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]

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beatrix von Storch, December 20, 2024, Constitution Defense

German Bundestag, December 20, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/208, pp. 27002-27003. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The so-called Constitution Defense in its present form does not defend democracy, it is a danger for democracy. This danger is embodied by two persons: By the former Constitution Defense chief Haldenwang, and by the Thüringen Constitution Defense president Kramer. Haldenwang stands for the reckless instrumentalization of the Constitution Defense for partisan political interests 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): What are you saying here? My goodness!

and Kramer for an obsessive, personal crusade against the AfD. 

We recall the background of Haldenwang’s appointment. In November 2018, the Union had lost votes to the AfD; at the Bundestag election one million, and at the 2018 Hessen State legislative election 100,000. Our polling numbers were climbing ever further. 

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): Hans-Georg Maaßen introduced a test proceeding                        against you!

In November 2018 we were at 16 percent and the Union fell further: About seven percentage points to 25 percent. The Merkel government therefore decided to employ the domestic secret service as a weapon against the AfD, invented the Chemnitz Hetzjagd lie, 

Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): I thought you had always been against the legalization of cannabis!

and replaced Maaßen with the compliant accomplice Haldenwang. The battle order for the true CDU party soldiers was clear: 

            Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): For God’s sake! What stories!

to defame, belittle and ostracize the AfD and repress its election results, 

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): Hans-Georg Maaßen was never a CDU member, or?

and, as you know, – apology – the brainless Haldenwang 

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): We cannot accept the apology!

plainly admitted – cite: “The Constitution Defense is not alone responsible for lowering the AfD’s polling numbers.” 

“Not alone.”, he said – yet it is responsible, and indeed essentially. For his true service to the CDU, he is allowed be a CDU candidate for the Bundestag. 

            Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): The local associations present candidates!

And, as we thought it does not get worse, then came the “Apollo” exposure of the Thüringen Constitution Defense president Kramer. It rendered every democrat speechless: In 2015, the social pedagogue from the rocker scene, together with the Putinist, extremist “Night Wolves” network, took part in a wreathe-laying for the Red Army dead. The Constitution Defense knew this – and shortly thereafter made him its president. He had failed in legal studies. It is almost a trifle that he is not only personally but also professionally unsuitable and unqualified.    

As Constitution Defense president, he erected a regime of fear and intimidation. A fifth of the staff left the Thüringen Constitution Defense. The rightist and leftist extremism department leaderships are unoccupied for three years. A disciplinary proceeding is opened against him, and he has been classified as a security risk – the chief of the Constitution Defense. He openly threatened a co-worker with bodily violence. And what happened? Nothing. No denial, no resignation, no comment. A great silence, just like here now. 

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): We have just not yet debated, Frau von Storch!

That the public debate is absent is the real scandal; the total failure of public control by the media, even when the state of law and democracy break. 

Benjamin Strasser (FDP): That was on the MDR and in the “Welt”! Is that also the “Lügenspresse”? 

            Leon Eckert (Greens): Do you after all read newspapers?

Like Haldenwang, Kramer also meddled without limit in the daily political fight. He insulted a fifth of the German voters as “brown dirt”. 

            Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): Not the voters, the functionaries!

He called for the AfD test case – without legal basis. In an internal e-mail, the responsible department leader declared, Herr Kramer had, cite: “knowingly left out” the responsible department. Herr Kramer's gathering of material originated with Herr Kramer himself. Not once did he explain to his officials the origin of these materials and then he made disappear a key juridical opinion in which all of this is condemned. Ladies and gentlemen, that is no substantial examination of a danger for the free, democratic basic order, that is Kramer’s personal, fanatic war against the AfD. 

Kramer and Haldenwang are symptoms of a sick system of institutionalized abuse of power. In no other Western democracy may the domestic secret service be employed against the opposition. Since what distinguishes a democracy from a dictatorship? In a democracy, 

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): …complaint can be made of the categorization!

the voters decide the fate of a party; and in a dictatorship, the secret service chief. 

Now for once quite briefly consider in which direction we are directly developing. 

            Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): In that regard, we are thinking directly                                of your speech!

