase, and that keeps workplaces in Germany. 

Yet not only duties, but also taxes we in our AfD budget can properly save. Alone in regards the wages tax, that is one billion euros. With the income tax, we come to around two billion euros on top of that.  And the enormous burden on our Mittelstand we can reduce with three billion euros in the corporate tax. And the solidarity surtax with 12.45 billion euros we can completely eliminate. Work shall again pay. 

And we also want that good earners continue to remain in the country and plainly not – as presently – in large numbers of around 200,000 men and women each year leave our country, and thereby as contribution- and tax-payers permanently fall out of our social system. 

By means of the lowering of the CO₂ duty and the wage tax, together with the other measures, the small earners at the same time will be relieved by us, so that they can again live from their own income. 

All together, we relieve the citizens with 66.1 billion euros in our draft budget. That is impressive! 

In sum: Saving is something for the advanced. We have shown there is an alternative to limitless debt creation, and put forward a reform budget which we will also still further construct. We are convinced: This is the draft which Germany now needs, and which has what it takes to kindle a dynamic and again bring our economy into the running. 

The AfD is ready, and we hope the Union soon gives up its failed experiment with the SPD so as to include itself in the rescue mission for our country. We can, simply and profoundly, no longer afford this firewall. 

 

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, September 11, 2025, European University Alliances

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)09-11(4-0024-0000). 

Herr President. 

We’ve heard it from Frau von der Leyen: The EU wants more sovereignty, more power, more centralization. So as to achieve this, all will be instrumentalized, even education. 

Yes, student mobility by means of Ersamus+ is a good thing. Yet the true sense of the European University alliances is another thing; it shall give rise to a Europe-wide, post-secondary [Hochschul] education conforming to the EU, with EU study courses for ideological programs like green transformation, etc. And universities, once they are dependent on the EU promotion pot, no longer get loose – whose bread I eat, his song I sing. Where that leads, the Bologna process has shown: To a bureaucratic schooling of post-secondary studies which has driven out of the universities the spirit that made Europe great and upon which the EU unjustly calls. 

In fact, the European universities fall ever further back in the international rankings, and the level of our qualification [Abschlüsse] becomes ever worse. Authentic excellence is not achieved by such university alliances, but by optimal conditions for leading researchers, selection of the best students without quota mania and free from ideological guidelines.

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Espendiller, September 16, 2025, Fiscal Policy, I

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/23, pp. 2314-2316. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear spectators in the hall and at the screens. 

The budget consultations for the 2025 Federal budget lay behind us, and for us in the AfD Bundestag delegation, in regards these consultations, was precisely one, single question decisive: How can we financially relieve the citizens and the economy. For this of all is exactly the decisive question: What can we do for the citizens and the economy so as to finally relieve them from the high taxes and duties. This question we need to answer. And for my delegation, I can say: We have answered this question. 

Seen fiscally, the essence of our state, simply said, rests on two pillars. That is for one, the demography; and that is for the other, a functioning economy with sufficient jobs. 

As everyone in the country knows, the demographic development has for us as a state long since slipped away. The birthrate in the year 2024 has again fallen, and currently lies at 1.35 children which a woman has on average in Germany. That means for our levy-financed pension system, sufficient contribution payers are no longer available. And that, in turn, means that at some time sufficient people will no longer be there who generate for our people their pensions. 

For the pension is plainly no credit, but one pays with his contributions the pensions of others, and indeed in the hope that later, when one is himself at pension age, the younger may generate the pension for oneself. That this at some time for Germany becomes a problem is for long recognized. And for just as long was nothing actually done about it. Yet the day of the Big Bang is meanwhile no longer at a far distance, but one can now already very well see it. 

The 2025 Federal budget pension grant runs to, believe it or not, 134.4 billion euros. That corresponds to 25.8 percent of expenditures from the core budget; thus, an entire quarter. Taken from the total tax revenue of the Federal government, the quota for the pension grant contributes even 34.7 percent. That is to say, that from the entire tax revenue of the Bund, every third euro flows as an added contribution into the Pension Insurance. And we speak not of an upper, luxury pension, but of a pension level of 48 percent. 

In that the demography has long since slipped away from us, we are therein reliant on that the second pillar of our system functions: The economy. Without a properly running economy which offers enough jobs, I also have no more contribution payers who finance the pensions of our seniors, and I also have no more tax revenue from which every third euro can be stuck in the pension. 

In regards the health contribution, there is besides exactly the same basic problem; which is namely financed also by contribution payers. When we in Germany have fewer jobs, then we have fewer contributions for our sickness insurance, and then arise also the financing gaps. Since the number of insured and of treatments do not, ja, decrease. On the contrary, also here, everything becomes more expensive. Alone in the statutory sickness insurance in the coming year, 6.3 billion euros are lacking. In the year after, 12 billion are lacking, the year after 18 billion, and at the end of the legislature it is 24 billion euros. 

These holes I can either fill by which I increase the contribution amount for the insured. That would however make more expensive the labor factor which now already is no longer at a competitive price. Or I need also here again to go with tax money. 

The situation is in any case dramatic, and we are directly in a rapidly intensifying fiscal crisis. For us as the AfD delegation is it thereby clear as sunshine that a reasonable Politik needs now set everything, without compromise, on the stimulation of the economy, since that which in no case may happen is that still more jobs are lost to us which would have a consequence that we have still fewer contribution payers for our pension and sickness insurance systems. 

We in the AfD have told you all of this in the last ten years here, and said what you need do so as to prevent this downfall. Yet you did not want to listen. I have still well before my eyes the statements of the political competitors and of the mainstream press that the evil AfD paints the devil on the wall and with fear-mongering hunts for votes. That would certainly not at all agree with the bad economic situation. – Yet we knew that we were right. You needed to concede that this summer, since the Federal Statistics Office has subjected its numbers since 2008 to a “reappraisal”, and – hoopla! – it at once came out that we since 2023 are not in a situation of economic stagnation, but are stuck knee-deep in a recession. That which was plainly just Fake News has thus now become reality. 

During this phase of statistical denial of reality, valuable time has been lost in our country. The last three years, thus the time of the Ampel  government, was the time that the rudder in Germany would have been able, and needed to be, turned about. It needs be said quite clearly: Now for some comes any help too late; and from now on, it becomes really unpleasant; since the money is gone. It is gone, and it does not come again. 

The country’s citizens are fully right to rage over that. Yet the hard reality is: It helps not at all. We need to so deal with this situation as it now is, and here we all again sit in the same boat, whether one wants that or not. 

With our programmatic approaches we could in the last budget years still achieve savings relatively easily. Yet for us now will it become more difficult. Precisely here besides, the good, old debt brake would now come strongly to bear. Since it forces politicians who simply cannot say no to nevertheless give consideration to where one could then save, and what of all could then be structurally changed. 

