Markus Frohnmaier, December 19, 2025, U.S. National Security Strategy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/51, pp. 6139-6140. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The foreign policy spokesman of the CDU, Jürgen Hardt, lost himself [verstieg sich] in a remarkable analysis of the new National Security Strategy of the United States. He called it – and I cite: “AfD nonsense”, which somehow found access into American strategy. You hear correctly: In the bizarre, imaginary world of the Union, the AfD is no longer only remote-controlled from Moscow. No, now we even guide the pen of U.S. President Donald Trump for his National Security Strategy. We are the auto-pen, when wanted. 

Who looks away from CDU propaganda to reality nevertheless quickly recognizes: Godfather of the strategy was not the AfD, but healthy human understanding. 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): Nice that you confirm the distinction.

In the introduction, it says – Listen: “The purpose of foreign policy is the protection of the core national interests; that is the sole focus of this strategy” [*https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf, 1]. A sentence like a rock, a sentence for the ages! And now compare this sentence for once with the expressions of Foreign Minister Wadephul this week, who justified the flying in of Afghans at taxpayers expense. Wadephul said, I cite: “I see in each refugee a creature of God.” 

            Peter Beyer (CSU/CSU): Do you see it differently?

Herein appears the fundamental rupture. The U.S.A. makes an interests-guided Realpolitik, the Federal government continues to make a values-guided, feelings policy. Only the flavor has been shifted a bit. Under the Green Baerbock, the foreign policy was feminist, under the Christian Democrat Wadephul, it is now pastoral. Church day sayings are Wadephul’s foreign policy offering. That is no policy change, and that is no “left is past”. That is old wine in new bottles. 

Donald Trump said what the German foreign policy for decades sought to deny: States have no friends, states also have no values, at least not in foreign policy. States have interests. And who believes foreign policy is a study circle for values friendships, he errs not only like the Union, but treads underfoot our German interests. 

            Deborah Düring (Greens): Which interests do you then represent?

The misfortune of values-guided foreign policy is chronic double-morality and impotence. Frau Baerbock was so feminist that she fed the Islamist regime of al-Julani in Syria with millions of euros of German tax money. In thanks, the latter refused to shake her hand and ordered the massacre of minorities. A truly great moment in feminist diplomacy. 

Wadephul prates: “Each refugee is a creature of God.” Yet does he overtake every refugee on this planet to Germany? Naturally not, even if the Union would perhaps gladly do it. Such statements are thus cheap courage free of cost. Out of the mouth of a German foreign minister, they are a declaration of political bankruptcy. At the end of the day, you sell to the population values promises which in the hard reality are not to be kept, and which, with permission, in the migration policy also should not be kept. 

How refreshingly clear on the other hand is the U.S. American strategy. Cite: 

            “We want full control over our borders, over our immigration system,                                        and over transportation networks through which people come to our                                                          country – legally and illegally.”[*, 3]

Why exists no German paper which expresses this self-evident thing, why does there exist no German paper which clearly says this? A glance at the government bench here delivers the answer: This government has no strategy, this government is incapable of strategy. 

It is revealing there is just one, single area in which the CDU/CSU is suddenly not at all interested in political values. Cite from the U.S. Strategy: 

            “The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and                      other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty,               migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife,                                                   censorship of free speech, and” 

– listen well, dear colleagues of the Union –

             “suppression of political opposition, cratering of birthrates, and loss of national                                      identities and self-confidence.” [*, 25] 

End citation from the U.S. Security Strategy.

Ja, ladies and gentlemen, your anti-democratic, even wicked machinations do not remain hidden on that side of the Atlantic. A wrong word on the net? House search! Criticism of migration? A case for the Constitution Defense! Engagement in an association? Only with the correct party book! Election success of the opposition? Verbieten! – that is your policy. You have changed Germany into a attitude-state, into a woke, open-air prison. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD):  Rubbish!

And when the U.S.A. holds up the mirror to you, you react with whining and are outraged. That is the hideous reality which you yourselves have created. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): You don’t believe that yourself! You yourself                                need to laugh!

