Update on the AfD

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.

“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.

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.

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.