            Markus Frohnmaier (AfD): So it is!

This Federal government freed itself from this constraint, as you know, with its debt putsch and unashamedly piled up the most crass indebtedness which this country has ever seen. Yet we of the AfD delegation have ourselves further enjoined this same restraint and maintain in our budget plan the original debt brake. 

And despite that, we would relieve the citizens and the economy. How do we do this? We have presented a total of 1,000 motions to amend the Federal budget: In Herr Klingbeil’s draft budget, we can dispense with 111 billion euros from his state expenditures in this year. 

Where then do we see the greatest savings potential? Let us begin with the payments to the European Union. In the 2025 draft budget, the Federal government plans payments in the sum of 33.7 billion euros to Brussels. This EU payment shall next year rise a further 14 billion euros to 47.7 billion euros – quite as if money here in Germany simply grows on trees. Yet each year there flows back to Germany just some 12 billion euros. And thus we finance every year with two-figure billions in contributions to whichever bureaucrat who regulates our cucumbers and deposit bottle caps. And from that, we have purely nothing. 

Far worse is that the EU in addition also wants to destroy our automobile sector with a combustion engine Verbot. 3.2 million jobs are here in play. What that means for our country, I have plainly explained to you. 

While the German economy thus shrinks, we in addition subsidize with our EU contributions our EU neighboring countries to which our firms now emigrate. Inquire for once at Schöneck in the Vogtland how one finds it that the firm TechniSat closes its plant there, all co-workers are laid off, and the production will now be shifted to Poland – and that, after the co-workers there for 33 long years have performed truly good work. 

That may no longer continue...

[trans: tem]

René Aust, September 10, 2025, State of the European Union

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV (2025)09-10(3-0025-0000). 

Frau President. 

Europe, that was once a dream: A continent in which families could win by work a house of their own; a continent which was the motor of worldwide progress; a Europe in which women could live safely, the poor were secured by good sozial legislation, and young people had the opportunity to build by their own work a good life. 

Yet this dream has been destroyed by politicians like Angela Merkel and Ursula von der Leyen. While the world economy grew and new markets arose, Europe regressed. Who wants to know why, he need only attend again to the previous speech of Ursula von der Leyen. Not a single time did she mention the core of the market economy – business freedom – but, for that, a central planned program of billions – bureaucracy from above to below. Yet prosperity arises through work, through innovation, through entrepreneurial courage, not through Ursula von der Leyen’s five-year plan. 

And in the migration policy, the dreams of Europe have been severely damaged. Enrichment was promised. The reality: Knife attacks, terrorism, rape, drug gangs from Spain, Italy, through Germany to Rotterdam and Malmö. And in Brussels, where the EU ever still preaches diversity, the Belgian government seriously considers an army mission so as to at all be able to protect the capital city from the violence of migrant gangs. 

And Frau von der Leyen? She ever still speaks in melodious marketing phrases. She speaks of unity on our own continent. Which however will only be when finally on this continent the persecution of opposition ceases. In Roumania, elections were rescinded; in France and Germany, candidates were excluded from elections. 

If you want unity, then we need to return to democracy and freedom of opinion. On that account, we say: Yes to industrial workplaces which emit CO₂; no to chat controls and censorship; yes to remigration in all of Europe, and no to Ursula von der Leyen. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Alice Weidel, September 17, 2025, Kirk, Migration, Budget, War

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/24, pp. 2455-2456. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The citizens are becoming impatient, Herr Merz. They are waiting for you to bestir yourself from your self-complacency and a leftist-green denial of reality. 

Not a word from you on the insidious political murder of Charlie Kirk whose death has shocked not only the U.S.A.. He was a conservative, a believing Christian, a courageous defender of the values for which your party for long once stood. Charlie Kirk was a convinced champion of free speech and of open debate with all, even with those who think differently. He wanted to convince and not exclude and, for that, needed to die. 

Why you are silent lies at hand. For you, radical leftist parties count as a so-called political middle, parties like the Greens and the Linke whose youth party up to the leadership the murder of a conservative Christian cynically trivialize, justify or even approve. 

Some of those want to take up arms when the election results do not suit them, shoot the rich, or stick in work camps, or adopt harsher action like Frau Reichinnek – what is thereby always meant. For Herr von Aken, leftist crimes serve the common good. 

            Cansin Kökturk (Linke): Speak to the theme!

The leftist terrorist Antifa provide the militant troops. When skull and joint, families and life, are smashed, Frau Göring-Eckardt pays her respects to the perpetrators. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): What, please? That is unheard of!

What leftist activists dressed up as journalists have done lately strengthens us to abolish public broadcasting compulsory financing. No one should be forced to pay for inhuman malice and the glorification of violence. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): What else do you do here, then?

You however, Herr Merz, beg in these left-green camps for support of judicial elections and manipulations of the constitution. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Fire-starting! That is what you do!

That also well explains why you still say nothing on the escalation of leftist violence. Where  remains your clear condemnation of left-extremist acts of arson and sabotage which damage vital infrastructure, paralyze important railways and cause day-long electricity outages, as recently in Berlin as tens of thousands of households were cut off from the electricity supply, and small merchants and businesses needed to accept existence-threatening losses? 

Until today you also have found no word of compassion and of the responsibility for the murder of young Liana who was tossed in front of a freight train in Friedland by a rejected, repeat offender, Iraqi asylum applicant. Liana stands for the much too many people who since the fatal „Wir schaffen das” of your party friend Angela Merkel need lose their lives as victims of the unregulated, illegal, negligent policy of open borders and mass migration: Attacked, robbed, raped, killed by people who ought never have come to our country, 

            Cansin Kökturk (Linke): You spread lies!

by illegal migrants who long since would have needed to be gotten out of the country. 

More than 2,000 women since 2015 have become victims of sexual assaults by migrants – the statistics record as before two gang rapes per day; this especially horrific crime has just in the last ten years become an authentic epidemic. Dozens of knife attacks every day, all too often with fatal outcomes, women who no longer dare to be on the streets or in public transportation, 

            Zada Salihović (Linke): On account of men!

no-go areas, and schools in which the last native children are mercilessly bullied and mobbed. 

The politically willed loss of control simply continues and with it the Politik of sweet-talking and lies, of looking away and a closing of eyes. It plainly does not suffice to order with a lot of noise random border controls and to stage rejections by which 98 percent of illegal asylum migrants are certainly not affected. It also does not suffice to restrict for a short time a small few of family reunions by which as before a large city each year immigrates. 

            Cansin Kökturk (Linke): That is the falsehood!

Sporadic deportation flights to Afghanistan with some dozens of murderers and rapists with pocket money also impresses no one when your Foreign Minister at the same time has Afghan extended families flown in with the acceptance permits of his Green predecessor in office. 

            Cansin Kökturk (Linke): That is the falsehood!

