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]

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]

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tobias Peterka, June 27, 2025, Democracy and NGO Finance

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/15, pp. 1376-1377. 

Frau President. Dear citizens. Dear authentic democrats. 

“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those                                            other forms that have been tried from time to time” 

This citation has been ascribed to Winston Churchill. Many think it is nothing other than a complacent saying as is heard at a champagne reception. Thereby is conveyed that even democracy can deviate considerably from its ideals and basic values. There are plenty of examples of that for us. 

Yet the present theme should be the circumstance which perhaps presents the most beneficial effect of an authentic democracy: The existence of a non-state corporate aspect. Free of a taking, an evaluation and – to a known degree – an influencing by the state, we can either move entirely in privacy or, even in this much vaunted civil society, gather together in groups, and that is no small thing. Historically, this free space was actually only guaranteed involuntarily and from a lack of control possibilities – as good as never from insight. 

National and international socialists ultimately quite bluntly announced the fight against civil life in the name of progress; that, we have happily left behind us. Without the private, and without an authentic civil society, there is no freedom. This ideal we of the AfD will defend against anyone who seeks to undermine it. 

Of course, not everything is political, to refer in fact to an approved salon saying. Yet in consequence of this old motto of the 68ers, we unfortunately are managing not only indoctrination in the most intimate areas of life, but also a zombiefied, pseudo civil society. In a steadily expanding mass, associations, foundations and special alliances have arm-thick roots in party structures, will be provided by these with money, and act almost like organs themselves. 

In every legislature were hundreds of millions in euros conveyed to the so-called NGOs, and thereby is this term stood on its head. There must be an end to it. No free state may itself finance its own heralds or pseudo-critics. For while the political bubble of the established parties – oh, horror! – in regards to profit-oriented business rightly uses the term “lobbyism”, NGOs – counter to their actual definition – are, in regards to us, looked upon as well-meaning actors, basically standing above things. And why that at all? Quite simple: Thus is achieved that one’s own front organizations are camouflaged as civil society, in any case to arrive at doors opened quite wide, be it by influence or the vile Mammon. Thus is overdue what our draft law [Drucksache 21/577] wants to expand here in section 23 of the Federal Budget Order: “Donations to front organizations from political parties are forbidden.” A state which only with special debts chases after decisive things like infrastructure or a sozial budget may not also still in this way squander the taxpayers’ money. 

Before you now affectedly cry out: Yes, the definition of the term “front” as “actors in a struggle of political opinion” certainly applies. Or will you now in innocent tones assert: Since when is  the AWO [workers welfare organization] not neutral? Since when is the BUND [Union for Environment and Nature Protection of Germany] not about our general welfare? – The AWO is of course a front organization of the SPD, exactly so as BUND and Greenpeace do groundwork for the Greens. Pro Asyl, Attac, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, those are only the big fish which will here be fed. By the known program “Demokratie leben”, will all possible little unions be promoted against those who think for themselves. Besides the workshop for the male phantom clitoris will be offered the workshop against the AfD. 

One may also feel in such a way secure and protected from leftist parties after – Attention, important! – the violence protection consultant Tuuli Reiss at the Bundesverband Trans proclaimed on social networks: Murder, to irresponsible rich men, is not only ethically representable but indeed ordered. Fantasies of torture follow. Sympathetic little person! Here is clear, on the top floor all is in the best order. 

At the association “Fulda stellt sich quer” was managed a personnel union with the contracting authorities. A project promoter of the alliance against hostility to Islam and Moslems feared that we – cite – were degenerating into a Jewish state. These – with permission – shadowy, evil-smelling culture media of general irresponsibility, in regards freely available state funds, need finally to be drained. It is the perfect living space for the common leftist and the green sozial engineers, and its allied NGOs. Do not be so innocent. It might be that a wide, three-figure number of the 630 members here either come directly from this living space or are based on it. With claw and fang you go at those who for once want light be shed on this circumstance. Thus was the Union scourged with the malicious rage of those caught in the act with its known inquiry catalogue with 550 questions on the left-green promotion swamp. Welcome to the club! One thereby clearly hangs on the coalition’s strings, and outside barking from the Bavarian State Chancellery will clearly make nothing known in that regard. 