In that regard, it would nevertheless be so simple. The Americans write, cite: 

            “America [Die Vereinigten Staaten] is, understandably, sentimentally [emotional]                                        attached to the European continent” [*, 26] 

Naturally, since it is ultimately so that descendents of Europeans have settled the American continent. Therefore: Who so acts as to estrange America from Europe, who estranges the growing child from the parents, he lies. America does not estrange itself. Yet America has no  desire for parents who have given up. America has no interest in European and German self-abnegation. Unlike you, the U.S.A. wants no Europe, no Germany, which degenerates into an authoritarian, Islamized Moloch, incapable of alliance. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Such rubbish!

What Washington demands is nothing new. It is something which my party, the AfD, demands for many years in this house. Dear colleagues, finally end the course of civilizational self-abnegation. The U.S. strategy is no affront, the U.S. strategy is a blueprint. We require no priggish church day sayings, 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): Were you ever at a church day, Herr Frohnmaier? 

we require a return to Realpolitik, 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Where actually is your delegation? 

we require a Politik which our border, our sovereignty, 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Not ten people are there! 

and our identity defends without compromise. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Where are the people? 

Ladies and gentlemen – and to the hecklers in this place – I can only simply say again to you: Listen for once! Then perhaps even your Politik finally becomes better. You would thereby render to the citizens in Germany at Christmas a great service; since the citizens in Germany have a nose full of the bad Politik of the old parties. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Weak speech!

 

[trans: tem] 

[*https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf]

Tomasz Froelich, January 20, 2026, Human Rights

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)01-20(2-0515-0000). 

Frau President. 

The EU has understood nothing: Geopolitically irrelevant, economically ever weaker, demographically catastrophic. Yet still self-conscious enough so as to tutor the entire world. You want more money for NGOs? Why? To de-stabilize countries which you you don’t like –  “regime change” inclusive. You explain abortion as a human right. Thus the birth-rates break down. You complain of the global recession of democracy. Yet in Europe elections are annulled, politicians are excluded from these, party bans are pondered. You want to force gender ideology on the whole world. Zero respect for national sovereignty. Zero respect for other cultures. As a patriot, I respect other cultures. I only do not want that they replace mine. That makes for  variety. You only talk about it. You want simplicity [Einfalt]. You want that the whole world dances to your pipe. That is values imperialism. That is neo-colonialism. That is unsympathetic. That is arrogant. That is a reason Europe becomes ever more irrelevant. Shame! We require no  action plan for human rights and democracy. We require an action plan for Realpolitik, for remigration, and for re-industrialization. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tobias Peterka, December 18, 2025, NGO Finance

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/50, pp. 5860-5862. 

Frau President. Dear citizens. 

A ghost haunts Germany – ominous, it is in every mouth, yet is difficult to hold. It is the much cited civil society. Ascribed to this strange tautology are indeed magical powers: It can in an instant save our democracy, and conveniently has the ever exactly correct, thus leftist opinion and agenda. – Let there be an end to this ghost story from the ARD and ZDF! Every awake ten year old meanwhile knows that there is with us a public, state-promoted, opinion guideline 

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): What nonsense!

and is beside the reality which every citizen sees if he does not, like you for example, go through life with eyes closed. For precisely that reason is required this motion [Drucksache 21/3301] for the installation of a formal investigating committee. For precisely that reason, we need to illuminate and without compromise clean out the state and party entanglements with so-called NGOs. The term “non-governmental organization” degenerates in a Germany with open eyes into a joke. There are according to strict socialist logic of course many governmental front organizations, 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes, you know about that!

financially and careerist wired with Greens, SPD and those still more unappetizing. The approach is not complicated: It is simply the old left approach, “Public funds are enough there”, perverted and driven to the extreme. In any case, typically leftist are the lying leaders with Democracy on the banner, wanting to stifle precisely that. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes, you know about “stifle democracy”!                                                            That is your theme!

You attack the party strongest in the polls nationwide with financed snipers because meanwhile you quite precisely know that, by fair means, no more cabbage is to be grown against us. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Financed snipers from Moscow, you take care of yourself!

You thereby undermine the most basic rules of democracy; and that, we can no longer accept. Here you can cry as you want; you thereby only confirm it. 

