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]

Hans Neuhoff, July 8, 2025, Georgia

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)07-08(2-0512-0000). 

Frau President. Colleagues. 

The European Parliament gladly presents itself as a moral institution, as a judge of good and evil in politics. For months, the Parliament is enraged that the Georgians in October 2024 did not elect the government which the EU had foreseen. For months, the committees and panels brood over how to punish the Georgians for that. The Georgian government also then even has the shamelessness to itself set aside the EU accession negotiations until 2028 which nevertheless would have been gladly done. 

The EPP report on Georgia shall now indemnify for that. It presents itself as a singular catalog of sins which thereby exceeds itself in demands which quite clearly contradict EU law. Personal sanctions without judicial process or collective punishments are just two examples of that. No word of acknowledgment that the Georgian government has kept its country out of the conflict between power blocs into which it, like the Ukraine, would have been so gladly driven. With this report, the EU will overstep the institutional mandate and disregard the principle of sovereign equality. The ESN delegation will decisively reject this report. 

 

[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]

René Aust, July 9, 2025, New Majorities

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)07-09(3-0018-0000). 

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

I want to initially begin with something positive, for the national states have allowed a hint that they want to weaken the supply chain guidelines. Finally thus the Council too goes in the right direction, as it also often and increasingly happens in this parliament – unfortunately however always too slowly; for the world is changing, it changes rapidly, profoundly and irreversibly. Radical technological change, demographic shifts, geopolitical tensions – everywhere we feel the change. Only one continent in comparison to the speeds of other parts of the world apparently stands still, namely Europe. While China runs away in artificial intelligence, while India rises to be a global technology site, and the U.S.A. opens new growth centers, we unfortunately lag behind. 

What we experience is no accident; since as before this continent is fettered by a left-green ideology. Much too seldom do politicians in responsible positions have the courage to use the new majorities in this parliament, but also on this entire continent, to the benefit of a patriotic change. We are available for that. We know that Europe works when its richness is respected, and not when it produces egalitarianism; and besides, only when there is freedom of opinion, and it is not circumscribed, as you seek to do. 

 

[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]

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]

Tino Chrupalla, May 14, 2025, Politics and Policy

German Bundestag, May 14, 2025, Plenarprotokoll 21/3, pp. 102-104. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen. 

New Federal governments have one thing in common: They bear the burden of the failed Politik made a half-century before. The bad infrastructure in transport and communication, in health and education, has a pre-history, and this is substantially connected with CDU/CSU, SDP, Green and FDP governments. Chancellors come and go, yet one thing remains: There never was the will for courageous and honest reforms. 

Meanwhile, one thing has become more difficult about the political competition. The inconvenient change from the government to the opposition and back is history, since in this parliament more than three parties make Politik. For Politik means: To make compromises. And yes, it is more strenuous that more parties need to be won. Each delegation thereby represents a number of voters, for my delegation following this Bundestag election, over 10 million who have given their votes to the Alternative für Deutschland. Herr Spahn, it is plainly not just the frustrated who have voted for the AfD. We think it is time to engage with these voters with respect. For you to make general accusations, and to thereby curl yourself up in political Berlin, convinces ever fewer voters. We speak now in the third legislature of vice-presidents, committee chairmen, and meanwhile even over whether we can use a delegation hall which corresponds to the occupational safety and evacuation regulations. Last year, the business and house order was passed, ja polished, so as not to need to designate it strategically changed. There were media campaigns orchestrated which want to deprive my delegation of the parliamentary practices in accord with making Politik in the interest of our country. All of that is long since no longer little games, ladies and gentlemen. 

Now the Social Democrats do not want to make available to us a work room, the delegation hall. In that regard, two points: 

First, the historic Reichstag building belongs to no party, but to country and people.

Second, we all, members and parties, are elected by the sovereign, the German people, as it is out there on the building, to a time in this parliament. This maneuver thus discredits this parliament and thereby also the citizens of Germany who elected all of us to this position. In likely four years are the next Bundestag elections. Until then, make good Politik. Then perhaps with a strong delegation, you have a good chance to enter 22^nd Bundestag, and advance a claim to a larger hall for your delegation meetings. Until then, dear colleagues, defend the dignity of the parliament, and end this little game! 

