Update on the AfD

From an email list:

Despite the unprecedented agitation against the AfD in recent days, the AfD candidate Uwe Thrum won the most votes in the district election in the Saale-Orla district this Sunday (14 Jan, 2024).

Thrum received the most votes with 45.7 percent, followed by Christian Herrgott (CDU) with 33.3 percent, the SPD candidate Regina Butz with 14.2 percent and the Left candidate Ralf Kalich with 6.9 percent. The Greens did not put forward their own candidate.

The current state government of Thuringia consists of a coalition of Die Linke, SPD and Greens. The LEFT and SPD candidates together only achieved 21.1 percent in this district election. The AfD alone reached 46 percent.

In two weeks there will be a runoff election between the AfD candidate Uwe Thrum and the SPD candidate Regina Butz. AfD candidate Thrum was ahead in the election in 47 of the 59 cities and municipalities.

In the remaining twelve communities, Herrgott received the most votes. Butz and Kalich were unable to win a community.

A ban on the AfD has been propagated by all system media and is supported by the vast majority of system politicians. The AfD is accused of wanting to return millions of foreigners to their home countries, which is confirmed by the AfD-leadership as repatriation.

But the system calls the AfD-repatriation-program “expulsion”. Some system politicians are warning against a ban on the AfD. Apparently they fear chaos, disenfranchising almost half of the electorate by banning their preferred party.

The call to ban the AfD is justified with the phrase: “They want to destroy our democracy.” Taken literally, they are right, of course. The AfD wants to destroy this Orwellian democracy of the globalists. But only to take back democracy.

How can a system that only enjoys the trust of 9 percent (Poll Körper-Foundation) of the population babble about “our democracy”?

This seems to be a constant refrain on the left—that parties of the right that oppose immigration or want repatriation of immigrants are a threat to democracy no matter what percentage of the population wants it. But the bar for banning the AfD is quite high: it must be proved they are intent on overthrowing democracy:



9 replies
  1. Herbert
    Herbert says:

    Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, is currently in Berlin. He is also a representative of an organization for religious freedom. He says that the SWC wants to move its activities from Paris to Berlin next year, as Germany will be at the forefront of the fight against terrorism in Europe in the future. The prevailing anti-Semitism in Germany has “crossed a red line.”

    (Who defines this line? “American” Jews, of course!) However, he was primarily referring to the “imported” variant, namely the hatred of Jews among Palestinians, which is fueled in particular by Iran. His role model is Simon Wiesenthal, who lost 89 [in words: eighty-nine!] of his relatives in the Holocaust, but never his faith in the German youth, in whom we should invest.

    By “investment”, he probably means above all the systematic brainwashing through the permanent hammering in of atrocity tales by the Holocaust industry. Organizational support for Palestinian refugees should be stopped immediately and prohibited, Cooper said. It was a disgrace what was happening at American universities, where an anti-Semitic class had developed thanks to years of generous funding from Qatar.

    The main enemy, however, is Iran. That is why it is particularly important to him that Germany ceases its diplomatic and economic relations with the country.Meanwhile, the Springer press, whose main owner is the Jewish investment firm “Kohlberg Kravis Roberts”, is stoking fears that Russia will soon want to start a war with Europe.



  2. Herbert
    Herbert says:

    Parts of the established political establishment and the mass media are increasingly calling for the AfD to be banned. The elimination of party-political competition from the right is no longer just a matter close to the heart of the red-green spectrum. Representatives of the CDU/CSU and FDP are also joining in the chorus to ban the party. Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann has even publicly described the AfD as a “pile of shit”, which means that the level of the current political debate has finally gone from a descent to a free fall.

    No one should be intimidated by such aggressive tones. Because one thing is clear: the AfD cannot be banned, at least not in accordance with constitutional principles. A corresponding application by the Bundestag or Bundesrat would fail – at the latest at the European Court of Justice, but probably already at the Federal Constitutional Court.

    This is from someone who should know: Hans-Jürgen Papier (80, CSU), the former President of the Federal Constitutional Court. Behind the paywall of the “Tagesspiegel”, he warns against “placing any opinion that differs from the majority opinion in an extremist corner or moving it close to unconstitutionality”. For some political actors, “anyone who wants to prevent illegal migration is already right-wing extremist. But that is extremely dangerous.” He advises against banning the AfD: “As far as I know, I don’t think an application for a ban would be a good idea at the moment. It would only play into the AfD’s hands.”

    In an interview with “Tichys Einblick”, constitutional law expert Rupert Scholz (86, CDU) takes a similar view of the situation: “In the form in which it exists today, the AfD is not an unconstitutional party, let alone one that should be banned.” Scholz explicitly opposes the current propaganda: “It has become common practice to label anyone who argues conservatively as an extremist, a right-wing extremist, even a Nazi.”

    Scholz and Papier are not political dissidents – but they are old enough to no longer have to fear public abuse. They have put in a nutshell what is also clear to many other lawyers: democracy requires a diversity of parties, in which there must be room not only, but also for the AfD.

  3. Max
    Max says:

    “How can a system that only enjoys the trust of 9 percent (Poll Körper-Foundation) of the population babble about “our democracy”?”

    They own it and make all relevant decisions. It is their democracy, not our.

  4. Gryphon
    Gryphon says:

    What the communists (yes, that’s what the “Greens” and “Die Linke are) doing is to try and Eliminate, by “legal action” the one Political Party that is Populist/Nationalist and has Surpassed the ‘Left’ in total. Just like in the FUSSA, the screams of “Protect Democracy by Eliminating all ‘right-wing’ Parties” is having just the Opposite Effect; making The People ever more Aware of the Fact that the “Left” is anti-Democratic, anti-Nation, and anti-White.