If you do not use this debate today to admit that this Constitution Defense, that Haldenwang and Kramer are a danger for the free, democratic basic order, 

            Fabian Griewel (FDP): You are a danger for the free, democratic basic order?

not even now, in regards to these persons, then you are a danger for the free, democratic basic order. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, November 7, 2024, Anti-semitism, Israel, Trump

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/197, pp. 25719-25720. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

We stand today before the end of the quite grand illusion: Trump again President of the United States and the Ampel at an end – a real double Wumms! And now this admission of the former Ampel parties and of the Union with this common motion for Jewish lives: Yes, the exploding Judenhass in Germany has something to do with immigration and with Islam. 

            Kordula Schulz-Asche (Greens): And with the AfD!

I can still well remember all of your gasping here – primarily by the Greens – as the AfD warned of imported Moslem anti-semitism. Now we read in this motion – co-introduced by the Greens – of anti-semitism which is based on, cite: “Immigration from the countries of North Africa and the Near and Middle East”. 

            Leni Breymaier (SPD): And on rightist extremism!

Those are the Green figures for imported Moslem anti-semitism. You have restrained the reality. 

And the solution proposal in your motion also goes in our direction: Cite: “Exhaust punitive possibilities, especially in criminal and citizenship law, and in asylum and residency law”. In German: Remove Moslem anti-semites on the aircraft and in the homeland. “Tschüss!” and not “Auf Wiedersehen!”

You finally recognize that in addition to your mantra-charged, extreme right anti-semitism there are also dangers from the left. 

Britta Haßelmann (Green): With what chutzpah you at all speak here! Take a peek at the “Sächsischen Separatisten”! With AfD covering! It is not to be taken seriously, your contribution as an AfDer here, with your rightist extremism!

You name that the “leftist, anti-imperialist anti-semitism”. And for your fight, you now also take up our proposal. You want to test the ban on the BDS movement. Here you need test nothing and rediscover the wheel. Our motion to ban is long since put forward. That even a portion of the Greens meanwhile take up AfD positions, we name “Zeitenwende” [change of times]. 

The problem with all of these resolutions is: With you, action never follows. Only the AfD will implement what you ever only demand, 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): Think of your Gauland! “Vogelschiss in der                              Geschichte”! Gauland citation! Enough! 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): “Sächsischen Separatisten”, Frau von Storch!

and that quite practical and concrete; for example, no more public money to colleges and cultural undertakings for Judenhass and Israel enmity. 

It is little surprising that resistance to that comes from the left wing of the Greens. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): Is it about Jewish lives in Germany here? 

Katharina Droge (Greens): Of course for Frau von Storch it’s not about Jewish lives in Germany! Who comes from so extreme a rightist party, is certainly not interested in Jewish lives in Germany!

The Greens’ national working groups for migration and refuge, for peace and international and for culture, fear, cite: “The instrumentalization …by rightist actors, and the targeted defamation and undermining of civil society work”. 

Translated into German: You are afraid that the AfD has seized the theme, and leftist and Moslem anti-semites lose their state feeding troughs. Here, I can only say to you: You are fully right to be worried. 

In the political left, there is an obsessive hatred of the State of Israel; for this anti-imperialist left, Israel is a racist, a colonizing, a white apartheid state which should disappear from the map. 

Britta Haßelmann (Green): Look at “Sächsischen Separatisten”! And the state associations which have been classified extreme right! 

The leftists hate Israel because the Jewish state represents all that Europe once was, and what they hate: A strong state, self-conscious, national, religious, prepared to protect its cultural identity and defend its borders. These Greens have spoken out against their own resolution because they know that the fight against anti-semitism today primarily affects the left and its darling Moslem minority. It’s not right-wing extremists who occupy universities, drive Jewish judges from the podium, and gather in masses in the streets behind the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah and chant “from the river to the sea”. Those are Moslems and leftists. 

Does anyone believe that without Merkel’s border opening Jews would not live here more safely? Do you believe that, Herr Merz?  Do you believe that, Herr von Notz? You know that I am right. 

Reality can be pushed aside, yet reality sooner or later catches up. That is unavoidable, and that has come to pass. 

The time of lies and extenuations is over. The defenders of Jewish lives and the friends of the Jewish state are today not found on the left, but on the democratic right side; with the AfD, with Geert Wilders, with Viktor Orbán, and with Donald Trump in whose election all democrats in this house very heartily rejoice.

 

Many thanks.

 

 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, July 5, 2024, Pro-Life and Criminal Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, pp. 23698-23699. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The left-greens can primarily do one thing: Discover ideological fighting words. Today, a new one: Sidewalk harassment [Gehsteigbelästigung], discovered by gender ideologue Ulrike Lembke. 