Frau President Klöckner, I hereby expressly request you support my delegation’s ability to work. You said following your entry into office, “There are clear…rules” Precisely that, I hope, applies for all delegations. I take you at your word. 

Ladies and gentlemen, let me briefly enter into the Constitution Defense theme. The staging of  May 2, 2025, as I unfortunately need to designate it, caused not only a quake in the media world, but also left behind an utterly insipid taste of a political exercise of power against an opposition party. The departing Interior Minister used her next to last day in office to announce to the media an opinion which in fact was not evaluated by the Federal Interior Ministry, yet was apparently leaked exclusively to individual representatives of the press, but not to the affected party which learned of it from the press. That contradicts not only the equality of opportunity, but also squanders the trust in state organs and measures. As we today know, the opinion is supported on public sources, whether even by parliamentary connections is presently being examined. Everything else will be clarified by legal experts and the courts. For our parliamentary work, it will have only so much influence as we take seriously the duty of the largest opposition delegation. We stand for the freedom of opinion and for the Basic Law. We will closely pursue the government’s Politik, and comment, and indeed hard but constructive. 

In this connection, I need today to speak to the role of non-governmental organizations. To their role in political decision making processes and the thereby associated state financing, a stop needs to be ordered; since all parties should, according to German party law, cite: “Take care for an […] active association between […] people and state organs.” Certainly therefore are biases not only unacceptable, but also contradict the equality principle. In this regard is to be mentioned the denied, as before, financing of the party-associated Erasmus Foundation. Also here, new reasons will ever again be gathered to forgo the state finances to the Alternative für Deutschland, and to distribute to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the Böll, the Luxemburg Foundation, and the Ebert Foundation, etc. It’s gladly kept amongst themselves. 

I want to again expressly point out that on the the day of the Chancellor election, we did not provide for the famous result of two ballots. Those, Herr Chancellor, were clearly your majorities which did not come about, the majorities from CDU/CSU and SPD. Besides, afterwards, the CDU approached my delegation and asked for a vote in favor of a time period waiver so that Herr Merz could still become Chancellor on May 6^th. We besides voted for it. The rest of the story, you all know. We were and are ready for constructive cooperation. All channels of discussion for the sake of the people are for us in all cases open. 

I want at this place to enter into the role and significance of eastern Germany [Ostdeutschland]. In your coalition contract, the word emerges three times. Gratefully, you designate the achievements of the eastern Germans as extraordinary. The five new Federal States were and will still be financially supported, by the billions in debt besides everything else. Only, after 35 years of German unity, most of the citizens in the east have not succeeded to stand there in similar financial independence like those in the territory of the old Federal Republic. Much more, the following generations inherit a debts package which is without equal. Beyond that, you plan nothing to improve the east’s infrastructural basic equipment. To that belongs not only roads which lead in the direction of the east, but also advantageous energy prices so that firms can be founded without years-long subventions, settle in and, before all, survive. 

The Mittelstand was and, in the east, certainly is the backbone of the German economy. Here, training- and work-places are created. Here, taxes are generated and social duties paid. That is value-creating work. Precisely that makes up Germany. Precisely that Germany needs. Instead, we receive ever more state operations which only live from public means. 

Interesting in that regard is the position of the eastern commissioner. Why actually is this again necessary? The CDU in the election campaign regarded the permanent office as superfluous. Do you believe that your new eastern commissioner of the SPD is really representative for the east? 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Nein!

It’s now really sporty that an eastern commissioner of a party which in Thüringen, Saxony and Saxon-Anhalt unites behind it between 5 and 7 percent of the voters is clothed with this office. That has nothing to do with acceptance. 

Let alone that: The role of eastern commissioner anyway my party, the Alternative für Deutschland, has overtaken. And here I again invite you: Come along with us into discussion. 

I welcome besides the elimination of commissioners’ posts. You thereby implement an important program point which we also for long demand. A commissioner alone bears no responsibility, makes no laws and, before all things, solves no problems; governments and parliaments do that. 