With alibi measures and symbol politics you cannot in the long-term lead the citizens behind the lights, who of course precisely note that nothing changes in the desolate situation. 

An authentic migration change requires an overall concept as follows: 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): When your own people are disturbed by the speech,                    then it must be frightful! 

            President Julia Klöckner: Excuse me, I want to quickly clarify something.                            I here require no attendant session chairmanship [betreute Sitzungsleitung],                            regardless by which delegation. You have the word, Frau Dr. Weidel. 

            Bernd Baumann (AfD): It’s about the heckling which you haven’t punished!

An authentic migration change requires an overall concept as follows: Border completely and seamlessly closed, those entering illegally without adequate papers and not entitled to asylum turned back without exception, stop family reunions, naturalization at the earliest after ten years, examination of irregularities in regards residency permits and naturalizations, immediate, consistent deportation without exception of delinquent foreign citizens not entitled to residency, confinement of social benefits to the minimal payment period – since no one has a right to social benefits when he has never paid into our social system. 

To that applies: Benefits in kind instead of money for asylum applicants and refugees, and definitely no Bürgergeld for Ukrainian citizens. 

The unrealized migration change is not the only election promise which you have broken, Herr Merz. You have broken namely every election promise. Return of nuclear power: Prior to the election, promised; later, denied. Abolition of the heating law: Prior to the election, promised; later, denied. Abolition of the combustion engine Verbot: Prior to the election, promised; later, denied. 551 questions: No answers; instead, still more money for leftist lobby NGOs. Debt brake: Prior to the election, promised; by financial coup d’état after the election similarly annulled with the leftist majorities of an old Bundestag – instead, record indebtedness.   

Electricity tax reduction: Prior to the election, promised; later, denied. Bürgergeld reform: Instead of savings, still higher spending scheduled. The autumn of reform becomes the autumn of empty words, and it will lead to a winter of still higher expenditures. Tax relief: Prior to the election, promised; later, rejected. On the contrary, for citizens and business, the burden increases by means of the stepping up of social duties. 

The next CDU collapse is announced with the inheritance tax. In their insatiable greed for tax money, the SPD, Greens and Linke plan a new pillaging of the business Mittelstand and the hard earned and saved private assets of the bürgerliche middle class – and in which the CDU is already half-immersed. 

The result of the refusal of reform and the CDU’s serial collapses is a cobbled together, irresponsible budget without measure or purpose, which solves not a single problem but drives the crisis to the extreme. The consequence: Still greater gaps, still more debts for plugs. It is only a question of time until this crazy carousel throws you off. 

Instead of eliminating superfluous spending, you drive this still further to the heights: For the fiction of climate protection and the failed energy transition, you simply continue to manage the Green energy policy. For the watering of leftist non-governmental organizations, for absurd development aid projects, subventions, migration costs, for overdone payments to the EU, to international organizations and to all the world, you simply carry on aboard the green ship of fools. 

The producing industry you will thereby just so more reliably drive out of the country. Here helps also no auto or steel summit in the Chancellor’s Office. The big manufacturers still profit from the subventions and workplaces, and later they close the rear door on Deutschland. 

Before the approaching disaster and your plunging confidence values amongst the citizens, you flee into the pose of world politician and lord of war who moves about ghost armies in sandboxes and gives away to countries billions which he certainly does not have. 

With the French President Macron, who is stuck still deeper in a state indebtedness swamp, and the British premier Starmer, he whose own people no longer want, you have found the right soul mates. Your coalition of the willing is a coalition of the losers who, with backs to the wall, play with fire at a powder keg. You sabotage the strivings of U.S. President Donald Trump to quickly end the Ukraine war. – That you laugh is fully clear. 

You encourage the Ukrainian ruler Zelenskyi to oppose a painful yet rapid stop to the hundreds of thousands of deaths. And you conjure up the bogeyman of an immediately imminent Russian attack so as to have a pretense for your debt and spending orgies. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Not a critical word for Putin! Not a word on that!                                           Moscow’s voice!

With this warmongering, you risk the escalation of the Ukraine war to a uncontrollable world war which could annihilate our country. 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Embarrassing!

Your Defense Minister, Herr Pistorius of the SPD, 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): A good man!

especially distinguishes himself ingloriously in this roll of the dice. Instead of again making the Bundeswehr mission-capable, there is the War Minister and he links the debate on conscription with the enemy image of Russia. Herr Pistorius, the conscription is there alone to guarantee the army’s capability for national defense, without which a state will not be taken seriously in  foreign policy. It is never to be allowed to happen that our young men and sons, over a thoughtless quarrel, die in a war in the Ukraine. [Es darf niemals geschehen, dass unsere jungen Männer und Söhne in einem leichtfertig vom Zaun gebrochenen Krieg in der Ukraine sterben]. Never! 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Malign!

Leave this wrong way! Our country needs to concentrate its remaining economic and financial powers to again get back on its feet. A prerequisite for that is a solid and realistic draft budget. Our alternative budget shows in around 1,000 motions that this is possible and can be seriously counter-financed. 

We propose essential savings in regards climate transformation funds, Bürgergeld, development aid, EU payments, weapons deliveries, and various unnecessary state expenditures. And it would have been your duty to order a halt to the squandering of tax money, and to sustainably and effectively relieve the working people and German business. 

We as AfD are ready to come to grips where the Union and SPD are obviously neither willing nor in the position.           

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Um Gottes willen!

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christian Wirth, September 10, 2025, „Wir schaffen das“

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/20, pp. 1983-1984. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. 

Ten years ago, Merkel said, „Wir schaffen das“ [We can do it] – she opened the borders of our country without a mandate, 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): They were never closed!

without agreement with European neighbors, and without regard to law and statute. 

Today, ten years later, we draw a balance, and this balance is nothing less than dramatic. We experience at demonstrations on German streets how people march with Hamas flags, how slogans for the annihilation of Israel are chanted, and how terror organizations are openly celebrated. Jewish citizens no longer dare to openly wear their symbols such as kippa and the Star of David. Many avoid certain city quarters because they are no longer safe there. We experience also a clear increase in the violence against homosexuals. Instead of the variety and tolerance which she preached, she, with her devastating policy, has brought Germany fear and intimidation. 

The list of consequences continues almost without end. In public swimming pools, it routinely comes to sexual harassment and assaults. Gang rapes – until 2025, an almost unknown phenomenon – occur daily. Women and girls are displaced from public spaces, and the ostensibly feminist parties look away. Knife attacks almost daily belong in the police reports. Criminal clans control entire streets and quarters, threaten residents, and laugh over the weakness of the state. 

In our schools appears an especially oppressive picture. In many classes, German children are long since in the minority. They are ostracized, mocked and insulted as “potatoes”. They need to pay protection money or even forcibly convert. That is racism against Germans. Yet here is heard at best only a broad silence. 