Filiz Polat (Greens): What rubbish is this, then?

All forms of relevant harassment are nevertheless today culpable, or are a violation of an ordinance. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Right!

Thus why now Gehsteigbelästigung? An Orwellian newspeak. 

You want to demolish basic rights of Christians and defenders of life. For you, it is not about climate clingers who block hundreds of thousands of motorists, or about tens of thousands of leftist extremists seeking to prevent with violence an AfD party day, and also not about Islamists who in their fighting prayers conquer our public space. You find all of that to be fantastic or democratic or acceptable. Yet when Christians and defenders of life make use of their right to freedom of opinion or freedom of assembly, then you hollow out [drehen Sie hohl]. 

The Federal Administrative Court on 23 May 2023 clearly held that defenders of life may demonstrate in front of pro-family abortion centers. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): What then is that for a term?

I cite: 

“There is in a pluralistic society no right to remain entirely exempt from the confrontation with divergent religious presentations or opinions.”

With that, all is said. 

You present in your draft law the assertion that, by means of sidewalk harassment, counseling offices and abortion clinics would be hindered in their activity, or those pregnant restrained from entering them. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): No, the women are hindered in their counseling possibilities. You need to read it correctly, Frau von Storch!

A dumb thing, that is a dumb thing! You know that. For that, there is no statistic, there is no survey, there are no police reports, there is simply nothing. You discover a problem which does not exist so that you have a reason to proceed with state repression against Christians and defenders of life. 

It is little surprising that the preparation for this comes from the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which in 2021 published an evaluation with the title, “Possibilities of Statutory New Regulation in the Conflict Field of Sidewalk Harassment”. The author: Sina Fontana. And here it becomes interesting, since Frau Fontana has written another evaluation with the title, “Universal Women’s Rights and Islamic Law”. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Oh! An interesting alliance!

Fontana therein wrote that the Scharia is quite wonderfully compatible with women’s rights. That is the Greens: Criminalize Christian prayers because against women’s rights, but praise and extol Scharia because good for women’s rights. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Unbelievable!

The central point: Who like the Greens and the Linke defend Scharia, for them it is not about women’s rights, but for them it is about the fight against our culture.           

Canan Bayram (Greens): You have a Scharia fetish, Frau von Storch!

And in this culture war, the green Verbot parties want to silence critics, naturally with friendly support of the FDP. One prayer or the protest of defenders of life: 5,000 euro fine. Here in the Bundestag, to name a specific first name in a specific context: 1,000 euro fine. The Green catalogue of fines for forbidden expressions will soon become very long. 

            Gero Clemens Hocker (FDP): Expensive for you, Frau von Storch!

This law is unconstitutional and breathes the spirit of a totalitarian Green ideology. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): A court still decides, and not you, what is compatible with the constitution!

And the CDU wants to forbid the prayers, but thinks for that the right of assembly suffices; you have indeed said it, and Frau Breiler also on Wednesday in committee. Alone the FDP – not alone the FDP is responsible, but it shares in all of this. 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Your confusion is noted.

Alone the AfD stands for defense of life and freedom of opinion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to me you will not forbid prayers, and also not the expression of the male name of Markus. 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, March 21, 2024, Internet Censorship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/160, pp. 20448-20449. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The DDG [Digital-Dienste-Gestez] implements the EU’s Digital Services Act: EU-wide internet censorship. The Ampel has decided that for this censorship the Federal Network Agency is responsible and coordinates it. No joke: The officials, who hitherto have regulated the transmission and competition in the gas and electricity network, are also responsible for on-line censorship, 

            Tabea Rössner (Greens): A lie! Impudent! 

instead of, for example, the Federal Justice Ministry. 

At the top stands Klaus Müller, former Green minister from Schleswig-Holstein, exactly so as his Green chief, Robert Habeck. Green clique! Yet before the law is at all in effect, Herr Müller openly threatened in January 2024 – cite: 

“When I catch anyone the second or third time…then I need to say with all distinctness: The Digital Services Act then has very sharp teeth.” 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): That’s right!

The threat is not a fabrication. Herr Müller or the coordinating office at the Federal Network Agency can impose penalty payments against on-line platforms which do not sufficiently censure. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): Are you nervous on that account?

Six percent of the worldwide daily revenue, millions of U.S. dollars in penalties – without being imposed by a court. Ergo: The platforms will censor, and the Green coordinating office will therein no doubt give rise to what is to be censured. 