You all here want not to be named a political cartel. Then simply stop acting exactly so! A first step: Willingly accompany this draft law; we are in the first reading. You may also keep your front, but without subscription to state funds. Base your demands openly as a party. Do not hide behind actors who in truth are flesh of your own flesh. 

It is clear to me that one pious wish will remain. Yet as you know, the authentic civil Bürger society runs away from you in droves. Earlier, it was parade troops in a transport of sozial victory; meanwhile, it is of course only those zombie NGOs which tomorrow stand to your call to the multi-colored flag. Many thanks to all who therein cooperated, and the rest we will figure out. 

Many thanks. 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, June 6, 2025, A Tragedy in Israel

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/11, pp. 911-912. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Helmut Schmidt, a German statesman whose stature is recalled with a certain nostalgia, 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): He unfortunately can no longer defend himself against you!

designated one decision as the most difficult of his political life. On September 5, 1977, RAF terrorists kidnapped the employers’ president Hanns Martin Schleyer and demanded of the Federal government the release of eleven imprisoned terrorists, otherwise Schleyer would need to die. Helmut Schmidt decided not to give in to the demands. He thus remained following the hijacking of the Landshut by Palestinian terrorists. The hostages on the Landshut could be freed, Hanns Martin Schleyer not. 

Helmut Schmidt acted as an actor in a tragedy. He knew whatever he did, he would be guilty. Yet his message was clear: One does not negotiate with terrorists. Terrorists are to be fought – with all means, ladies and gentlemen. 

Already by that time, German leftist extremists and Palestinian terrorists got along quite well. Their common enemy was and is the Western system. For them, Israel is a colonial state which should disappear from the map. In the DDR media, Israel seldom emerged without the epithet of “aggressor”. That as it happens the Linke now bring in this motion is suggestive of crocodile tears. Never could one with a better conscience be an anti-semite than presently. Never better understood are Islamist and leftist radicals than today [Nie konnte man mit besserem Gewissen Antisemit sein als derzeit. Nie verstanden sich islamische und linke Radikale besser als heute]. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): That says as it happens an AfD representative!

I want in no way to thereby say that all who criticize Israel’s proceedings in Gaza are anti-semites – um Gottes willen! I want only to thus say that there was never better times for the enemies of Jews to condemn Israel. 

In the German Bundestag, no formulation has been more frequently used than that of the German responsibility vis-à-vis the Jews and the Jewish state, which follows from the fact that in the name of Germany was attempted to make extinct the Jewish people. 

The National Socialists came horrifyingly far with that project.

           Ralf Stegner (SPD): “Vogelschiss”, what you then declared!

Today there are organizations in the Arab world which want to make extinct the Jewish state, thus continue Hitler’s work. At the head is the Hamas. Of their views, their members make no secret. They even publish the pictures of their acts of murder. The Hamas abuses civilians as defense shields. The Hamas takes the Palestinian people as a hostage. The Hamas has only one goal: The annihilation of Israel. 

Israel is a state under siege. May I therein remind you that in Israel live two million Arab Israelis, approximately 20 percent of the total population? Gaza was, however, free of Jews, and from Gaza have attacked those who would gladly have all Israel free of Jews. 

I can only here repeat what I in this place have often already said: It does not in my opinion pertain to us as Germans to condemn Israel when it defends itself against an aggressor who murders Jews and dreams of the extinction of the Jewish state. 

Germany in the years 2023 and 2024 alone transferred almost one billion euros to the Palestinians, as was produced by an inquiry of the FDP to the Federal government. From the EU in any case flows millions. From 2014 to 2020, UN organizations expended almost 4.5 billion dollars in the Gaza strip. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the aid supplied to the Palestinians between 1994 and 2020 was over 40 billion dollars. 

Gaza would have been able to become a blooming landscape. Instead of building schools and factories or founding businesses, the Hamas dug tunnels and built rockets – and on October 7, 2023, attacked Israel, massacred far over 1,000 civilians in bestial ways and put the pictures on  the internet. No one can persuade me that the Hamas has not justified a massive retaliation. I would quite well know how those who condemn Israel here in the hall, and primarily outside, would react had that been done to their children and family members. 