During this time, the costs explode. Billions flow into social benefits, integration programs, language courses, housing, police and justice. Employees and families need to shoulder increasing contributions, while the promises of the Politik ring ever more hollow. 

We see polygamy which will be silently accepted. We see girls become the victims of genital mutilation – in the middle of Germany. We see Islamic hate preachers who work undisturbed and gain new adherents. And we need to experience terror attacks committed by perpetrators who only by means of Merkel’s 2015 border opening have at all come into the country. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): They were never closed! The borders were never closed!

Ladies and gentlemen, all of this is no accident, but the direct consequence of a decision which in 2015 was reached against the advice of all security authorities and against the will of the greater part of the population. „Wir schaffen das“ was not a revolt, but a capitulation – a capitulation before the illegal mass immigration, a capitulation before one’s own responsibility, a capitulation before the duty to protect our citizens. 

And while the problem year for year becomes greater, these same parties celebrate to this day  this wrong way as an ostensible humanitarian achievement. Enrichment is spoken of, while women in the evening can no longer go out unannoyed, 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): The problem is named men, and not foreigners! 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): You don’t have women in your own ranks!

while parents are afraid to send their children to playgrounds, while police in certain quarters can scarcely still act effectively, while security forces and rescue forces will be attacked without consequences. 

The German people in these ten years have paid a high price: The price of insecurity and fear, the price of dwindling trust in the state of law, the price of a deep social division. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): You manage a suspicion culture! You do that!

Thus I say clear and distinctly: Germany has not done it. Ten years of „Wir schaffen das“ have massively damaged our domestic peace and destroyed the people’s trust in the Politik. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Nay, you did that! It was you!

The AfD delegation therefore demands the consistent closing of borders for illegal migration, the deportation of all foreigners obliged to depart, the smashing of the clan structures, and the resolute protection of our children and families. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, „Wir schaffen das“ was a wrong way. The alternative is: We stop it. 

Many thanks and Glück auf! 

 

[trans: tem]

Christina Baum, July 10, 2025, Health Budget

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/18, p. 1856. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

At my husband’s latest hospital stay, he required for multiple days an antibiotic due to suspicion of a sepsis. One day, the infusion ran already for 15 minutes as a nurse, quite upset, came into  the room and replaced the infusion. He had been inadvertently given a wrong antibiotic. He survived. How many others not? In healthcare, any failure can be fatal – be it by insufficient qualification, lack of language knowledge, or an overload. 

As already in a few weeks may be seen with our new Health Minister, nothing unfortunately in the rundown state of our healthcare system will change. One of her first activities was a meeting with Bill Gates so as to pledge to continue the grandiose support for WHO and Global Health by German tax money. This shows that in the Health Ministry merely the megaphone was exchanged. The puppet masters in the back rooms who want to implement their globalist, supra-national interests 

            Felix Schreiner (CDU/CSU): Frau Baum, stop with your conspiracy theories!                        That is just unworthy for this house! 

know quite precisely that they can rely on the politicians of the old parties, regardless of which color. German interests first? Quite clearly not with this leftist coalition. 

In health policy, the AfD therefore remains the only alternative. In our budget, it thus appears so: Strengthening the international public health: 60.2 million euros – completely eliminated; Support of the WHO hub operations in Berlin: 30 million euros – eliminated; Financing pandemic-readiness contracts: 336 million euros – eliminated; Subsidies for fighting the outbreak of the new Corona virus: 60 million euros – eliminated; Subsidies for central procurement of vaccines: 427 million euros – eliminated; Membership contributions to the WHO: 36.3 million euros – superfluous, since the total organization in the existing form is to be rejected; Qualification in foreign countries for care occupations: 2 million euros – superfluous, because we train our care force in Germany itself. 

A concluding appeal I direct to you personally, Frau Warker. Show backbone for once in your life 

            Emmi Zeulner (CDU/CSU): Oh, that’s rather fierce! 

            Felix Schreiner (CDU/CSU): An outrage, Frau Baum!

and put in a protest so as to still prevent the entry into force of the international health guidelines, since these undermine our national sovereignty. Otherwise, you are completely superfluous. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Sergej Minich, July 10, 2025, Digitalization and CDU

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/18, pp. 1807-1808. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The Federal government has created a new ministry for digitalization and state modernization. The plans sound great: Less bureaucracy, more tempo, finally digital, the lean state as a goal. 

Yet how exactly should that be implemented? Citizens shall surrender their data just once, the so-called Once Only Principle. That means once I report my address or my income to the office, then the state itself should then pass it on – sounds logical, sounds good. The truth however is: The authorities have different standards. I still need to give it multiple times: Once for the taxes, once for parents funds and once for housing funds. That is no digitalization, that is data ping-pong. And it costs us, according to internal estimates, over one billion euros every year because everything runs in duplicate and triplicate. 

Digital administration – such a nice theme; it was mentioned – promised for years, that all can be settled on-line: Building permission, Kindergeld, re-registration. And what have we today? Instead of on-line service, many citizens receive a pdf for printing. That is like “say digital, but deliver by stagecoach.” Only around 100 of over 500 benefits are really digital. The goal was ruinously missed. And hundreds of millions of euros were put into advisors, platforms, projects which scarcely anyone uses. 

The same with bureaucracy deconstruction – it was mentioned today. The new Minister says: We make the administration simpler. How shall that go? New projects, new platforms, new rules, yet no real simplification. A start-up in Berlin requires 26 forms and five office visits. In Estonia: One click, 15 minutes, done. In Germany, one application lasts a week – with luck. 

And then there’s the matter of the money. The State Modernization branch has been approved for 150 new posts. 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Those are not new!

Many of them are still unoccupied. And where positions are unoccupied, external consultants are retrieved for a lot of money. After months, there are also interim bureaus. By the time you become able to act, we have the next election, and you again have achieved nothing! 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Such rubbish!

It was desired to set up a new IT concept. Cost: Over four million euros. Result: It is not practical. The consultancy firms rejoice; they earned four million – for nothing. That is not progress, that is a squandering. 

The fiberglass construction should by the end of the year, thus 2025, reach 50 percent. We can gladly wager on whether you still reach it. We have a Ministry which wants much, but does little; a Ministry which wants to save, yet incinerates money; and a Ministry which wants to modernize, yet remains clinging to an old bureaucracy. “State Modernization” is not allowed to remain a slogan. We require clear data standards, mandatory [verbindliche] goals and, before all, consequences if things don’t work. For the state belongs to the citizens – you are only service providers – and they deserve something better than your expensive promises without effect. 

Herr Wildberger, perhaps just a small tip: In this coalition, you simply have not a chance. Previously, all of this coalition’s election promises were broken. Why should it be different with you? 