             Tabea Rössner (Greens): Such idiocy I’ve never heard!

For a brutal deletion practice by the platforms suffices this danger of penalties in the millions. 

Yet the coordinating office may do much more than what a judiciary or police in a state of law may do: Conduct investigations, gather evidence, hear witnesses, examine witnesses, inspect places of business without a court order, seize property up to three days without court authorization. And for support, the coordinating office is allowed to name civil law organizations for so-called trustworthy whistle-blowers [Hinweisgebern] whose indications of censorship [Zensurhinweise] are to be preferably implemented. We all know who that is. Stasi Kahane for laughing no longer sleeps. This army of leftist on-line denouncers shall cull and report disliked opinions, and the data of people of wrong opinion will then be passed on to the BKA [Federal Criminal Office]. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): So that you cannot thereby spread all your hatred!

This law paves the way to a digital police state. 

            Detlef Müller (SPD-Chemnitz): No smaller does it get now!

For that, the Ampel now massively arms the BKA. Money is there, but not for the fight against organized criminality, clans or terrorism, but so as to persecute expressions of opinion on the internet. The number of officials in the reporting office shall be increased more than ten times from today’s 39 to 430. And the BKA states on page 64 of the proposal, Herr colleague Mordhorst, 

            Maximilian Mordhorst (FDP): Preamble, Frau von Storch! That is not the text                        of the law! 

that the test cases [Prüffälle] will increase by more than a hundred times, from 6,000 to around 720,000. The overwhelming majority of test cases will affect blameless citizens who have been denounced by the left-green on-line Stasi. 

Who on Facebook insults Habeck’s heat pump is – Schwupp – a test case for the BKA. Hundreds of BKA officials need to occupy themselves with that. 

You use this proposal from Brussels for your ideological fight against all and anyone who is not left. The more its backing in the population dwindles, the more the Ampel employs surveillance, intimidation and repression – see the Democracy Promotion Act. 

            Renate Künst (Greens): You need to pay attention that the features do not slip!

This state has lost every measure, writes the NZZ [Neue Zürcher Zeitung]. With this coordinating  office, it creates a Green species of directed censor officials; and proudly writes, they are completely independent. That means, they are without any democratic control. This censorship monster belongs in no democracy. On that account, all democrats will today reject this attack on our free democratic basic order. 

Many thanks. 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): What do you want then?

 

[trans: tem]

 

Beatrix von Storch, November 9, 2023, Islamism and Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/134, p. 16794. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Today, on the 9^th of November, we need to state: Jewish life in the Federal Republic was never so threatened as today. A new Judenhass could be taken into Europe from the Near East because the leftist migration lobby opened wide the door. 

“How far will the European societies go so as to offer a place to a quickly growing Moslem minority which is opposed to social and cultural integration?” 

Walter Laqueur put this question ten years ago. The answer reads: According to those who understand Islam, until total surrender. 

At the Palestinian demonstrations we see these days Islamists and leftists united. This anti-semitism, which threatens and wants to wipe out real Jewish life and the existence of Israel, we find not only among the German working population. We find it in the mosques, in the Islamic assemblies and associations, in the leftist universities and in the Kultur operation infected by the BDS movement. 

This political axis reaches from the Hamas to Fridays for Future, from the Hezbollah to the Antifa, and from the PFLP to the Black Lives Matter movement. The consequences of this decades-long infiltration: Mass prayers at the Brandenburg Gate, the Neptune Fountain at the Rote Rathaus occupied, and in Essen, the caliphate proclaimed. 

And these idiots of Queers for Palestine and Gays for Gaza loudly applaud. Excuse me, how moronic can one actually be? In a Hamas state, no rainbow flags hang in front of the ministries. There, homosexuals hang from the construction cranes. 

Except to these deluded ones, it is obvious to everyone – cite: “Multiculti has failed, absolutely failed”. You know that is a citation from Frau Merkel from the year 2010. When Frau Merkel five years later opened the borders, she knew exactly what she was doing. And then she came to us with hollow phrases like “We can do it” [Wir schaffen das] or “Show a friendly face”; or, with a cold ignorance: It’s all the same to me whether I am guilty of the influx of refugees. Now they are here.   

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, now they are here. Hundreds of thousands of men – young, aggressive and dominant and – what you here never say, and to which there is always a protest – Moslem, filled with hatred of Jews, of unbelievers, and the West. And what does Interior Minister Faeser do in regards these hordes celebrating thousands of dead Jews? She invites the Islamic assemblies to an Islam conference so as to make a theme of what? Islamophobia. Inconceivable! 