And I would also quite well know, ladies and gentlemen, how Israel should defend itself, without that also striking the innocent and civilians, those who were also struck by the bombing attacks of the Allies on Hamburg, Dresden, Cologne or Chemnitz. And yet we speak today rightly – and especially on the anniversary of the landing in Normandy – of liberation, and of that especially loudly by those who have brought in this motion. Henryk Broder has rightly put the question of the proportionality in such a war. 

There are in the Linke’s motion also naturally reasonable passages,

            Daniel Baldy (SPD): As opposed to your speech!

primarily in regards to the humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian assistance we of course support. Yet Israel cannot permit a two-state solution with the participation of the Hamas. Strictly speaking, Israel can no longer permit the existence of the Hamas [Israel kann streng genommen die Existenz der Hamas nicht länger zulassen]. That is the lesson from the history of the Gaza strip free of Jews. How long would it last until out of the Palestinian state rockets were again fired at Israel? 

Ladies and gentlemen, we in the West have forgotten in 80 years of peace what a tragedy is. We meanwhile designate every accident a tragedy. Yet the essence of tragedy lies in that the man who acts will be guilty. The conflict in a tragedy is insoluble. In Israel, a tragedy occurred. We should thank God that we are merely on-lookers, and need not redeem our lightly made promise that Israel’s security is part of our reason of state. Yet at least we should refrain from cheap condemnations in this situation. 

I am grateful.

  

[trans: tem]

Tomasz Froelich, June 16, 2025, Hungary

EU Parliament, Strasbourg,  P10 CRE-REV(2025)06-18(3-0243-0000) 

Herr President. 

Hungary is a sovereign state, Hungary defends traditional values, and Hungary has every right to ban the Pride, for it is right to protect children from sexual exhibitionism. You here contrive a tribunal against Orbán so as to divert from your own problems. Since not in Budapest are women gang raped, the caliphate is not proclaimed in Budapest, but truly in our cities, in Berlin, in Brussels, in Paris. Here, you shut your trap. Yet when Orbán does something which does not agree with you, you turn right around. 

You do not respect Hungary, you expect obedience. Who does not obey, will be sanctioned. That is like a social credit system on a supra-national level. In countries which were under the Soviet knout, that awakens evil memories; yet you don’t get it. You don’t understand how humiliating and arrogant your words act in Hungary, because you lack every cultural sensibility. Your variety is a simple-mindedness. Your tolerance applies only to those of the same opinion. You behave like colonial masters with imperialistic values, and you do not once notice it. Hands off Hungary! 

 

[trans: tem]

Rüdiger Lucassen, May 14, 2025, Defense Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/3, p. 132. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Besides broken election promises and announcements, nothing is put forward to us from black-red one week after the assumption of government. It may be objected: New governments need time – in that regard, two things: First. Germany does not have this time; every citizen of this country feels that. Second. Half of the Merz government is not at all new. The SPD election losers are stuck – with a small intermission – for 27 years in the Federal government. How long do you still require to show results? 50 years? No, right honorable colleagues, there is no no-hunting season in politics. We’ve heard enough excuses. The AfD grants the new government no training period. 

Chancellor Merz was just in Kiev and has made photographs with his new colleagues, promised further weapons deliveries, and demanded an armistice which was just like before rejected. For me, it made the impression as if this rebuff from Moscow had been intended so to continue the old Ampel course. Otherwise, so much foreign policy naïveté cannot be explained. The Kiev trip was thus only a PR ploy, nothing other. There were no new ideas, no acknowledgment of Realpolitik facts, and no readiness to reconsider the broken down wrong way of the previous government. You simulate strength where none is. That will not work. For the German defense policy, the new government’s prognostics are in any case at a standstill. All announcements, your coalition contract and the old Defense Minister’s justifying the acceptance, that will be no rupture. You say that quite openly and call it continuity. Only, this continuity has led the German defense policy, just so as our entire country, into the dead end. Your continuity means not only a standstill, but loss of substance. 