Still a few words for the foreign policy situation. With interest, I follow your approaches to give to the continent of Europe a perspective. It first required a U.S. President by the name of Trump so as to formulate one’s own goals. And we say that European cooperation is basically right and good. Continual new sanctions and ultimatums nevertheless do not contribute to peace. You work for the most part awkwardly, Herr Merz, when you want to make no statement on weapons deliveries. That unsettles all sides. Your predecessor in office remains on this point with a consistent Nein. You should just so leave it as is. 

Otherwise, I very much hope that with you the Great Forgetting does not become a sustained event. From the firewall word, through securing the borders, to the Bürgergeld, you’ve already left behind some impressions. 

We are besides agreed that we in Germany need investments, yet not only those of the state. Finally make an audit so that unnecessary expenditures can be eliminated, and also private investors may find incentives for investing in Germany. 

For last, yet a glance at the energy supply. The Nord Stream pipelines are, following negotiations with Russia, possibly soon in the possession of the U.S.A. Herr Chancellor, do you then have the power to speak out for advantageous gas? The German business and citizens have deserved it. 

To you and your government remain the famous 100 days – even if Germany does not have 100 days’ time for it – to set the switches for the future. We as the largest opposition party will thereby critically accompany you, hard and honest in tone, and fact-oriented. We as opposition delegation are responsible for control of the government. We need, may and will not say what you want to hear. 

Many hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, May 14, 2025, Democracy, Migration, Extremism

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/3, pp. 89-92. 

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

Weakness and instability are the signals which proceed from your historic false start, Herr Merz. You are the Chancellor of the second ballot, and from this stain you will no more be free. You are weak primarily for one reason: You are a Chancellor of the leftists. 

            Heidi Reichinnek (Linke): We are not to blame for everything! 

            Sören Pellman (Linke): This is an impudence, what you say! That is ridiculous.

Your way to the Chancellor’s office is lined with broken election promises and capitulations before the Linke and Greens. The debt brake, to which you high and holy wanted to adhere, you have removed in a financial policy coup d’état, with help of the Greens, with an old Bundestag voted out of office. 

This manner also shows your character, Herr Merz. Up to 1.7 trillion euros in new debt are thereby authorized at one blow. In sum, that is the doubling of the Federal debt – and this in times of recession, of the shrinking economy and the accelerating impoverishment of the citizens. What you thereby serve up, you know quite precisely, since you yourself before the election warned of it. This money will trickle away in all possible channels. The urgently necessary consolidation of the state finances is thereby sacrificed, and the costs for the taxpayer and consumers will drastically rise. In regards another opportunity, you flirt with new taxes and tax increases. And that is an additional broken election promise. Almost 47 billion euros of tax money was devoured in 2024 by the Bürgergeld – you name it basic security – which has long since mutated into migrant money. 47 billion! Almost every second recipient is a foreign citizen. The naturalized foreigners have already fallen out of the statistics. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): What’s with the foreigners from Switzerland?

Around 4 billion euros go to Syrians. That corresponds to the entire budget of the Federal police. Afghans – the nationality with the highest criminality charge in regards violent crimes – received around 1.6 billion euros, as much as foreseen for the social housing construction. It cannot so continue! You however are too weak to change course. 

It continues: The promised abolition of the heating Verbot and the cold expropriation of homeowners by means of the compulsory heat pump is also already again disowned. Exactly like the combustion engine Verbot. You go further with the destruction of the German automobile industry. And you continue Habeck’s heat pump coercion by other means in which you namely make heating with oil and gas even more expensive by the CO₂ air management. 

Instead of ending the planned economy wrong way of the energy change, you even give it a new push, for you, under pressure from the Greens, have even written climate neutrality into the Basic Law. You have additionally cemented the German wrong way drive into impoverishment and de-industrialization. That is dramatic! Heating now becomes more expensive by around 20 percent – the situation this week in the newspapers – tendency rising. The assets of private households in Germany, which in European comparison as well lie in the lower range, according to the Bundesbank’s newest numbers adjusted for inflation since 2021, sank around 20 percent. 20 percent for private households!  The industrial production is in a dive in any case, while the unemployment rises steeply because the production in Germany recedes. It will be stopped. Why? Because the energy prices are too high. 

Without a reliable and affordable energy supply, no economic reconstruction is possible. That goes only by means of a fundamentally different energy policy. End the energy transition. You need to push the re-entry into nuclear power, coal power and the use of advantageous natural gas from Russia! 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): Still going to Moscow!