Dear Union, you act as if you were for the first time in government. In that regard, you however are guilty: In the Merkel years, you turned Germany into a digital developing country. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Sebastian Münzenmaier, July 8, 2025, Housing Ministry

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/16, p. 1506. 

Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Brand new housing in record time, despite a shortage of construction land and tight funds, for 1,000 people is impossible? – Wrongly reasoned! In Berlin-Kreuzberg, our state shows what is possible; at least, if the renters are so-called refugees. Then an office complex will in short order be reconstructed into housing units – money plays no role, the rental cost of 1.2 million euros per month paid by the diligent German taxpayer. If, however, it’s about housing space for one’s own citizens, then the matter suddenly appears quite different. Then all is complicated, and unfortunately there is often no more money. 

Happily, we now have a new Housing Minister with whom all shall be better, quicker and, before all, cheaper. Everyone here in the house is, I believe, aware: Building costs must go down. And which ideas does Minster Hubertz present to us with Lanz on the television? In the future, in regards new construction, underground parking should be simply omitted, and the parking places instead be moved above near the housing. Thus would 20 percent of the costs be saved. Frau Hubertz, what an inane proposal! In big cities, there is simply no room for such parking places near high-rise housing, but only the possibilities of underground garages or just no parking space.  In rural areas, that could be done, but honestly I know of only a few of which under a single family house one may, for a heap of money, accommodate one’s own underground garage. 

This unworldly proposal is unfortunately typical of our new Housing Minister. You, Frau Hubertz, wrap yourself in marketing phraseology. Yet as soon as it becomes substantial, you ever again show that you unfortunately have no idea of the real life of people out there. If you really want to lower the construction costs, then you please need to begin with yourself; since more that a third of the construction costs – all of 37 percent – originates at the monent with the state by means of insulation prescripts, taxes and duties and regulations. Fewer underground garages are thus not the solution, but fewer environmental investments, less bureaucracy and fewer taxes, ladies and gentlemen. 

And quite besides that: If you want to make housing at least a bit cheaper, then you could do, ja, as the coalition in the coalition contract promised, to reduce the electricity tax for private households. Yet even this mini-relief you grant to our citizens out there not at all, and instead cheerfully continue to shut it off, and indeed not only in regards electricity, but also in regards heating. 

You have quite openly conceded this, Frau Minister, recently in the Bild newspaper. To the question of what you would advise someone whose heating has gone kaputt, and who needs to renew the heating, you said: “Thus in no case install gas heating; since that will be so expensive when now the CO₂ price further rises.”  Instead, one should preferably take a peek at district heating [Fernwärme]. – In most cities in Germany, district heating is not at all extensively available. There where district heating is available, the costs straightaway explode – the May numbers for Frankfurt: Up 36 percent. From where the district heating in small towns in the country should come, for example in regards to you, Herr Limbacher, would interest me. How that should work, no one here in the house can explain to me. 

In addressing these problems, the Minister shows her completely clueless side: One can lease or rent a heating system – thus for one to two years – until one knows where the communal heating plans were going. That is no joke – I wish it was – but the Minister actually proposed that. Frau Hubertz, I knew that you are utterly fact-free. Yet your statements show me that you are also utterly extraterrestrial. 

Your priorities are obviously not in housing construction, but elsewhere. As the Handelsblätt reported, in the last two weeks you heaved two of your representatives into well endowed jobs at a new ministerial office. One co-worker will be remunerated, non-pay-scale, according to the highest possible pay, and the other co-worker shall as an official ad interim receive a basic salary of more than 11,000 euros per month. You have thus set up not a single impulse for new housing. Yet the old-age provision for two additional comrades has been secured, ladies and gentlemen. 

Fact-free, unworldly nepotism – to that add a bit of PR blah-blah – that perhaps suffices to make a career in today’s SPD. But the Housing Ministry is for you two sizes too big. 

Hearty thanks for the attention. 

                  Esra Limbacher (SPD): Yet we have no priors! 

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Espendiller, July 8, 2025, Fiscal Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/16, pp. 1449-1451. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear audience in the hall and at the screens. 

Governments can be voted out, but not debts. Alone in this year, the black-red Federal government plans with its budget new debts in the sum of 143.1 billion euros. That means that every fourth euro which is over-spent from this Federal budget comes from new debts, thus from money which we certainly do not have, and also to which no income is matched [gegenüberstehen]; since to the planned total budget in a sum of 564.3 billion euros, there is matched a total income of only 421.4 billion euros. Serious appears otherwise, Herr Klingbeil. 

In the mid-term finance planning to 2029, thus in the next four years, it appears worse. Black-red will here take up overall new debts in a sum of 846.9 billion euros, almost one trillion euros in just four years. Herren Merz and Klingbeil will thereby increase the current indebtedness within one election cycle by a whopping 50 percent. They have thereby even topped all the horror calculations which we here have queued-up, following your coup d’état of a Basic Law alteration with the voted-out Bundestag. Were the Union in the opposition, an outcry would go through the country. Axel Springer would fire from all barrels and the downfall of this country within the briefest time would be prophesied. 

Yet Friedrich Merz is Chancellor, he who longed to be a Chancellor of change, who however unfortunately wants only to be an extern Chancellor. Thus everything remains quiet as a mouse. All look away, stick the head in the sand. Many think: He hopefully will know what he is doing. Others are simply paralyzed and doubt the reality. It is the monstrosity of this indebtedness which basically nips in the bud every criticism. Who willingly places himself against such a huge tsunami? Now, to that, there is an answer. We do it, once more the only ones in this country. We, the AfD Bundestag delegation, decisively oppose this madness, are against this financial policy run amok. This mountain of debt is not without an alternative. 

Yes, the problems in this country are great: A decaying infrastructure, a healthcare system on the verge of collapse, ever further climbing costs of the social security system. And the economy finds itself, despite well-tempered, kiss-kiss summer selfies, ever still in decline. Yet all of this need be no permanent situation. What we now require is a clear analysis of our spending policy. For what do we spend money? Which purpose does this thus pursue? Do we thereby at all achieve this purpose? Is there not also another way? We need thus to ask ourselves in regards each, single budget item: Is it required? Need that really be? And then we of course need the courage to say: That can go, that we no longer do; since we are simply no longer able to manage that. We can thus arrive at an authentic budget consolidation and thus again enable the state to effectively concentrate itself on its core duties. 

We require fundamental structural reforms, and need to finally stop just talking about deconstruction of bureaucracy, and finally do it. Our economy, our doctors, our teachers, all are oppressed by a flood of prescripts which take from them the joy in their work. The work ethic [Arbeitsmoral] in Germany is grounded. 

            Kathrin Michel (SPD): By you!

It is aground due to the daily, massive, bureaucratic tutelage with which the people need to struggle, and which costs our economy billions, and brings purely nothing. 