What Germany needs is plainly no further so, but a new approach which the Merz government cannot deliver, because it lacks the prerequisite for that, the will, free and sovereign, to take in  hand Germany’s future. For that is required the exact opposite of continuity. It requires courage, a smart  readiness to take risk, and an affirmation that Germany stands for itself [ein Bekenntnis zu Deutschland, das für sich selbst steht]. My party has entered the 21^st Bundestag with exactly this claim. Our next goal is clear: We want and will overtake the government in 2029, and put the German defense policy, without restriction, in the service of our country. 

For the AfD, our armed forces, the Bundeswehr is an expression and means of a sovereign national state. Our demand is that the Bundeswehr be in the position to defend Germany on the water, on the ground and in the air. The question is thus: Which prerequisite do we require for that? 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Cyberspace!

The answer of the old Defense Minister, we know – we’ve plainly heard it: More money. The result: An armed forces not capable of national defense. Our answer is a clear acknowledgment of Germany as a nation, a clear acknowledgment of the national state as the highest regulating framework, and a clear acknowledgment of the state as a servant of the nation. 

I have in the past eight years many times said: There is not only a materiel and personnel mission  readiness, but also one of ideas [ideelle]. Without an ideational mission readiness, even a fully equipped armed forces can never undergo a mission and a fight. Two examples: The Afghan national army was for 20 years armed and trained by NATO, and surrendered to a guerilla force in sandals in a few hours. The Ukrainian army fights for three years an opponent superior in materiel and personnel and holds out. With amazement, the CDU and SPD then stand before the Ukrainians’ will to fight, without asking themselves from where comes this will to fight. It is the soldiers’ undiminished relation [Bezug] with the country and people. 

Ladies and gentlemen, such a positive relation to one’s own nation is restrained by the self-named democratic middle, not only for our soldiers but also for our countrymen. You also restrain it for yourselves. At the same time, this positive relation is the clear acknowledgment of our grand country, which is what we require to again set Germany aright in defense policy, but also in all other policy fields. Precisely that, we of the AfD want to achieve and will at the latest by 2029 implement. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Boris Pistorius is representative of the new Federal government. He can ever only say what he wants to fight against: Against the Russians, against hate and agitation, against the AfD. Yet the AfD knows what is worth fighting for. Our soldiers know it also, their oath demands to bravely defend the German people. That is what is worth fighting for. 

Thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Götz Frömming, May 14, 2025, Cultural Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/3, pp. 109-110. 

Right honorable Frau Vice-president. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Immediately after me, the new Culture State Minister Wolfram Weimer will here make his first speech. I can say: We are very curious [gespannt], Herr Weimer. In the run up, it was reported that you are a conservative man and that here was negotiated an ideological decision to now name you Culture Minister. The talk was even of a shift to the right [Rechtsruck] and the beginning of a new Kulturkampf.

We find that astonishing in view of the fact that you replace Claudia Roth. More ideological than the previous culture policy under Claudia Roth, it can scarcely be, ladies and gentlemen. The talk of a shift to the right in the culture policy is therefore pure hypocrisy. A shift to the right considered from the standpoint of a Claudia Roth, that would be nothing further than a normalization. 

In fact in regards these accusations, it’s about the money. The culture scene is highly subventioned, without tax money it is scarcely viable. The Spiegel interpreted the naming of Weimer as “a prolongation of the minor inquiry” of the Union to the Federal government which is known under the shorthand, “551 questions”. Now the Federal government could itself answer these questions. We will remind you not to forget that.

We certainly expect from the new Federal government no shift to the right, ladies and gentlemen. An escape from the left would be fully sufficient. It would be fully sufficient if no more tax money flows into extreme leftist propaganda which passes itself off as art. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): So, really! What is that then?

 I know that you here feel yourselves addressed; that is also thus correct. 

The culture policy in the era of Frau Roth was not merely leftist, ladies and gentlemen, it was anti-German, anti-Christian, and was directed – we have previously heard – also against Israel. What we, with the documenta and during the Berlinale, needed to experience in anti-semitic invective was unbearable. It has never come to a real reappraisal of those events. 