The famous Federal program “Democracy live!”, for example, received in the last years over 600 million euros. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): “Democracy Live!” is a problem for you! You want                            “Democracy die!”

It will be so passed on according to practice to thousands of project functions of which the government, according to its own statement, has not the least data. There is often simply some price tag; since Antifa phrases and pedigrees were besides always more important in regards the top jobs. Listen! – “Frau Klingbeil” co-directs the Initiative D21, and “Herr Göring-Eckardt” United4Rescue. Naturally all selflessly for the cause, it is understood. 

            Dirk Wiese (SPD): You member Wenzel Schmidt made 450 euros. Do you say                                         something on that? You want to exclude him, I hear.

By countless NGOs melded to ministries and incited against the opposition are citizens vilified, doing the very thing you accuse us of, namely dividing to your heart’s content – and before all before the Bundestag election. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): How is it actually with your intra-delegation democracy?             May Herr Lucassen at all still come? Or has he received from you a ban from the                hall?

To the dear Union which here is silently suspect. You at the time had correctly recognized this. 500 questions were fired broadside at Scholz and Habeck. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): 551!

Yet what then happened? Scarcely had the powder smoke blown away, and one sailed with the SPD into the coalition harbor and once again fraternally divvied up the tax money. Bravo! That, I name betrayal of truthfulness and a willingness to explain – actually, ur-conservative values.           

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Your speech is an insult to every true conservative!

The voters meanwhile precisely know: It is still found at the CDU/CSU at most with a microscope. At least vote for our motion now! Unless of course you want the hanky-panky to continue, which in the end – this, you precisely know – will be directed against you. Still, it is perhaps not too late. 

Because the same was again intended, we wanted to prevent droll democracy workshops and youth formation – which for the AfD ultimately have something against an authentic, free democracy. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): Yet you too want public funds!

We ever again vehemently demand a Bürger society without GEZ broadcasting, leftist spying, or fear in the workplaces; further, direct democracy and the direct election of high state officials. Your mudslinging at this impeccable stance meanwhile falls back on you. The citizens are not so blind and immature as you would gladly have them. I am thus really excited – from you, the Linke, I know it – by what next from the Union here will be led into the field. 

What is, for example, with an authentic condition of democracy, the recognition of the Basic Law by means of diverse Antifa projects? Does that perhaps come sometime, or would that still be too much spotlight on networks shy of the light, which reach deep into hardened anti-semitism?           

            Helge Limburg (Greens): “Light-shy networks”, “anti-semitism”. All precisely                                        your themes! 

            Katrin Fey (Linke): Anti-semitism comes from the right!

Or perhaps again comes punctually at the State legislative elections anti-right advertising via the Federal websites, as 14 days before the Bundestag election at the Federal Family Ministry? 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): How many of your communications politicians are actually             active in terrorist associations? Tell us that for once! How many of your members                were investigated on account of accepting foreign money? How many of the AfD’s                Bundestag offices have actually been already searched?

May perhaps the BUND, promoted with millions, be called upon, besides climate propaganda, to protest against everything right of center? 

For you, is it okay that HateAid and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation agitate against everything conservative, 

            Katrin Fey (Linke): That’s not right! You’re not conservative!

and still laugh yourselves sick that BlackRock Man Merz, with bended knee, empowers you with the purse? Apparently, the answer is “ja”. 

Since: Where is the moratorium, the draining of the swamp by means of a guidelines competence? It will not come, since then the therein ailing SPD would immediately be at the battlements. When already the wicked right citizens push old auntie in the direction of single digits, 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): That is beloved democracy! And you want to exterminate it!

then the preparation still needs be a bit further cultivated out of sozi-green student teachers and violent Antifas. Clearly, that might run under an orderly retreat. And, here and there, you could still do it, 

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): We are not like you, Herr Peterka! We are not like you!

as it was at peak woke, thus total air supremacy of the leftist dementia, like before Corona. Yet you know quite precisely: This time is past, and will with luck never come again. 

Thus: Let us wind up this swamp! Since in one thing even your troops are right: From history, one must learn. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Your speaking time is exceeded, and therefore your                                           speech is to end.

Let’s tackle it so that a self-service in our country can never again occurs. 

Many thanks.