Post-Merkel Germany no longer shows a friendly face, but a hateful grimace hostile to Jews. And for this performance, Steinmaier and Söder and Merkel are decorated with orders; it cannot be imagined. And now, where the AfD drives from success to success, the CDU comes around the corner with our motions: Robust border defense, maximum limits, deportations, deprivation of citizenship. If you want the people to accept these things from you, then you should not exclude Hans-Georg Maaßen from the party, but Angela Merkel. 

From the constitutional scholar Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde stems the thesis which is central to our FdGO [basic constitutional order]. It reads: 

“The free, secularized state lives on presuppositions which [the state] itself cannot guarantee’.

Since Islam in most of its expositions is not prepared to recognize the liberal, secular state – thus Böckenförde – the Politik needs to take care that Moslems remain in the minority. Those whom we see marching in our streets are never to be allowed to have the say here because they, with our democracy, can introduce Sharia. Democracy in itself is no common value, but democracy requires common values so it can continue to endure. Those who are demonstrating in our streets are those who presently endanger Jewish life, endanger the free, democratic, basic order and endanger the future of Germany. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, October 11, 2023, Palestinian Terrorism

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/127, pp. 15871-15872. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Israel’s President Itzschak Herzog has declared: Not since the Holocaust have so many Jews been killed in one day as now by the Hamas massacre in Israel. – The aim of the Islamic barbarism is not military. With them, it is about one thing alone, to murder as many Jews as possible. They behead babies. 

And the UN Human Rights Council? It introduces a minute of silence, yet not for the victims, but so as to complain about Israel. And the German representative rises and actually remembers the mass murderers. 

            Till Steffen (Greens): That is rubbish! Unbelievable! 

            Erhard Grundl (Green): A lie!

Lower we cannot sink. 

At home, it appears not much better. Nancy Faeser strengthens the security measures for Jewish establishments. Why actually? Na? Because many too many of the barbarians and their  supporters and followers meanwhile live in the midst of us. Thanks to your immigration policy, terror organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and PFLP have a growing throng. 

And they have the power in our streets, when they want it, whenever they want it, where they want it, how they want it. And they wanted it last Saturday in Berlin-Neuköln in the Sonnenallee. For the celebration of the massacre in Israel, Arab supporters of terror distributed sweets on our streets, organized by the Samidoun group, and we look on. Samidoun ought to be banned; we demand that in our motion [Drucksache 20/8738]. 

Samidoun is an offshoot of the PFLP, the Palestinian terror organization Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This organization for decades draws a trail of blood with airplane hijackings and terror attacks. It is on the EU terror list, yet in Germany it is not banned. The PFLP ought to be banned; we demand that in our motion [Drucksache 20/8738]. The PFLP is a marxist-leninist movement. The Hamas is Islamist. Yet in Germany this ideological contrast is all the same. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): It is not all the same!

Their Judenhass unites them. 

Merkel certainly did nothing: The Hezbollah was not banned. You of the Union have issued only an activity ban. We wanted to ban them. The result: Nothing. The persons are still here, the structures are still here, there are not deportations. You work together with Islamic associations. Have you once seen the declaration of the Central Council of Moslems? Or heard the declaration of other protagonists? These deafening silences? 

The PFLP is the bridge between Islamist terror and German leftist extremism. “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea” – translation: Jews into the sea. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): And now you also repeat this propaganda trash!

Even the leftist taz now admits: Behind here gather no Nazis, but leftists. Those are not anti-fascists, those are fascists. 

The axis between German leftists and Palestinian terrorists has a decades-long tradition. Joschka Fischer took part in a PLO congress at which the final victory over Israel was demanded. Entebbe airplane hijacking: German leftist extremists separated so as to allow Jewish passengers to be murdered. Landshut airplane hijacking: PFLP wanted to release RAF terrorists. First Iraqi War: Green chairman Ströbele said: The Iraqi rocket attacks on Israel were the compulsory consequence of Israel’s policy. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Speak faster! Then we no longer understand you!

And Claudia Roth – keyword: “BDS-Movement Documenta” – joyfully high-fives with convinced annihilators of Israel. For her, all has been said. Her solidarity with Israel is exhausted in sermons, hashtags and empty demands. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Now no one understands anymore!