Although everyone knows this, continually come new prescripts and regulations. Why actually did not the government for once get started with that before it started the debts torpedo? Instead, Friedrich Merz travels through world history and devotes himself to the pet projects of all the other parties: Give away billions in tax money to foreign countries and the EU. And the finishing touch on that is the Chancellor wants to buy with the new mega-debts 43 billion euros worth of weapons for the Ukraine, while in this country the promised electricity tax reduction still does not yet come for the citizens. That is an absolute insolence against the working middle of this country, and it is evidence of an incapability that you here again have broken your word. 

Still more: It is a fatal signal that the seriousness of the situation in Germany and the signs of the time are ever still not acknowledged. If we want to get our economy underway, then we need to really unchain it. We need to reduce the taxes for citizens and business, and that permanently. Every euro which the state loosens from the citizen in excess taxes reduces the motivation [Leitsungsbereitschaft] of every, single individual. Why should one strain himself if from his own work so little remains; that one asks himself whether work at all still pays? And should one do overtime when the state withholds half the pay, and then spends it for dubious NGOs, or the clothing worn by Georgine Kellermann? 

The worst is: A large part of the Union quite precisely knows all of this. Presumably, many even agree with me – secretly, of course. Yet as a result of the decision to enter into a coalition with the SPD, Germany now receives a red-red-green Politik. That looks very nice to the Greens’ present lack of concepts. All that they have imagined in their most daring dreams will now be implemented by black-red. 

They certainly no longer know what they still should say all day long. Yet this red-red-green socialism, the people in the country have voted out. The German have voted for a fundamental change of course. They have voted for financial policy stability, and issued a refusal to the further-so of the downfall. 

The Union basically misplayed it. Yet we will well set it right. We rejoice at the pending budget consultations, and once again stand ready with many good proposals for making Germany better. 

Many thanks for the attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

Irmhild Boßdorf, July 10, 2025, German Language in Poland

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)07-10(4-0109-0000). 

Frau President. 

Mohnkuchen, Toleranz, Schneekoppe [poppy seed cake, toleration, Snieźka Mountain]: All of these terms unite us with Silesia, an age-old cultural landscape. In the Polish provinces of Oppelen and Silesia live far over 600,000 Silesians – 200,000 of whom have declared to speak mainly German in everyday life. And yet the protection of the Heimat does not legally progress. Dual language locale signs are not used, or only after a long wait; German instruction in the schools is neglected. 

Yet precisely here can the Cohesion Means Assistance help. It should be used so that the expansion of German instruction finally comes forward and the village school infrastructure is secured. It needs be employed so that Europe’s cultural wealth is no longer lost. It should be used so that the involvement with the Silesians in Poland becomes a model for all Europe. We therefore support with complete conviction the European Citizens Initiative. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Jörn König, June 26, 2025, Tax Reform and Merz

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/14, pp. 1238-1239. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear taxpayers. 

Germany has at its disposal a tax income of 1,000 billion euros and thus has no income problem, but a spending and justice problem. Families and Mittelstand are burdened while multi-millionaires profit, accompanied by an inflated bureaucracy. We say: An end to that! 

It is high time for a new start – a new start with a tax rate of 25 percent for all. No more special rights for the rich or concerns. Simple, fair, and no longer to be manipulated. 

There is a high allowance of 15,000 euros per adult and 12,000 euros per child. A family with three children and 85,000 euros employee gross income [Arbeitnehmerbrutto] with us in the future pays zero euros income tax, saves almost 12,000 euros and receives additional Kindergeld. We promote those who go to work and raise children and thus fulfill the generations contract. 

And what does the coalition plan? They deliver a tragedy on installment. A couple of years of diminishing balance, after which a tiny reduction of the corporation tax, yet just from 2028, over five years at times one little percentage point. That is at best a mini-reform. That is the administration of a standstill. You do not once do what you promise in the coalition contract and progress program of the beginning of June – to implement the reduction of the electricity tax for consumers and business. 

The SPD asserts we would relieve only the rich. Completely false! According to the DIW [German Economic Research Institute] and the Handelsblatt of February 10, those with a small purse profit especially with a relief of 5.1 percent at an income of up to 41,000 euros. And he who earns millions with us in any case pays 25 percent, yet on a broader basis and thus more than today. 

The Union is besides no better. Herr Merz was chairman of the board at BlackRock. BlackRock by means of tax tricks withdraws at least 50 million euros yearly from Germany; in the EU over six years, it is up to one billion. Herr Merz, you unfortunately are now Chancellor. 

            Hendrik Hoppenstadt (CDU/CSU): We find that quite good!

These tax loopholes you need to close in your new job. 

The Alternative für Deutschland’s Tax Reform 25 [Drucksache 21/590] closes these loopholes also for the local authorities. The cooperative community tax [Gemeindewirtschaftsteuer] as a local authorities surcharge finally creates reliability, instead of shaky business taxes. 

Counter-financing [Gegenfinanzierung]: We have it! We simply eliminate ideologically loaded spending in the billions. 80 billion euros for migration and foreign benefits. 53 billion euros for symbol policy in climate protection, many billions of euros for left-green NGOs. In addition to that comes a 32 billion euro growth effect by means of bureaucracy dismantlement, likewise confirmed by the DIW, Berlin. 

The government instead makes gigantic debts which our children and grandchildren will work off. The debts broken promise, Herr Merz, you already prepared before the election. You had an opinion drawn up on how to circumvent the debt brake, and with the old Bundestag, a giant debts package can be concluded. The Chancellorship of Friedrich Merz is based on a big lie. We, the Alternative für Deutschland, commit to the truth. We commit to relief instead of redistribution – for the families, for the Mittelstand and for those who produce the benefits. We need the Tax Reform 25. Now! 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, July, 2025, AfD Strategy Process

AfD Bundestag Delegation, July, 2025. 

To shape Germany politically – the end of the firewall and the way to government responsibility. 

Ideas and proposals for a strategy process of the AfD Bundestag delegation. 

Introduction 

The AfD achieved a great success at the last Bundestag election. It dislodged the SPD as the second strongest power in Germany and has become by far the strongest power in eastern Germany. In Germany, there is a clear middle-right majority with which the migration change and the economic change can be implemented. 

Despite the great election success and the voters’ large assent, the firewall prevents a sharing in the government by the AfD, the exclusion of the AfD continues to be enforced, and the AFD is even threatened with a ban. To become a permanent people’s party, to overcome the firewall and to pave the way to government responsibility is an enormous challenge for which a strategy is required. The following paper offers proposals for an AfD delegation strategy process in the German Bundestag. 

Prerequisite for the fall of the firewall and government responsibility for the AfD: 

The AFD strives for government responsibility in Germany. The actions of the black-red coalition prove that neither a migration change nor an economic change is possible without the AfD as a driving power in the government. The political change in Germany is only to be achieved when the AfD overtakes the government responsibility. So that the AfD can design politically, the the firewall needs to fall. 