Much thereof speaks that in regards to what we have seen, only the tip of the iceberg is dealt with. The leftist anti-semitism has more deeply penetrated the culture scene than many want to admit. Were it an anti-semitism coming from the right, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure Heaven and Hell would have long since been set in motion against it. 

We therefore welcome that the new State Minister, as a first act in office, has separated himself from the upper officials and confidants of his predecessor – I now leave the names aside. Their anti-Israel attitude was “known to the scene”, as the Judische Allgemeine recently wrote. 

So as to name one additional positive point: The agreement with the house of Hohenzollern on the storage place of art treasures is a good sign. Since let us look back: Frau Roth and the Greens wanted, as is known, to break up and re-name the Prussian Cultural Foundation. It meant nothing other than to eradicate Prussia. Frau Baerbock even let the Bismarck room in the Foreign Office be re-named. Frau Roth wanted to fade out [überblenden] the Christian inscription on the Berliner Schloss and have the cross on the roof preferably dismantled. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to the Greens, all is a horror which is German. Peoples and cultures they only accept when they are as foreign and exotic as possible. Yet who does not love his own, ladies and gentlemen, he cannot also respect the foreign. 

            Alice Weidel (AfD): Exactly!

 Herr Weimer, you see in Christianity, as you formulated, the opportunity for a “cultural renaissance of the West”. You thus clearly have concepts different from your predecessor and we are therein very curious. Primarily, we are curious as to how you will get along with Frau Nancy Faeser, who now as a kind of revenge of the SPD could possibly overtake the chairmanship of the Culture Committee so as to be able to there continue her fight against so-called disinformation which, ja, principally comes from her house. That will become an exciting show. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): What then is that for an unashamed imputation?

 Ladies and gentlemen, it is besides no political goal of the AfD to generally abolish the cultural subventions which were here and there maintained. It is merely our goal to end the one-sided political enlistment of theaters and other cultural institutions. We want to no rightist theater. We also want no leftist theater. We want an independent theater. 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): What you want is nevertheless not to be reconciled                        with artistic and cultural freedom! 

Ladies and gentlemen, the leftist daily newspaper taz fears, following the change of government, a headwind for many leftist cultural projects. We do not fear that. We even hope for it. To stay in the metaphor, ladies and gentlemen: He can really sail who also comes forward with a headwind. In this sense: Herr State Minister, make a steady wind [machen Sie ordentlich Wind]! In this regard, you can count on us. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Götz Frömming, May 22, 2025, Cultural Goods

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/7, pp. 540-541. 

Herr President. Herr State Minister. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The protection of cultural goods is a concern which we share. Nevertheless, this lofty aim ever again encounters the question: To whom belong culturally significant works of art actually? We in the past years have learned that to each people is due a right to its cultural goods, and these cultural goods if necessary need to be returned. If that however, ladies and gentlemen, applies for African peoples, so it needs also apply for our own people. 

Three years ago, our former Foreign Minister, in common with the then Federal Commissioner for Culture, handed over the so-called Benin Bronzes to the state of Nigeria. The Nigerian President immediately gave by decree the rights of ownership to the official Oba of Benin, and thereby to the private possession of the ruling family. In the U.S.A., there is a group of descendants of former slaves from Benin, who expressly rejected the return of the Bronzes, and indeed with the words – cite: As a result, the descendants of slaveholders receive a second opportunity to profit from the enslavement of people. It is embarrassing that the Federal government had a hand in that. 

Western ethnological museums for long saw therein their mission to preserve such cultural goods, to research and to make them accessible to the public. Today, all of that is colonial robbery art which needs to be given back, and then in the worst case disappears. Protection of culture can be very paradoxical, ladies and gentlemen.   

Let us look at the reverse case. The State Museum of Berlin and the Prussian State Library stored during the Second World War a large part of their inventory in places which today belong to Poland. The most well-known collection is the Berlinka, from the Prussian treasury, which is now to be found in Cracow. Among thousands of valuable, Middle Age manuscripts are writings of Luther, Goethe and Schiller – clearly, German national cultural goods. Ladies and gentlemen, these manuscripts need finally return to Germany. We expect your engagement, Herr State Minister. 