In practice you finance to this day Judenhass in Israel. Over a hundred million euros to the Hamas-directed, so-called refugee organization UNRWA. Humanitarian help is not allowed to flow through Hamas. And in Germany you do nothing at all just once to ban and then to break up the structures of Hezbollah, Hamas, PFLP and Samidoun. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): When do you start with the truth?

Nothing. We see the horrors in Israel and we see the Arabs in Germany 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): They are not “the Arabs in Germany”!

celebrate these horrors. 

Who knows that better than Frau Güner Bilic, the integration commissioner of Neuköln? 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): She is called Balci! You cannot even pronounce                            the name!

A citation today in Spiegel: Broad parts of the Arabic-speaking population of Neuköln preserve sympathies for Hamas – which beheads babies. 

Herr Chancellor, in view of this horror in Israel and of the growing and public support among us of the horror, act! Eliminate the means for the UNRWA [Drucksache 20/8739]. UNRWA is Hamas, and Hamas are terrorists, not state actors. One does not negotiate with them, and one is to give them no money. 

Lamya Kaddor (Greens): That is a piece of insolence! That is simply false, what you assert here!

Ban the terror organizations and – still more important – then destroy their structures! 

Marianne Schieder (SPD): Do you know what bad is? That today in the German Bundestag one is allowed to roll out so much trash!

We need less Scholz, and we need more Helmut Schmidt! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

           

 

 

 

Beatrix von Storch, July 6, 2023, Assisted Suicide

German Bundestag, July 6, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14083-14084. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Federal Constitutional Court in 2020 declared the ban on commercial promotion [geschäftsmäßigen Förderung] of self-killing to be null. Pandora’s Box was thereby opened. 

To declare suicide to be an act of personal autonomy leads us, in my firm conviction, to a terrible and deadly path. The Netherlands have gone before us in this way. The result is devastating: In 2021, 7,666 deaths by assisted suicide, and in that regard overwhelmingly by means of killing on demand [Tötung auf Verlangen]. That is 4.5 percent of all deaths there, 10 percent more than in the previous year, ten times more than traffic deaths. Calculated for Germany, that would be 34,000, three times more than presently. 

When the assisted suicide law was decided on in the Netherlands, it was about extreme cases in which people were severely ill, without a perspective of survival. Now it is not only about incurable illness, it is ever more about physically healthy people who still have a long life ahead of them who actually need and seek assistance. 

Kingston University made a study in the Netherlands. There, people with mental handicap and autism are legally killed. The study uncovered 39 such cases from 2012 to 2021 by means of a random sample of 900 from 60,000 cases. If that is calculated for Germany, then that would be 11,500 people in Germany, mentally handicapped and autistic, who would have been killed. A particularly tragic example from the study: A young man in his 20s who named the reason for his death wish: Social isolation. He wanted to die because he was lonely. 

The circle of those affected thereby becomes almost limitless. In surveys of socio-economic panels, 42 percent of Germans declare that they feel lonely. The Dutch psychiatrist Dr. Bram Sizzo explains the motivation of people seeking assistance for suicide. I cite: 

They believe this will be the end of their problems and the end of the problems of their families.

That means, they take their own lives because they do not want to be a burden on their families. That is terrifying. 

The draft laws put forward emphasize that the suicide should result from one’s own accord as an autonomous decision. They thus see entirely the danger that people take their own life under social pressure. I do not believe that they will prevent that; not one of the drafts. Against social pressure helps no double consultation obligation and no remark on a consultation document. Precisely in times of crisis, the pressure grows on the old and sick – not only on them, but on them especially – to be a burden on no one. We will have very many old and sick without families and very many more crises. 

The Chancellor has spoken for more respect. The reality appears otherwise. A frequent headline in the spring was “Housing Emergency in Germany: Pensioners Live Too Grandly”. Regensburg University has proposed forcing the pensioners into smaller residences by increasing the rental prices, and in Berlin the Berlin Church Institute has shown the door to 110 seniors. 

And added to that: The entire infrastructure of supervision, counseling and care of the old, the sick and those needing assistance, and of physically and mentally ill people, finds itself in an existential crisis. Care homes in great numbers are going insolvent. In Hesse, 25 percent closed this year. 60 percent of hospitals are in a business imbalance; many will close. The local provision for old and ill people is already bad and is becoming much worse. The emergency is growing. The average wait time for a therapy place for people in psychological distress amounts to five months. What will be the consequences if, in view of the crisis in care and health provision, it will be simpler to receive a nearby, open-ended [ergebnisoffene] suicide consultation than a care or therapy place? Before we strengthen the suicide prevention, you want to be concerned with open-ended suicide consultation. 