 

 

[trans: tem]

Gottfried Curio, December 3, 2025, Naturalization Fraud

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/46, pp. 5362-5363. 

Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Last year there were nearly 300,000 naturalizations, almost a doubling from two years ago. Wherein this massive rise? For decades, the naturalization prerequisites were ever further weakened, ultimately under the Ampel again watered down. For the already questionable claim, the waiting period was degraded from eight to five years and thus almost halved, multiple citizenship as a rule accepted. From the idea of a once exacting integration, this government has completely removed itself. 

Background: Leftist parties attempt to rehabilitate their polling percentages by means of the import of naturalization sozial cases. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): O mein Gott!

For the costs incurred, the taxpayer is allowed to pay. Policy of the finest, hostile to natives! The Union has retained the mentioned new regulation. German interests are all the same. The main point, to become the Chancellor party. For that, one bravely gobbles every toad tossed to him by the reds. Cynical power-opportunism is at the end stage, ladies and gentlemen. 

For many of the illegally immigrated advantage grabbers, however, even the remaining minimal requirements are still too much work. They resort to naked fraud. Authorities are meantime so overburdened that blatant falsifications are winked through. We hear of massively falsified  course certifications 

            Johannes Rechner (SPD): No, for once, an example! Say one example!

in regards naturalization tests and language verifications. And in the social media runs the lively commerce with examination questions and solutions of naturalization tests. 

Inquiries yield that the phenomenon has been known for years. Police and foreign authorities proceed on a very high Dunkelziffer – cite – “of fraudulently attained naturalizations”. The talk is of a – cite – “loss of control”. 

Typical case: The attested language level – not at all present; of the content of the filed commitments – not the least idea. The vice-chairman of the police union therefore demands a moratorium for naturalization as well as a comprehensive examination of certificates of the last two years.

Our motion [Drucksache 21/3024] accordingly demands: A pause of naturalization and grant of residency titles until a fraud-secure procedure is developed, prevention of the application of falsified certificates and the sale of examination questions quite openly in the social media, as well as a new examination of all residency agreements and naturalizations issued since January 2024. For allotted authorization documents is required, to the maximum, the return from control loss to a control by the state of law. 

A merely personal statement for testing of adherence to the constitution is fully insufficient, and formulas of acknowledgement are rather imputed lip service, even when they are understood purely verbally. Only a systematic research by the naturalization authorities of the applicant’s social media activities can prevent the naturalization of extremists. Yet the Union racks its brains over how quickly after the fraud may one again be tested. In that regard, it is still not about the few who were caught, but about stopping this possibility of fraud. 

Yet this government quite obviously has no interest in an orderly situation in regards naturalization. We see an absence of control in the language level – only the adherence to the constitution shall be verbally ensured –, a lack of will to develop a fraud-secure procedure, and a complete absence of a backed-up examination. All of this shows just one thing: In the Union is there once again fear in the face of the coalition partners who would not be ready to stop the abuses. German interests are also there sacrificed to the peace of the coalition. 

Ladies and gentlemen, nip it in the bud! 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): That is however a quite nice, hefty historical                                                       comparison you bring in here!

Let us certainly not first begin by leaving as is an allotted authorization document in the hands of people who have only obtained this by means of deception prior to its issuance, which inflicts harm on our country. Otherwise, one day we will have a government which comes to power by means of deception prior to the elections and, in the briefest time, definitively ruins the country. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, December 18, 2025, European Democracy Shield

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)12-17(3-0212-0000). 

Herr President. 

Let us openly say it: The so-called European Democracy Shield does not protect the democracy, but the rulers from the will of the people. It is an instrument for the suppression of the opposition and thus for the prevention of the democracy. George Orwell himself cannot better think up the name. From disinformation and foreign influence you want to protect the people? In truth, the citizens shall be kept away from free information, so that they only receive a hearing of the official narrative and the propaganda of the EU. We remember Twitter before the acquisition by Elon Musk – an apparat of woke censorship and propaganda. Thus now the open war against Musk – because he made X into a platform of free speech, he will be covered with 120 million in fines and threats. Yet in Germany also will quite ordinary and innocent citizens be rung out of bed in the morning by the police because they expressed a wrong opinion in social media. 