Additional German cultural goods are found in depositories and storerooms in Russia – presently difficult to access – and in the surrounding states, and in the Ukraine. Why actually has the Federal government not demanded, in consideration for our billions in assistance payments to the Ukraine, the return of the art still to be found there, among which are valuable paintings and precious porcelains; for example, from Dresden? These cultural goods also belong to us, and we gladly want it back. 

Ladies and gentlemen, an inquiry of the AfD delegation has yielded that also in Georgia German cultural goods are still to be found. 70,000 books have been found in a cellar of the University of Tiflis. This treasure was offered to the Federal Republic of Germany, yet the gift was rejected. Supposedly, it is too expensive to restore these books. I need be quite astonished. Recently, the Elders Council decided, in compensation for members’ air travel, to pay hundreds of thousands of euros to water swamps and for cooking pots for Rwanda. Ladies and gentlemen, this money should have better been used for the German cultural goods, in this case in Georgia. 

            Rebecca Lenhard (Greens): That is repulsive!

There are still further examples; for example, the Paramentenschatz [liturgical vestments]. Here, we have a cultural good in the hands of the church; the state has not the least access. The Evangelical Church decided to simply give it away. Here unfortunately, the law put forward does not have effect. We see here a need for subsequent improvement. 

Ladies and gentlemen, let me in closing say: We should grant all peoples and nations have the right to the conservation of their respective cultural goods. Yet we have not only the right, but also the obligation to conserve our own culture and all cultural goods which the German people have created. We owe that to our ancestors and to the generations which come after us. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Anja Arndt, April 1, 2025, Christians in the Congo

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)04-01(2-0571-0000). 

Frau President. 

On February 12^th occurred in the Congo a horrific massacre: Seventy Christians – men, women and children – were kidnapped by the Islamist ADF militia and in barbaric ways and means murdered with machetes and hammers. This Islamist brutality is no single instance. I thank the Commission that it makes this terror a theme here, and finally commits itself to the religious freedom and security of Christians. 

In the Congo, 95 percent of the population are Christians; in Europe, it is 72 percent. Despite this overwhelming majority, they are selectively eradicated. And with us, Islamist murders as in Aschaffenburg, Mannheim und Solingen are a gruesome reality. My compassion is for all victims and relatives among us, in the Congo and in the entire world. 

The EU needs to come to terms with this violence. It needs to be the advocate of the Christians – with more secure borders, a clearer rigor against Islamists and an authentic protection. Germany needs the AfD, and Europe needs the Europe of Sovereign Nations. 

 

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, March 31, 2025, Academic Freedom

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)03-31(1-0158-0000). 

Madam President, so the Trump administration in the United States is threatening academic freedom? This claim by the European Commission and some MEPs here is pure hypocrisy. Where was the outcry from the EU and the academia in Europe when more and more non-leftist scientists in the US were dismissed or forced to resign by their radical colleagues and the left-wing student mob simply because they didn't bow to the woke ideology? Bret Weinstein, Joseph Manson and Mike Adams even committed suicide. The wokeness virus has taken over US academia and in Europe it's also widespread, including its cancel culture. 

If President Trump now takes action against the intolerant and unscientific gender ideology, if he stops DEI programmes that discriminate white people and also restricts the dogmatic, almost religious climate research, then he's taking measures that help restore scientific freedom, not suppress it. We need such measures in Europe too.

 

Alexander Gauland, March 18, 2025, Merz, CDU and Germany

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/214, pp. 27761-24462. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

In the course of this debate, on the previous Thursday as well as today, much which is correct and also false has been said. A new assessment by me is therefore not needed. Allow me then to make a couple of personal remarks. 

Herr Merz and I were for many years in the same party. I went, because I could no longer bear the destruction by Angela Merkel of the CDU as a conservative-liberal, bürgerliche alternative to the left-green mainstream. Herr Merz was a victim of her will to power. 

I grant, ladies and gentlemen, that I therefore expected much of his return to politics: A different economic and social policy, a reversal of false developments, like the illegal mass immigration to the exit from atomic power and the combustion engine. 