These are not my values. We should live our lives in freedom and responsibility before God. The beginning and end of life lie alone in the Hand of God. In that, I believe. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

 

 

Beatrix von Storch, April 26, 2023, Greens and Billionaires

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/99, pp. 11915-11916.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The House of Habeck’s nepotism has now finally reached the mainstream press and is a theme. What still is no theme: The financial investors and billionaires linked to the nepotism in the House of Habeck and who get still more money –  billions.

            Marcel Emmerich (Greens): What is it then with the billionaires behind you?

It is about the business with the heating pumps and ultimately about the entire German private real estate assets. And precisely that let us now look at for once.

All in the House of Habeck turns around the State Secretary Patrick Graichen, brother Jacob, sister Verena and Michael Kellner, her husband and Parliamentary State Secretary. We have heard it. A terribly nice family. The think tank Agora Energiewende and the Öko-Institut together published a paper: “Breakthrough for the Heating Pump”. We have heard it. In the Öko-Institut sit Jacob and Verena Graichen and at the Agora sat brother Patrick for seven years as managing director before Habeck made him State Secretary. But he not only made him State Secretary, he now transfers their paper, one for one: “Breakthrough for the Heating Pump”.  

So, now let us look at: Who stands behind the Agora and the Graichens? Who directs them? An intricate system of nested foundations disguises precisely that. The Agora Energiewende is financed by the European Climate Foundation fund. This is financed by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and which is in turn is financed by the British billionaire Christopher Hohn. Hohn earns two million euros – per day – and

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Oh! Yet that is in order!

is the principal money donor of the climate extremists Extinction Rebellion.

He thus distributes his money for the climate agenda. Yet really exciting is the question: How does he earn his money? I cite from the self-description of the Fund: The Fund is centered on the donations from mortgage companies and real estate companies in the major cities of North America and Europe. There where his climate agenda especially spins, there the financier of the climate agenda earns his money with mortgages and real estate. That is the crux of the matter.

            Carolin Bachmann (AfD): What the Greens have quietly become!

To where lead Habeck’s heating law and the Graichen clan? Homeowners need to take out mortgages so as to pay for the heating pumps. And if they are not able to do so, then they need to sell their real estate. And see there: There stands ready Hohn’s hedge fund and buys up the real estate. What a coincidence!

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): That is just rubbish! Such nonsense!

You can now say: Herr Hohn is nevertheless not the only one who stands behind the Agora. That’s right. There is still the Mercator Foundation with the Metro billionaires, and through the European Climate Foundation flows the means of the Canadian billionaire John MacBain, like Hohn a member of Bill Gates’s billionaires club, “The Giving Pledge”. As soon as you scratch the Green veneer: Billionaires, billionaires, billionaires.

Real estate is one side of the coin. The other side is the business with the heating pump. The U.S. concern Carrier Global now purchases the largest German heating pump manufacturer, Viessmann, for 12 billion dollars. And to whom does Carrier Global belong? 86 percent belongs to institutional investors, that means the U.S. finance industry, namely Blackrock – Herr Merz is here –

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): BlackRock, there where Merz hangs out.

Vanguard Group, Capital Group.

At the moment in which Habeck and the Graichen clan compel Germans to the purchase of heating pumps, the global finance industry takes over the German heating pump production. There are coincidences in this country! Unbelievable!

Thanks to Green climate policy, a gold-digger mood rules there. 75 billion euros, so much must the Germans raise for the heating pumps. And BlackRock, Vanguard and Capital Group inherit the Earth [verdienen sich dumm und dämlich].

Ladies and gentlemen, the Greens are the political arm of these global financial interests and the Graichen clan is the hand which writes the laws required for that.

            Till Steffen (Greens): Oijoijoi!

Your climate policy makes the global super-rich still much richer while the normal Germans lose the proverbial roof over their head. Your climate policy is nothing other than the ultimate attack on the entire wealth of the German people. I can assure you: We will not allow you to succeed with that.

Many thanks.

            Marie-Agnes Streck-Zimmermann (FDP): The troll has a face!

            Marcel Emmerich (Greens): A speech like a Facebook comment!

 

[trans: tem]