However, Frau Geese, you today have let the mask fall, and quite openly said what it is about for you and your red-green friends – right-conservative parties should be kept away from power. And in Roumania we could, ja, observe what that enjoins. There, at Brussels’s bidding, the presidential election was annulled, the independent canididate Georgescu excluded, on account of alleged Russian influence. A coup d’état under cover of the protection of democracy. And this template you now want to make the rule throughout Europe. Please no longer mouth the name of  democracy. You are anti-democrats. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rüdiger Lucassen, December 5, 2025, Service in the Bundeswehr

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/48, pp. 5614-5615. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The coalition’s defense service modernization law is discussed for weeks in the context of the general conscription [Wehrpflicht] as a kind of preliminary stage thereof; yet it is not. The core of the law only foresees that the attraction of voluntary service in the Bundeswehr shall be increased – and that, now for the umpteenth time. With the defense service modernization law, the Federal government does what it always does when it does not want to get at the root of the problem: It pours on more money. That is Merkel Politik, and it comes to its end. 

Yet in regards the defense service modernization law it is not only about money; it is about something fundamental. The Defense Ministry in the future pays to each new recruit 2,700 euros gross – a lot of of money for one leaving school. For the Federal government, attraction means money. To it, something else does not come to mind. Yet soldiers who come on account of the pay have no strong basis for the service. That does not suffice. 

The antithesis is the soldier who serves out of conviction. It is the German soldier who knows what he fights for, who bears within the inner bond [der das innere Band in sich trägt] – the born defender of his country, the German common destiny [Schicksalsgemeinscahft]. Theodor Körner, Lützow, Roon, Moltke, Hindenburg, Jünger, Rommel, Stauffenberg, Heusinger, Hartmann, Topp, Förtsch, Kammhuber – there are hundreds of thousands of names of German soldiers who carry this bond and pass it on. And, ladies and gentlemen, the Bundeswehr consists of these soldiers. In no other institution of Germany is the consciousness of one’ own, for what is worth protecting, for our country, so present as in the Bundeswehr. The soldiers who serve in it are the daughters and sons of our people. To them, they perform their oath. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Yet without völkischen language!

And they are thereby not soldiers of this government, but Germany’s soldiers. 

The Bundeswehr thus stands in a 200 year tradition, a tradition of the true, the dutiful, and of the bond to Germany, regardless under which government. Lützow’s riflemen did not fight for the king, but for the freedom of the Germans. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): That is abysmal! Really!

The Heeresgruppe Kurland fought not for the wretched regime in the bunker. Its soldiers withstood the Red Army so as to save 1.5 million East Prussians. And the soldiers of the NVA [National People’s Army, East Germany], a German conscript army, 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Where have you landed, actually?

placed themselves in a decisive moment of their history in the service of this German tradition. 

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

            Christian Görko (Linke): You have no idea!

             Siemtje Möller (SPD): Good diversionary maneuver! That shows you have no                                           position on the conscription!

As namely the SED planned to fight the 1989 freedom movement with military means, the soldiers of the NVA refused the mission order. German soldiers do not shoot Germans. The German bond blocked the mission order. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Thüringen chairman of my own party gave a speech on conscription on Wednesday in the Erfurt Landtag. In this speech, he came to the conclusion that Germany is no longer worth fighting for. What would the men and women of the Wars of Liberation have said to that? They would never have followed that diagnosis. Dear countrymen in Thüringen and everywhere: The fight for Germany’s salvation is the basis for the founding of the AfD. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): How low have you sunk?

Where shall I at all begin? Our culture, our children – Goethe, Schiller, Eichendorff, Wagner – Potsdam, Dresden, Munich, the Rheingau, the Swabian Alb, the Alps, our forests and lakes, the German food, 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Na, there, you’ve finally positioned yourself!

the North Sea, the greatness, the tragedy, the ever again arising can do. 

We are the West and, for that, it always pays to fight. 

 

[trans: tem]

Björn Höcke, December 3, 2025, Conscription

Thüringer Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 8/29, pp. 53-54. 

Right honorable Frau President, right honorable colleagues. 