            Andreas Mattfeldt (CDU/CSU): That is coming! All comes!

My idea – you call it a vision – was that Germany receives a Politik of reason and judgment, thus a middle-right Politik, like many people in this country wish it as evidenced by the election results. 

            Andreas Mattfeldt (CDU/CSU): Yet you have only a hostile goal!

Instead, Herr Merz, you’ve erected a firewall, which today and in the future makes you prisoners of left-green social alterations. So as to get into the Chancellor’s Office, you have sacrificed everything that was still conservative or bürgerlich in the CDU, and your voters to whom you gave your word on the debt brake, you have betrayed with billions of euros at the pump. Seldom, ladies and gentlemen, has bügerlicher decency been so quickly replaced by political cynicism. 

Herr Merz, that you do not listen to me is fully clear. Yet you would have been able to listen to Andreas Rödder, the earlier chairman of your basic values commission, who in the Welt am Sonntag wrote precisely the same in the album of the CDU. 

You will, Herr Merz, apparently become Chancellor with a Politik like we have experienced in recent years. And this Politik will exactly so fail as that of the subsiding Ampel. Not even your transatlantic allies in Washington support your dubious efforts to solve today’s problems with yesterday’s answers. Such a change of times [Zeitenwende], dear Herr Merz, will only be with us, not with the failures of yesterday. 

And if in recent years I ever again had doubt in my own party, today I am proud and glad to have stood with others as godparent to it in the year 2013. For since this week is it clear: The Merz CDU is the continuation of the Merkel CDU – a further so, Herr Merz, in Germany’s downfall, for which you in the future need to answer. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, March 13, 2025, Finances and Values

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/213, pp. 27703-27704. 

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

We live in historic times. Yet no applicant for the Chancellor’s office in so brief a time has broken so many election promises as you, Herr Merz. Border controls, you no longer want, refusals certainly not. Deportation of those obliged to leave? Nonsense! Debt brake? Away with it, even though it is in your election program. You will enter history as the gravedigger of the debt brake which you in the election campaign just as vehemently as mendaciously defended. 

Without consideration, you sacrifice the well-being of the citizens so by hook or crook to become Chancellor. You have therein agreed with the SPD, the great election loser, to approve beforehand the largest debts package since the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Around one trillion euros – 1,000 billion – which is just so unclear as your entire profile. You want to force that through with an unscrupulous attack on our constitution and on democratic legitimacy, which you, with the dubious special sessions and rush jobs, make contemptible. 

Because the election results do not suit you, you again bring in the old Bundestag – thus, forces which the voters voted out and punished – with whose help you want to tie the hands of the newly elected Bundestag by means of a trillion in additional debt. These procedures show your contempt for the will of the voters. These procedures derive from your contempt for the democratic legitimization process, and these procedures derive from your character, Herr Merz. 

500 billion euros of special debts which you re-classify as “special funds” [Sondervermögen] for barely defined infrastructure measures and for the nullification of the debt brake, and for additional, in any case not more precise, defense expenditures in a similar sum, yet without an upper limit, and debts for climate protection so as to purchase the assent of the Greens. That is a gigantic mortgage with which you have indebted the coming generations who need to answer for this spending frenzy. 

With your blank check rises the debt burden per taxpayer – this value is more significant than the usually given per capita indebtedness – from today’s 58,500 euros to over 77,700 euros, that is an increase of 33 percent. Measured by GDP, Gross Domestic Product, Germany’s debt burden with your coup will rise from the present 64 percent to over 85 percent, and that is nothing other than a financial policy coup d’état which you here manage. 

The German government bond is valued as a risk-free benchmark for the costs of borrowing in the euro area. Germany’s financial policy change of course thus has negative effects on the risk premiums of German state bonds; that is to say: We will need to pay higher interest rates. 

At the announcement of your plans, the return for ten-year German government bonds rose in one day around 16 basis points, and in one week until today over 50 basis points – and that, even though the ECB had previously again reduced the interest rates 25 basis points. You thereby not only shrink the scope of action of future governments and drive the German state finances into derangement. By your actions you put at risk the creditworthiness of Germany in the international financial market. 