The firewall will fall and the way for assumption of government responsibility will be open when 

1.      The AfD is firmly anchored by its core voters who vote for the AfD out of adherence and conviction, the AfD exploits additional parts of its potential, and has clearly gained in acceptance beyond the AfD voter base (Part I).

2.      Other party-overlapping coalitions are no longer possible because the rift between Union and the leftist parties can no longer be bridged (Part II). 

In the following will be sketched possible ways of creating the prerequisites for such a scenario. 

Part I. Create majorities – the people for the government responsibility won by the AfD. 

For the analysis, we separate into three relevant groups the electorate for the AfD: The AfD’s voter base, the AfD’s potential, and the scope of acceptance [Akzeptanzumfeld]. 

To the AfD’s voter base belong those who with great certainty vote for the AfD and can be permanently united to the AFD. 

The potential are those voters who basically can imagine themselves voting for the AfD and who also are attainable as possible voters. 

The scope of acceptance are those voters who do not vote for the AfD and do not intend doing so, yet under certain circumstances may welcome or at least do not reject a government participation by the AfD. 

According to INSA, the AfD’s voter base is around 18 percent; additionally, with the present voters and the potential voters, the AfD could achieve up to 30 percent of votes. Yet even if the AfD completely exploited its potential, that is no guaranty for the end of the firewall and a participation in government. In addition, there needs be a scope of acceptance which indeed does not vote for the AfD, but is not unfavorably opposed to a participation in government by the AfD. 

So that the AfD can attain government responsibility in Germany and shape the Politik in Germany, it needs to permanently unite to itself its voter base, exploit the greater portion of its potential, and expand and attain a basic acceptance of its participation in legislation and government. For all three groups, voter base, potential, scope of acceptance, the AfD requires a differentiated strategy. 

1. Unite base voters: Ostdeutsche, workers, rural area, young voters, Russlanddeutsche.

The goal is to create a tight milieu anchoring and a permanent voter base. Voters should not vote for the AFD primarily out of protest or frustration, but because they identify themselves with the AfD. In the following milieus and regions, a tighter anchoring is already visible: 

Ostdeutsche, workers, citizens in villages and small and mid-sized cities, Russlanddeutsche and Germans from the post-Soviet space, and first time voters, especially young men. 

So as to permanently unite the voter base to the AfD and to strongly anchor the AfD in these milieus, the delegation prepares in three areas: 

The AfD delegation identifies the political interests and problems of these groups and develops concrete legislative initiatives which therein aim to accomplish the base voters’ concrete interests and to improve their living situation. 

The AfD identifies the channels of communication and creates referral networks so as to continually and permanently communicate with the base voters. 

The AFD works towards a positive self-image of the base voters and their sense of life  which is tightly bound with the AfD. 

The AfD directs to this purpose work groups which identify the interests of base voters, develops a communications strategy, and draws up a positive picture of these groups; for example, workers as the providers of performance, Ostdeutsche as an avant garde of democracy and freedom, rural people as carriers of good, traditional values, young Germans as bearers of hope of a better future. Thus shall be developed a common AfD purpose image as a free, conservative people’s party which embraces its voter coalition. 

2. Identify potential: Over-60 generation, women, academics, churched [kirchcennahe] Christians, big cities.

In regards specific groups, the election results clearly lagged behind. The following groups can be identified in which the AFD has not exploited its potential and which represent a large portion of the German people: 

Women, citizens with a college education, citizens in big cities and metropolitan areas, voters over 60, and professing [konfessionsgebundene] Christians. 

These groups are not homogenous and cannot be addressed as a unit. So as to increase and win for the AfD these hard-to-access groups, we require a socio-demographic micro-analysis of these groups. Partial groups need to identified to be able to build a bridge to them. 

Examples of such partial groups: 

A partial group of women is, for example, housewives and mothers; of academics, engineers and graduates of technical training; of big cities and metropolitan areas, citizens in focal points or outlying locales; in regards the over-60 generation, pensioners concerned about crime or older people with traditional values; and a partial group of professing Christians is conservative Protestants and Catholics. 

The delegation’s work groups should deeply occupy themselves with the social groups in which the AfD is weaker. They may identify hindrances and problems at talks with these groups and develop solutions, find sub-groups which may be addressed for the AfD, and propose measures for themes and a communications strategy so as to become stronger in these groups.

             3. Enlarge the scope of acceptance.

Even strong elections results are no guaranty for an AfD participation in government. As important to the mobilization of base voters and to the address to potential voters are concrete public opinion indicators for the scope of acceptance: Surveys of AfD Verbot procedures, for acceptance of various forms of cooperation with the AfD, for government participation and for fundamental rejection and fear of the AfD. 

The goal is to reduce below 50 percent the portion of voters who express fear of the AfD, who are for banning the AfD and who reject a cooperation with the AfD.

For that, it is important to analyze by means of collections of public opinion which negative images, negative narratives and notions of the AfD exist, and how these are mediated and strengthened. On the basis of the knowledge is then a proper strategy developed for a targeted counter-communication which refutes the arguments against the AfD, a positive purpose image developed, and proposals formulated on how the scope of acceptance can be clearly enlarged. The target groups of our efforts for enlarging the scope of acceptance are: 

Citizens who do not belong to the voter base or the potential of the AfD, and whose rejection on the basis of their ideological location and party affiliation is not insurmountable. 

Part II. Split black-red – Prevent party-overlapping coalitions.

Majorities without the AfD were hitherto possible by means of party-overlapping coalitions, coalitions of the Union with the SPD or Greens. The firewall will fall when these political options have failed and are no longer possible. In the end, the Ampel broke down because the opposition between the expectations of the FDP”s bürgerliche voters and those of red-green were ultimately no longer bridgeable. The conflict potential between the CDU/CSU and the SPD, especially between the conservative market economy wing of the Union and the SPD-Linke, is especially great. The AfD has two ways to enlarge these rifts: 

1. The polarization of debate leads to the separation of bürgerliche-conservative camps from leftist radical camps: The demarcation [Abgrenzung] of the radical leftists, who for the majority of Germans represent unacceptable positions, facilitates the AfD positioning itself as a bürgerliche-conservative power. The strengthening of the radical leftists proceeds at the cost of the SPD and Greens, and forces these onto a course which makes the agreements with the Union considerably more difficult. 

2. The pressure on the CDU/CSU increases: The AfD will launch motions and initiatives which meet with a high agreement within the Union voter base, especially the voters who voted for the CDU/CSU for a migration and economic change, yet now are disillusioned by black-red. Besides the migration change, the AfD takes in view the economic change as a central theme field so as to increase the pressure on the Union and make accessible new competences and voters for the AfD. 