    The Fear of the judeo-communist “Left” is that Nationalist/Populist Candidates will be Elected who will actively Fight and Reverse the (((globalist)))
    takeover of their Nation. If “Lawfare” doesn’t work to stop them, the “Left” WILL resort to Violence. At least, here in the FUSSA, We the People are so Heavily Armed that all the Police, Military, and other Government Agencies are so Outnumbered and Outgunned that open, (un)Civil War will result in the ‘government’ being Overturned.

    p.s. “Antifacist Aktion” and “Die Linke” are jew-created and funded, communist organizations from the 1930’s. They were Put Down by the NaSDAP, and other Nationalist Parties. To this Day, “Antifa” uses the same Red and Black Flag as from their beginnings in Germany. The same (((people))) Fund and Control them, too.

  5. Herbert
    Herbert says:

    Article (translation):

    Migrant calls for Björn Höcke’s basic rights to be revoked.

    Düsseldorf-based Indra Ghosh is campaigning for the Thuringian AfD leader Björn Höcke to be stripped of some of his basic rights. A corresponding petition on the “WeAct” platform has now reached more than one million signatures. In his request, Ghosh refers to Article 18 of the Basic Law. It states that people can be deprived of individual basic rights if they misuse them “to fight against the free democratic basic order”. Höcke could thus be stripped of his ability to hold public office.

    A recent Forsa survey currently puts the AfD at 36% in Thuringia. According to the survey, the CDU, as the second strongest party, would only receive 20%. Based on these figures, it no longer seems out of the question that Björn Höcke could end up in government in Thuringia. Ghosh warns in his petition: “Höcke is inciting hatred against the free democratic basic order enshrined in the constitution, the culture of remembrance in relation to the Holocaust and people with a migration background.”

    However, it is unclear what the chances of success would be. In any case, the hurdles are high. In the past, there have been a total of four applications for the revocation of fundamental rights in Germany. All of them were directed against right-wing extremists and were rejected by Karlsruhe. In addition, proceedings would probably take a long time. Karlsruhe only decided on the previous applications after several years.

  6. Herbert
    Herbert says:

    Götz KubbitscheK: Why did Weidel fire her advisor Roland Hartwig?

    Alice Weidel has parted ways with her advisor Roland Hartwig. The official statement is that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement and with immediate effect. The reason given was Hartwig’s presence at the so-called Potsdam secret meeting: He should not have been allowed to attend it.

    I would like to know the concrete reason, not hear such a phrase. Because I can’t imagine that the AfD leadership was just following gut feelings and that these gut feelings were consensual. The signal is bad in three ways:

    1. the separation from Hartwig comes days after the revelation of the alleged scandal, i.e. not reflexively, but after considerations. As far as I know, the building blocks have been in place from the outset and no new ones have been added:

    – People from political parties, journalism and activism who are interested in content meet by invitation to discuss political issues in a dignified and private atmosphere.
    – Martin Sellner was announced and spoke about political, legal, organizational and moral aspects of a possible remigration of non-assimilated foreigners.
    – The media turn it into a “secret meeting” in the style of the Wannsee Conference and insinuate plans for the bloody expulsion of millions.
    – The “revelation” was placed next to the peasant protests as a distraction and was heavily charged.
    – The meeting was spied on using secret service methods, but this fact was not later scandalized in the press.

    So how was it possible to come to such a decision after days and careful consideration? It could not have been due to the mood of the members of the Federal Executive Board at their Monday meeting.

    2) On Monday, the “Language Critics’ Unword of the Year Campaign” voted the term “remigration” as the Unword of 2023, even though the term was only given a new meaning a few days ago. Even Bayerischer Rundfunk writes in its report:

    In an academic context, however, in the context of migration research, the term has long had a different, neutral meaning: here it is usually understood to mean voluntary return or return migration to the country of origin.

    With reference to the jury’s decision, the parliamentary group chairmen of the five eastern associations of the AfD jointly issued a clear statement on Monday on the need for comprehensive remigration and contributed to the detoxification of this now toxic term. Weidel’s decision torpedoes this sensible line and opens a rift at a moment when the party has to unite protests and pass landmark elections.

    3) Cancel culture has turned its inventors and operators into both the driven and the imprisoned: those who can no longer speak freely and unprotected begin to circle around themselves and shrink their mental space. Once you start canceling, you have to justify why you don’t do it again if the next case is similar.

    With Hartwig’s dismissal, the party has opened the door to external demands and the resulting pressure to justify and explain itself. The party is already under this pressure anyway – the opinion-forming class is not on its side, does not refrain from any insinuation and leaves no slanderous question unasked.

    There is no behavior that would cause the opponent to revise the decision to classify the party as a VS and the talk of party bans and to invite the competitor for votes, money, mandates and power into the fair game of democracy.

    To repeat an old phrase: there is no alternative in the established. This “established” must be changed on the terms of the alternative. If this does not happen, the alternative in the AfD will disappear, just as the Greens of the early Greens evaporated until a Baerbock could become visible at the bottom of the pot.

    Weidel’s decision is old party behavior and has provided the opponent with ammunition.

  7. Charles
    Charles says:

    I admire the AFD greatly.These nationalist patriots are risking their jobs,security,and privacy to take a firm stand for the indigenous German population.The German State resembles the Stasi with its blatant repressive harassment,spying and banning of the the patriots.These people have guts.The AFD does more than just talk–they act and take a stand.

Comments are closed.