Colleagues, like Boris Pistorius, for Germany, Fabien Mandon, the French chief of the general staff, for France, wants the war efficiency [Kriegstüchtigkeit]. He demands – I cite: The country needs to be ready to lose its children. 

Right honorable colleague members, please now in your thoughts take your son or grandchild in arms, feel his heartbeat and think of all the happy moments with him. And now please imagine how he with arms and legs torn away lies in a minefield and slowly bleeds to death. Imagine how a hollow charge has pierced the wall of his panzer and all lives in the interior are extinguished by a gigantic welding beam [Schweißstrahl]. Imagine how he as a prisoner of war is tortured. First, his ears are cut off, then his genitals, finally his eyes are put out. After hours, the torturer ends his agony in that he pours benzine over him and ignites. Thus, right honorable colleague members, die in a war young men of 18, 19, 20 years, who have established no families, who to some extent have still not lead their lives.   

Right honorable colleague members, it is here about the revival of the conscription [Wehrpflicht] in a quite concrete situation – a situation which is stamped by a war in the Ukraine and a showtime bellicosity of German politicians throughout the cartel parties. The people out there feel it is plainly not about their own way of life, since that assumes love of one’s own, that assumes patriotism. Yet the politicians of the CDU and Linke disdain this patriotism. And precisely that is the decisive point in the present discussion of the conscription. 

The revival of the conscription here and today cannot be well founded by the old parties. Therefore, young people and their parents intuitively and rightly reject the war efficiency project. The young people note that when an obligation to fulfill an ostensible securing of their future is exacted from them, at the same time the ruling Politik destroys this future piece by piece. What shall the young man, who knows no patriotism and no tradition, defend with a Bundeswehr? 

Yes, what shall he defend? Drag queen displays in kindergartens, the de-industrialization, the plundering of the social security system, the festival of lights secured with concrete walls, which earlier were called Christmas markets, the mass immigration which makes him feel foreign in his own land, the Schuldstolz? 

Right honorable colleague members, I want in closing to emphasize: Before one, single young man should under compulsion again enlist in uniform, this state needs to finally again become a state for the Germans – for the Germans. Freely directed and oriented toward German interests and clear in an understanding of the people. Before young people in this country are again taken by the Politik into the obligation, the Politik must first finally again enter into the obligation to its own people. 

I thank you for your attention.   

 

[trans: tem]

Jochen Haug, November 27, 2025, The Arbitrator of Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/44, pp. 5087-5088. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

When we today speak on the Interior Ministry’s budget, then we should take a step back and ask ourselves a fundamental question: What is the duty of this Ministry? What is the duty of the Federal Interior Ministry in a free society? 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Yes, when you don’t know that!

Preservation of security, freedom and order, that is the core duty. For that, the Ministry is responsible. 

Yet today the Ministry presents us with figures which show: This state ever more loses itself in ideological side shows. Millions flow into projects for social cohesion, to the financing of church conferences, to political foundations, to migration counseling and expensive integration programs. All of this has one thing in common: It does not belong to the core duties of an  Interior Ministry. 

An example: Over one billion euros for integration courses. My colleague Marcus Bühl has just addressed it. While the Federal Interior Ministry in regards protection of the borders, its original responsibility, fails completely, the consequences of these failures shall be overcome with integration courses. That integration courses prevent parallel societies, the overloading of the sozial state and the escalation of violence is of course an illusion. The entire approach is false. Who comes into the country illegally does not need to be integrated, but returned back. And who legally comes into the country permanently and may remain, he himself primarily needs to take care for his integration. In classic immigration countries like the U.S.A. and Canada, that was always self-evident.   

We as the AfD delegation want to save one billion euros in the Interior Ministry estimate. And despite that, we strengthen police, border protection and catastrophe protection. We simply go through the whole: We eliminate ideological expenditures which no one needs. We end the false incentives of the immigration and integration policy. We place the security of our citizens above the socio-political experiments. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Bravo!

Ladies and gentlemen, this budget is also a mirror image of the situation in our country. There meanwhile prevails in the States an understanding that this is made an ideologized full-service provider. This has nothing in common with a free polity [Staatswesen]. The principle of the people’s sovereignty guarantees the decision making [Willensbildung] from below to above. The state has to preserve strict neutrality and is not to interfere in the democratic discourse. Today, the opposite is practiced. We have to deal with an opinion-forming and an opinion-suppressing state. 