All of that, you do not want. The election promises to correct the nuclear power exit by a responsible CDU Kanzerlin, you in any case have broken. The rest of the world commits to nuclear power. You cling to the Greens’ fetish, hostile to technology. You thus ruin Germany as a business venue. 

Even when you hit upon something correct, half-measures and chaos come forth. The turning back of illegal migrants who enter from secure third states needs be forcefully pursued. It is not discretionary. Border controls and turning back need to ensue without a break and long-term, and not just as momentary pacification measures. Since the illegal immigration into Germany and into the German social system needs to be driven back to zero. 

Turning back at the borders is just a first step, and you even stumble over that. The migration magnets need to be turned off, which lead poverty migrants from all the world over the EU borders to Germany. The Bürgergeld is only one of them. The family reunifications for refugees and asylum seekers, as well as the practices of turbo- and mass-naturalization, need to be immediately completely set aside! Millions of people in illegal ways have come into the country in the last ten years as a consequence of the migration policy rule of injustice which a CDU Kanzerlin set in motion. Hundreds of thousands are immediately obliged to depart, for countless others the residency status needs to be examined and if necessary revoked. To that end, nothing comes from you. 

The migration criminality as a consequence has exploded. The murders, knifings and rapes go on, day by day, week by week. To speak out on these facts is, in the eyes of your subordinated Constitution Defense, allegedly hostile to the constitution. I named named facts, which is urgently necessary so as to finally correct this mis-development. 

The citizens await your plans for sending back and deportation [Abschiebung]. They will well need continue to wait; since your coalition partner, the SPD, does not want to cooperate in any of that. You are stuck in the asylum case, Herr Merz. You yourself have actually built this case because you submitted yourself to the dogma of the anti-democratic firewall which, for the Linke voted out of office here, shall secure a long-term subscription to power. 

And the domestic secret service, the Constitution Defense, which in regards the fulfillment of its actual duties, the defense against Islamic terror and foreign espionage, has miserably failed, arbitrarily and abusively cements this dogma. 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): Agent Moscow!

The absurd confidential opinion, which the SPD Interior Minister voted out of office launched shortly before the end of office, is the best evidence for that. Under pressure of the legal situation, the Constitution Defense needed to meanwhile take back its classification. 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): Such rubbish! 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): That is false!

To you, despite that, it is right to discriminate against our delegation and over 10 million voters, and withhold from us essential parliamentary rights. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): No idea! You would have it gladly!

That the Constitution Defense’s defamations are ludicrous, you know quite precisely. An ethnic term for the people is not counter to the Basic Law; since the Basic Law itself takes it as a basis [Ein ethnischer Volksbegriff ist nicht grundgesetzwidrig; denn das Grundgesetz selbst legt ihn zugrunde]. 

            Saskia Esken (SPD): Then re-read it!

Ah, ja, that was a caesura, because you all have experiences with real extremists. Since an extremist is he who installs and maintains the destructive policy of the open borders. The U.S. foreign minister Marco Rubio certainly needs be recalled: An extremist is he who under the label of Corona preventive measures spreads panic, arbitrarily limits basic rights, and with hate campaigns, with the aid of the public broadcasting, covers, defames and discriminates against those not vaccinated. 

That you laugh, I can imagine.

An extremist is he who destroys the welfare of the citizens and the nation with an eco-socialist transformation. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You’ve gotten lost with your speech!

An extremist is he who, with majorities voted out of office, manipulates the constitution so to present himself with a debts blank check – at the cost of the taxpayer and of the future generations. 

And now you come in!

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): What was that then?

An extremist is he who with a hammer gang attacks those who think differently, and for that, with the blessing of Bavarian Minister-president Söder, receives a culture prize, paid for by the state, for smashing life and limb [Gelenke und Leben zu zertrümmern]. You should be ashamed! 

An extremist is he who like the Linke wants to overthrow the system, and shoot the rich, or stick in works camps, and, despite that, will be flattered by you with submissive pandering. 

An extremist is

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Who speaks like you!

he who wants to abolish our free, democratic basic order – you screech the entire time, I know that it hits you – 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Yet you know what’s what with the theme! Look at your ranks!

the pluralism, democratic basic principles, bürgerliche freedoms and the freedom of opinion. He is an extremist! 