1. Polarization against the Linke. 

            1.1 Drive forward separation of the bürgerliche-conservative camps from                                 Leftist camps.

Presently, polarization in Germany proceeds all too often between AfD voters and all others. Our aim is to create a situation in which the political rifts no longer run between the AfD and the other political streams, but a bürgerliche-conservative camp and a radicalizing leftist camp oppose one another, comparable to the situation in the U.S.A. 

The starting point for such a development is given: 

The Linke have become a driving power in the leftist camp which makes it difficult for the Greens and SPD to engage in compromises with the CDU/CSU; for example, in regards migration and economy. 

The AfD and the Linke form the two ideological poles of the social argument. As a counter-pole to the ideological and woke Linke, the AfD can sharpen its bürgerliche profile. 

The AfD can essentially contribute to that the argument in politics and society becomes a “duel” between the two irreconcilably opposed camps, culminating in an  election between the AfD and Linke: Weidel or Reichinneck. 

The consequences of this polarization already show themselves with the Bundestag election in regards the first-time voters. There, the FDP and Greens were relieved as the strongest political powers by the AfD and Linke. If this trend spreads through the entire electorate, the political poles will be stronger, the rifts between both camps greater. The rifts within the camps, such as between AfD voters and CDU/CSU voters, becomes smaller because the Linke have a strong interest in attacking even moderate conservative and CDU-like positions as being close to the AfD.   

            1.2 Differentiate communications strategy. 

The communication needs to be thematically, rhetorically and argumentively differentiated between the argument with the opposing leftist camp and the argument within the bürgerliche-conservative camp. 

The argument with the leftist camp will be conducted on a fundamental level with the central point on socio- and cultural-political basic conflicts:  Family versus gender, nation versus open borders, freedom versus socialism. 

The argument with the Union needs to be primarily conducted on the themes of credibility and trust, substantially [konkret] on the political failures in regards the practical implementation of the migration change and economic change. 

In a Kulturkampf with the Linke, the AfD positions itself as the only relevant opposing force; as the credible original in political competition with the CDU/CSU, it delivers what the Union in the election campaign has only promised. 

2. Political pressure on the Union. 

            2.1 The AfD can become the strongest party with variable voters from                                    the CDU/CSU.

In the 2025 Bundestag election, the CDU/CSU gained four million voters from the SPD, FDP and non-voters; 1.76 million voters from the SPD, 1.35 million voters from the FDP and .9 million non-voters voted for the Union. These new voters for the Union gave as a reason for the vote decision that the Union after Merkel had changed course. Economic growth, domestic security were the most important themes of the CDU/CSU voters. 

If the AfD succeeded in winning these variable voters from the CDU/CSU, it will be the strongest power and expel the Union to the second place. If the AfD gained these four million voters, the absolute number of its voters climbs from ten to 14 million. That corresponds to an election result of about 28 percent, which largely corresponds to the AfD’s measured voter potential. The CDU/CSU would correspondingly lose votes and come out even worse than in 2021, as it attained with its Chancellor candidate Armin Lachet a historic low of 24 percent. 

For that it may succeed in motivating these new Union voters to a change to the AfD there speaks: 

            That these new CDU/CSU voters have already shown themselves ready to change 

            That they have voted out of protest against the Ampel CDU/CSU 

            That they are in agreement with the AfD’s positions on domestic and                                    economic policy 

            That the Union by its coalition with the SPD disillusioned these groups of voters 

The way to win these earlier SPD, FDP and non-voters, who at this election gave their votes to the Union, lies in, besides the migration policy, the key question of economic competence.  

The Union stands before the dilemma that compromise with the SPD makes it easy for the AfD to win these voters from the Union – the fight over these voters inevitably brings it into conflict with the SPD and Greens. 

2.2 The AfD as the party of the sozial market economy: Overtake the CDU/CSU in economic competence. 

The “core brand” of the CDU/CSU lies in its economic and financial competence. In the voters’ attributions of competence prior to the Bundestag election, it was far ahead of all other parties. “Economic growth” was a central motiv for the election of the CDU/CSU. The AfD strongly increased in these competence fields in the last Bundestag election, yet still lay far removed from the Union’s competence values other than in regards to that of migration where the competence attributions lay more closely one with the other. 

The economic competence is the key question so as to exploit the potential, to win the Union’s variable voters, and to enlarge acceptance for the AfD’s government responsibility. The goal is to essentially reduce the Union’s margin in regards attribution of competences in the areas of economy and finance, and to conclusively overtake the Union. In the eyes of the voters, the AfD needs to stand not only for the migration change but also for the economic change. 

The starting point for that is given: 

The lifting of the debt brake cost the Union considerably in credibility. The growing state debt and interest burden will become in the coming years a permanent theme. 

As a result of the coalition with the SPD, wide-ranging and necessary structural reforms are practically impossible. The massive problems for Germany as a business venue and for the social security system are not to be solved by the least common denominator of the CDU/CSU and SPD. 

The AfD can make market economy, ordnungspolitische and financial policy demands and program points of its own without the Union, as a result of its captivity in the coalition with the SPD, being able to oppose something credible to it. 

The AfD is the only party which, without regard to leftist climate discourse, can acknowledge itself for economic growth and can act in the central energy themes without ideological restrictions. 

The theme of economic growth and the prosperity promises united with it, besides the themes of migration and domestic security, can be an additional mainstay for the AfD, and at the same time be the clothes pin between the AfD’s various voter groups: From the unemployed to workers to the self-employed, from the former SPD to the former FDP voters, and also thereby for CDU/CSU’s variable voters. 

3. Foreign policy should create no additional problems. 

The base electorate as well as the AfD’s potential voters are primarily to be addressed by means of domestic and economic policy positions. The AfD’s foreign policy positioning has the duty to avoid controversies within its own electorate, to minimize areas of attack and thereby contribute to enlarging the AfD’s scope of acceptance. A duty of AfD foreign policy is to early identify the danger of potential internal conflicts and current negative effects for the AfD by a wise  positioning and a stringent communication agreed to within the delegation. 

Outlook: Use the members’ experience and competence. 

An overall strategy, especially in regards to the many various voter groups, should use the experience and competences of the members of the Bundestag delegation. The delegation has at its disposal comprehensive knowledge from its voter circles, from the citizen contacts, and a reservoir of life and vocational experience with which that of no other delegation is comparable. 

In a strategy process itself arise new ideas, especially in the address to the base voters, the potential, and the scope of acceptance, but also in regards considerations of tearing down the firewall and opening the way for government ability. Work groups for individual voter groups make it possible to speak beyond the usual snips of political themes, of access to the various target groups, and to speak of the solution of outlined problems, to use experiences, gather together ideas, to use available sources, so that they can flow into the overall strategy. 

The socio-empirical evaluation and analysis and strategic adaptation is thereby a permanent duty with the goal of optimizing our result and making possible the political change in Germany. 

 

[trans: tem]