            Leon Eckert (Green): Your colleague wanted to storm the Bundestag!

Thus for years the Constitution Defense [Verfassungsschutz] sees as its principal duty a fight against the opposition and citizens critical of the government 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): Nein, against extremism!

and here even invents a power of observation category of its own: Delegitimization of the state. Here obviously prevails a gross misunderstanding. Therefore, be it again expressly explained: The Constitution Defense is not the arbitrator of democracy. 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Its protector!

That is the people. 

And still one thing be said: It is intolerable in a democracy when critical comments lead to house searches. Lately in October it affected the famous media expert Professor Norbert Bolz because he had ironically replied to a tweet in the taz – a renewed attack against freedom of opinion, in the middle of Germany. For democracy, that is fatal. It requires critical citizens with civil courage, not intimidated vassals. 

Ladies and gentlemen, over 200 hundred years ago Theodor Körner demanded: “For freedom, a way!” [Der Freiheit eine Gasse!]. That is also today again necessary. We need a state which protects its citizens, yet does not patronize. For that, the AfD stands. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Malte Kaufmann, November 13, 2025, China Commission

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/40, pp. 4617-4618. 

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear citizens. 

China has long since become an enormously important trade partner of Germany, and – interestingly! – according to the present numbers from October, the trade volumes have even overtaken those of the U.S.A. It thus could be said: The most important trade partner as per volume. Therefore: A withdrawal from the China market would in every consideration be disastrous. We require durable and friendly relations with China. 

On the other side, we are not allowed as a sovereign trading nation to give ourselves over to dependencies on any country in the world. Key technologies, critical raw materials and strategically important production sites are not allowed to fall into the hand of foreign and plainly also Chinese firms which in turn pursue their national interests, and not unconditionally ours. 

Beyond that, we need to clearly demand in regards the relations with China a principle – and which is also named in our motion – : The principle of reciprocity, thus the Wechselseitigkeit. Treaties, cooperation and investments may only ensue when Germany in equal measure receives access to markets, technologies and investment opportunities. Without this consonance arises the real danger that German businesses will be disadvantaged while Chinese investors in turn act with privilege in domestic markets. 

Especially critical is the protection of our industry and our key technologies. We consider just high-tech areas like robotics, semi-conductors or machinery manufacturing facilities. The sale of such businesses, or even also the uncontrolled participation in these sectors, involves risks which in fact need to be thoroughly illuminated. 

And, Herr Lenz, you are right. Some of what we have demanded in the AfD motion is now translated by the setting up of this commission which shall work in precisely this area and make proposals to us. We require clear instruments so as to protect the German economy from the acquisition of businesses of especial significance when these acquisitions are not in the national  interest. It is therefore exceptionally important to identify existing dependencies and examine specific measures before serious and irreparable harm ensues. 

What shall the commission do? The central duties of the commission consist in that for once the value-creation chains will be analyzed, especially in regards security-relevant technologies and critical raw materials. Weak points shall be recognized. In addition, investments of Chinese businesses in Germany shall be examined, especially in critical infrastructure, and there shall follow a reconciliation [Abgleich] with the reciprocity principle. There then shall also be a reappraisal of trade opportunities. 

We thereby need to orient ourselves to successful strategies of other industrial nations – that, we plainly had in the last debates; Frau Detzer, it was interesting, what you reported from Japan; that was also unknown to me; there, one can, I think, acquire some things – all of which, without blocking a further successful cooperation with China. Since that country is an important trading partner. 

We are missing – this is the single critical point which I today want to address – a bit of connection to parliament. We would have found it good if a representative of the delegations was on the commission, who can cooperate there. 

Be that as it may: We of the AfD want that it goes well for our businesses and their workers. We therefore require durable, long-term relations with our trade partners, and with China. We vote in favor of setting-up the commission. 

Many hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, November 26, 2025, Digital Euro and Cash

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-26(3-0547/49-0000). 

Herr President. 

Thousands of citizens have in the last weeks turned to the peoples’ representatives of the European Parliament. Their demand: No digital euro. 