To maintain this mendacious, leftist, double morality, you plan, under the false label of the fight against hate and agitation, an attack on the freedom of opinion which even exceeds the excesses of the Ampel. You want to intimidate and silence the citizens, thereby to still be able for a while to go on in the old, false paths and sun yourself in the shine of power. 

To the same purpose serves the martial rhetoric with which you spread the war mood so as to divert from the mountains of domestic problems and conflicts. The agitators in your own ranks still bloviate, far from every reality, of Ukraine’s victory over Russia, without saying that would be without having a third world war – and with a third world certainly not. You yourself flash with your advances that the European leadership should dissemble [simulieren sollen], just so in Washington as in Moscow. That is no wonder; since vis-à-vis both powers, you yourself have already shattered very much political porcelain. Of a return to diplomatic reason in the Foreign Office under your government, is also not much to see. If it’s up to you, weapons deliveries to the Ukraine should no longer be spoken of in public. Does that mean you want to deliver Taurus cruise missiles to Kiev, secretly, silently, easily, so as to manage the escalation of the Ukraine war and make Germany a target? 

The citizens have a right to learn what you propose. You however have no answer. Since your government is not a government for citizens, but a government for warmongers and the maintenance of one’s own power. And before all, you have no answer to the question which most moves the citizens: Where remains the political change for the voters, which the people in this country voted for? When finally comes the break with the false, leftist policy which has thrown our country into prosperity annihilation and de-industrialization, into servitude and insecurity? Should there still be anyone in the Union who still has a sense of responsibility for our country 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Please do not speak of that!

and wants these questions answered, he knows where he may find the alternative majorities. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Bernd Baumann, May 6, 2025, Chancellor Election

German Bundestag, May 6, 2025, Plenarprotokoll 21/2, p. 44. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr Merz, you have failed. This is a historic defeat, as has never been in this Bundestag. Your own members deny to you adherence. And it is no wonder regarding this scale of election fraud, in election promises which you have broken. I hope there are intelligent people in the CDU, those who have brought about that you did not win the vote, who want that the CDU again comes back to a reasonable way. And that is still possible, ladies and gentlemen. 

There is now a second ballot. We do not reject it; since the cards need to be on the table. Germany requires now a government. We do not prevent that, we support that. Yet even if you, Herr Merz, now obtain a vote in favor – you have,  ja, spoken with all here: With Greens, with the Linke, with the SPD – that changes nothing. This government begins in most extreme instability, and it will remain unstable. That is the opposite of what Germany requires, ladies and gentlemen. 

Since it is clear – the election result shows: There is a majority, Herr Merz. For all points for which you have spoken in the election campaign, there is here a majority. Each member is elected from the people, the sovereign. Each member who is here, these majorities which are here, are by the will of the people. And following the will of the people, all demands which you have raised, which you have overtaken from us, can be implemented. You prevent that. That is the instability in the Bundestag, that is the instability in Germany. 

We of the AfD not only vote for holding this second ballot because the cards need to be on the table, we now also stand ready at anytime for reasonable solutions for Germany, as they appear in our program, as we have represented them in the election campaign, and also as you represented them in the election campaign. We are available for reasonable solutions for Germany at anytime. It thus remains, ladies and gentlemen. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rüdiger Klos, April 10, 2025, Automobile Industry Employment

Baden-Württemberg Landtag, Plenarsitzung 17/121, pp. 7293-7295. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

The AfD expressly acknowledges the social market economy and international trade as bases of our prosperity and of peaceful partnership. We want to deconstruct trade barriers in Europe and worldwide. 

            Andreas Stoch (SPD): Putin sees that otherwise!

Normally, I would have said, Herr Minister-president, Listen! Since all of these citations are from our principles program. Thus all of you stop the permanent spreading of false assertions concerning us! We know that for the worldwide increase of prosperity, for the abeyance of hunger on this planet, we have primarily to thank global trade. Because it brings profits of worldwide welfare. 

Andreas Schwarz (SPD): Who wants to withdraw from the EU? Who wants to withdraw from NATO? 

Anton Baron (AfD): That is yet again Fake News! That is in no program! 

Andreas Schwarz (SPD): All of that is verified! 