You thereby similarly endanger the house of cards of the weak euro currency, the existence of which is still primarily based on the present triple-A top credit. Germany will lose this triple-A rating as a result of your irresponsibility, Herr Merz. The interest rates will go through the roof and the euro will be devalued with massive consequences for the people. People in this country will be paying for that by higher interest rates on mortgages, through higher rents and rising prices for import goods for production and consumption. 

Your reasonings are just as pretentious as mendacious, as we’ve heard here today. You conjure up an ostensible “suddenly altered world situation” and stir up a war panic so as to intimidate and make pliant the citizens. It is the same cheap manipulation with which earlier governments have supported themselves in the Corona hysteria and the climate mania so as to justify the massive expansion of state spending and the limitations of freedom. And you commit this grotesque enormity just at this moment when the U.S.A. and Russia are about to end the mass death in the Ukraine, while you, the black-red-green coalition, want to there unconcernedly sink financial aid and armaments. 

Yes, it is right: Germany needs to do more for its defense capability so as to create an army which does not just devour money but is also fully mission-ready for the defense of the country. Yet required for that is no debts watering can, which will be exactly so thrown away as the first so-called special funds. Required for that is first a strategy, and then targeted expenditures. To recruit motivated soldiers, required is not only money, but a positive, patriotic Selbstbild of one’s own nation and one’s own army. For a woke, leftist ideology will no one give his life. 

And right: Germany urgently needs to invest in its neglected and rotting infrastructure. I ask myself: What in the last decades have you actually done as you were in the government? Yet also for that, a previously manipulated in the budget law, 500 billion euro shunting station is not the solution. Infrastructure and defense are core duties of state action. To appropriately finance them, the priorities of state expenditures need to be correctly set. 

A total state income in taxes and duties of over two trillion euros does not signify the solution of still more debt, but to rigorously slash superfluous spending. Thus eliminate all incentives for immigration into the social system. End the illegal immigration by closing the borders. Concern yourselves for a turning back without exception and a consistent sending back. End the horrendous subventions for climate protection and the failed energy change. Eliminate all payments to so-called NGOs, which in truth are not when they are dependent on state money. In this way, you can liberate a three-figure billion contribution in the budget to invest in infrastructure, defense and domestic security, and nevertheless still reduce taxes. 

Your exploratory paper negotiated with the Social Democrats is a declaration of capitulation before the green-socialist desires for which you have thrown overboard nearly all of your election promises. One may well ask, what you still want to offer the Greens after you submissively threw yourself on your knees. What you have charged to social and economic policy bears throughout the handwriting of the SPD and the Greens: Redistribution, subventions, state interference, Verbote. For this lamentable result, you betrayed your voters, ripped wide open the debts sluices and damaged the constitution. 

This voter fraud and this attack on democracy you’ve publicly planned with care. The unworthy presentation which you delivered here, Herr Merz, sounds now like an end-stage, black Ampel. It happens, just as each time it has happened: Those who vote for the CDU get presented with a left-green Politik. 

Because you cling to the firewall, you deliver yourself over to green-left-red majorities. You arrogantly show contempt for the votes of over ten million voters, who voted for the AfD, and thus for a political new beginning right of center. The duties, to which you have not awoken, continue to lie at hand: To correct the failed leftist policy which has led the country to loss of prosperity, de-industrialization, collapse of domestic security, collapse of infrastructure and public order. The wrong way of mass migration, squandering of tax money, and a planned economy, is to be left behind. We need to again bring Germany to the right way. 

We of the AfD are unalterably ready to take up these duties and assume responsibility, yet not with you, Herr Merz, and also not with the Union which maintains you as Chancellor candidate and a left-green policy. Render to this country, Herr Merz, a service, a quite great service: Give up wanting to become Chancellor. Since you cannot do it. On this point, Angela Merkel was right. Your time has run out, before you’ve at all begun. The Union should separate itself from you – for the good of our country and the good of their party; since you cannot do it. Why, Herr Merz? Because you have no principles and no values.

 

I am grateful.

 

 

 

[trans: tem]