They are right – a digital currency is not progress, it is an instrument of control. The Commission wants to convince us that the digital euro offers security and independence vis-à-vis the U.S.A. and China. In truth, every purchase, every beer with a friend will be tracked. They want the transparent citizen. 

We want cash [Bargeld], we want freedom: Anonymous, direct and independent of electricity outages. Cash defends against debanking. He who pays cash, retains the command over his own wallet. It would be democratic if the citizens were allowed to decide by means of a referendum on the introduction of the digital euro. We thus demand anchoring the right to cash in the national constitutions. 

…Herr  colleague, I believe the decree is only one of many which this house here undertakes so  as to in the mid-term abolish cash. That is one of the quite large problems which we have, and precisely against that are we defending ourselves. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, November 26, 2025, Peace in the Ukraine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-26(3-0029-0000). 

Herr President. 

Finally, a glimmer of hope; U.S. foreign minister Rubio speaks of considerable progress in the Geneva peace talks, and hopes for a rapid agreement. Now, in this historic hour, required are politicians who are supporting every credible peace initiative, instead of slowing them down. 

Peace treaties are no request program. They arise by means of – oftentimes, very painful – compromise. Yet they are the first step to a long-term order of peace. They are thus not at the end of a peace process, but are frequently at the beginning of a reconciliation.

 Peace ends suffering. Yet peace also ends costly spirals of military armament. Then we can make investments where they are really needed: In future technologies, modern infrastructure, education, healthcare, families and in affordable housing. On that account, we now need to grasp every chance for peace.

  

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, September 24, 2025, Trump and Turning Point

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/27, p. 2854. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Authoritative powers believe that with the foreign policy it still goes further-so as in the time of Fischer and Baerbock, now somewhat less shrill, yet somehow further-so: Rainbow flags on German embassies, flights of Afghans to Germany, a climate foreign policy, and quite a lot of gender. Trump, you want to wait out, somehow out-last, hoping in the midterms and in the time after Trump. I believe you do not understand what just happened in the U.S.A. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): But you do!

While in Germany the last remains of Fridays for Future crumble, in the U.S.A. begins a revolution, and indeed a spiritual one. 

I am just returned from America which, following the murder of Charlie Kirk, is no longer the same America as before and never again will be. The MAGA movement experiences in these days a fundamental transformation. This movement is now greater than Donald Trump. After him, no void will arise. It will be filled in the sense and spirit of Charlie Kirk. That will change not only the U.S.A., but the entire West and beyond. 

Since the 60s, leftist ideas have determined the direction of the West, and that now comes to an end. The SPD might here in house win the fight over the delegation meeting rooms; the fight for hearts and minds, you have lost. 

Charlie Kirk was a danger for the left not only because he like Trump could mobilize the conservative base, but he could convince young people who were never conservative. Thus, he needed to die. Yet following his death, his ideas will now become still more powerful than they were in his lifetime, much more powerful. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): AfD for the spiritual revolution! I never reckoned on that!

If you believe that you can wall yourself off in a woke fortress in western Europe against that, 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): “Highway to Hell” is what you’re doing here!

then you are blind to the spiritual, moral and political collapse which is taking place in western Europe: Crisis of state in France, revolt in Great Britain, and the black-red after 100 days in principle already at an end. 

Milhail Gorbatschov said: Who comes too late, he is punished by life. 

            Inge Grässle (CDU/CSU): Who comes too early, he also!

You come too late. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Life has already punished you! 

            Hannes Gnauck (AfD), turned toward Ralf Stegner (SPD): You say that,                                Herr Stegner? Take a look in the mirror!

History passes you by, since nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come, and this idea is not leftist and woke and green and godless. 

            Stefan Schmidt (Greens): Can you say something on the budget?

We stand at a Wendepunkt, so christened Charlie Kirk his movement in 2012: “Turning Point” – Wendepunkt. And Europe will turn itself in spirit to the ideas and beliefs of Charlie Kirk, to freedom, 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): Do you speak on the budget?

family, fatherland, but first and foremost to Jesus Christ. 

Many thanks. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): I don’t get it! Love of neighbor, that was Jesus Christ!                           Impossible!

 

[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]