Daniel Lindenschmid (AfD): Simply nothing is verified! In your dream-world perhaps!

We are therefore against tariff and non-tariff trade impediments. The foreign trade theory of comparative costs advantage according to Ricardo is part of the AfD DNA. We want industries of general interest – the pharmaceutical industry, for example – to again settle in Germany, and at best of course in Baden-Württemberg. We are thus dismayed that today, just in terms of business, we stand before an economic policy tipping point. Mercedes-Benz removes a part of its vehicle production to Hungary. That means annually 100,000 fewer vehicles from Germany. A concern rich in tradition withdraws piece by piece from its home market. The same applies to the automobile suppliers like Bosch, ZF in Friedrichshafen, Marquardt – to name only some examples. 

That is a pauper’s oath of your failed regional economic policy, if you ever had one. Herr Minister Hermann, you have concisely commented on the emigration of Mercedes-Benz with the words – I cite – “That does not sadden me”, and further expressions circulated from you. Unfortunately, your statements of yesterday have raised more questions here in plenary session than were clarified. Yet you can now explain yourself in detail. Thinking myself in your position would nevertheless yield that these expressions on everything would be immediately evaluated as credible and ideologically acceptable. That is no seal of approval, Herr Minister. 

Baden-Württemberg was indisputably the land of the automobile in Germany. Here beat the industrial heart of the Republic. Yet the environment, which once made possible the economic power of our State, was systematically demolished for ideological reasons. With the false assertion of a solely man-made climate change, you shoved aside healthy human understanding and all scientific recognition. Finally stop denying the natural climate change. The climate has always changed, will always change, and how we deal with it is the political challenge of the future, ladies and gentlemen. 

So as to once more go into your facts, which are: CO₂ makes up just 0.04 percent of the volume in the atmosphere. Of this minimal value, 90 percent is of natural origin. Thus the worldwide portion of man-made CO₂ contibutes 0.0016 percent. Because Germany’s part herein contributes 2 percent, our portion thus contributes 3.2 billionths. 

For this ideological madness, you destroy workplaces, you destroy leading technologies, you shift workplaces to foreign countries. That, ladies and gentlemen, is no reasonable policy, but nonsense. Yet what should one make of political groups which present themselves and say: “There are an endless number of sexes”? 

Origins of this dangerous trend are thus primarily not economic reasons, but a purely politico-ideological induced weakening of regional economic policy: Combustion engine Verbot, chicanery with automobile drivers like the Trojan Horse mobility pass, chicanery and Verbot against individual transportation. The State government openly applauds the resulting de-industrialization of Baden-Württemberg, and then calls the whole a “transformation” – ja, a transformation into nothing, ladies and gentlemen. 

A central problem is the one-sided, simply ideologically-driven fixation on the e-mobility. While Germany is known worldwide for the diesel- and benzine-driven vehicles, 

            Thomas Hentschel (Greens): Which can no longer be sold!

the government of our State fights this technology: Driving Verbot in the cities, CO₂ penalty payment, damnation of diesel in the media and politics, excessive exhaust norms. All of that contributes to insecurity in the markets of manufacturers and purchasers. 

Yet at the same time, e-mobility will be kept artificially alive by means of massive tax investments, purchase premiums, lightened taxes, construction of the charging infrastructure, promotion of battery research: That is green ideology at the cost of the taxpayer. That the demand nevertheless stagnates, says all. 

Our supply networks are meanwhile run to their limits, yet what does the still in office Federal Minister for the Economy propose? Industry production should in the future – I cite – follow “after the availablity of electricity”. That, ladies and gentlemen, is nonsense hostile to regional economic policy. It can no longer be formulated otherwise. 

The alignment of prosperity within Europe is doubtless an important theme. Yet with permission, Herr Minister Hermann, when you comment on the workplace deconstruction in the automobile business in our State with the words – I cite – “Eastern Europe is not allowed to remain poor”, the end effect of that is a mockery of all those in the automobile industry who presently fear for their workplaces. What then are they supposed to do with your notion of “local for local”? Yet the green State policy does not think of regional economic policy factors, it thinks in dogmas. And for that, you bear the responsibility, Herr Minister-president and Herr Minister Hermann. 

 

[trans: tem]