AfD’s Alice Weidel: “This government hates Germany”

Dr. Gedeons video “The migration disaster – is there a way out?”

Today I am talking about migration, about the great disaster that has been caused by the black-red-green policies of recent decades. By now, even the dullest of hearts can see that things can’t go on like this. The mood among the people is changing. The green communists, the perpetrators of this mega-crisis, are getting cold feet. “We finally have to deport people on a grand scale,” even Chancellor Scholz is now saying.

A few years ago, when I repeated this almost word for word in the Stuttgart state parliament, I was met with indignation and contempt by [Winfried] Kretschmann & Co. And now the same people are trying to sell themselves as credible protagonists of a change in migration policy. It’s hard to believe what the red-green foxes who are making gooses of themselves are saying and wanting: Benefits in kind instead of money, reception camps at the EU’s external borders. Some of them are already calling for a total ban on the admission of migrants.

But will anything change as a result of these verbal announcements? Is there at least a hint of change? Are the numbers of incoming migrants decreasing? Not at all. The numbers continue to rise. Nothing is changing. And nothing will change, not now, not in six months’ time and not at all. Not with these people at the top.

Because our black-red-green politicians, who are now so critical of migration, are not doing so out of inner insight or even because they are appalled by their own actions. If that were the case, they would first have to practice self-criticism, cover themselves in sackcloth and ashes and ask for forgiveness: from the German electorate, the German taxpayers, the German people as a whole, whose systematic disintegration they have pursued here for decades.

But there is no talk of repentance and forgiveness. They act as if they have always said and done what they are saying and doing right now. Even if they meant it sincerely, they can’t! The migration problem is no longer decided in Berlin, but only in Brussels. All national competences have been transferred to the EU, so the Berlin political desparatos have to ask the EU for permission if they just want to carry out checks at national borders.

German politicians have knowingly and deliberately incapacitated themselves. But the EU apparatchiks and their globalist backers know exactly what they want: they call it replacement policy. What do they want to replace? They want to replace the Christian European population, which has grown together over centuries of war and peace, with a primarily Islamic Afro-Asian mixed population. From mass immigration to population exchange.

A process that is not taking place in a legal and orderly manner, but is increasingly taking on the character of a violent invasion. Under the direction of the Brussels Eurocrats, young Afro-Asians willing to use violence are conquering Europe, turning the native population into a minority and putting them on the defensive in every respect. If we don’t want this, we must leave the EU, not at some point, but now.

Within the EU, it is not possible to do what is needed now: a complete stop to the admission of migrants and the return of at least five million non-integrated foreigners to their home region. Leaving the EU is the Archimedean point for solving the migration problem. We must now overcome the catastrophic German policy failures of recent decades, a Herculean task.

If we leave the EU, we can make it, if we stay in and think we can ‘improve’ the EU, we are wasting valuable energy and time that we don’t have. The EU’s migration policy brings us thousands of new immigrants every day. We need to maintain a German majority in our country in the long term. The proportion of people with a migration background should not exceed twenty percent in the long term. More migrants will overstretch our social and economic integration capacity.

And what’s more: a larger proportion of migrants would fundamentally change our ethno-cultural characteristics or identity, and we simply don’t want that. And finally, the point is that the internal cohesion of a society breaks down at a certain level of cultural alienation. And that is exactly what is happening in Germany and throughout Europe today.

In contrast to red-green politics, for us an identity based solely on constitutional principles is a fleshless skeleton, anemic, powerless; we cannot be reduced to such a thing. If we want to use the term ‘human rights’ here at all, then at best in the sense that there must be a human right to ethno-cultural identity, and not only for all kinds of foreigners, but of course also for Germans and Europeans. And in this sense we say “Europe for Europeans”. And this Europe includes a Germany that can freely and self-determinedly develop its own ethno-cultural identity.

The essential basis of red-green politics is an auto-destructive hatred of Germany and everything German. Not so long ago, Claudia Roth, currently Minister of State for Culture in the traffic light government, walked around with banners reading “Germany, you rotten piece of shit” or “Germany die”. And her cabinet colleague Nancy Faeser published in the Antifa magazine while she was still Minister of the Interior. Antifa is an association that is rightly regarded by many as politically criminal and extremely anti-German.

As far as human rights rhetoric is concerned, the Red-Greens refer to the UN’s so-called migration pact. According to this, every person on earth would have the right to immigrate everywhere, so that there would no longer be illegal immigration, but only illegal refusal to immigrate. This nomadic morality is to be made the basis of Western and global civilization in general.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the mass immigration currently being practiced has nothing to do with ‘humanitarian aid’. The amount of money spent in Germany on a single immigrant can be used to support a thousand people in their country of origin. In addition, these countries are being deprived of important, dynamic people who they urgently need to overcome their backwardness in terms of civilization and build reasonably functional states.

If we want to solve the migration problem and survive as a nation, the first step is to leave the EU. Then we can and must impose a total ban on immigration and protect our national external borders with the German armed forces. At the same time, we must take in the illegal immigrants – 90 percent of immigrants – in camps and reduce their material support to a minimum: only benefits in kind, food distributed three times a day, material from used clothing collections, curfew between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. and so on.

This alone will halve the immigration rate to an estimated fifty percent. Finally, we need to set up a Rwanda model with central reception camps in three to four countries in Africa and Asia. On the one hand, this will cost us a lot of money, but in contrast to the war in Ukraine and Israel, this is money well spent.

Secondly, we must expect that national and supranational courts will block a restrictive immigration policy such as the one we are striving for to a considerable extent. As far as the jurisdiction of international courts is concerned, we should do as China, the USA, Israel and others do and withdraw from international treaties with these courts.

As far as our national courts are concerned, we must ensure in parliament that our judges are given a very narrow legal framework with regard to the interpretation of human rights, so that Rwanda rulings such as the recent one by the British Supreme Court are no longer possible. Such rulings are about the following: how far do the individual rights of migrants extend in relation to the rights of the state, which is responsible for the overall welfare of its citizens? If, for example, the Bundestag were to decide on detention camps in Rwanda, should our federal constitutional judges be able to come along, as in England, and state that this would violate the human rights of migrants and thus overturn the Bundestag’s decision?

Something like this must not happen under any circumstances. Of course, we do not want to exclude higher courts, and in particular the Federal Constitutional Court, from the major political decision-making processes. But they must be reduced to their core legal competence, which essentially consists of controlling the formal course of decision-making processes with regard to their conformity with the rules. Under no circumstances should courts be allowed to compete with the responsible parliament in terms of political positioning and possibly even claim precedence over it in the enforcement of a decision using formal legal argumentation.

Such decisions are not about special legal competence but about basic political attitudes: is the individual welfare of migrants – or the overall welfare of the German population – more important? The political opinion and orientation of the constitutional judges cannot carry more weight than the political opinion and orientation of parliament as a whole. This is a fundamental problem of the separation of powers.

As far as current political practice in Germany is concerned, the rights of the courts in relation to parliaments must be curtailed in the interests of consistent democratization and the political primacy of parliaments in this regard must be defended. This is derived not least from the fact that parliaments are directly elected by the people and thus have primary sovereignty. The judges of the courts, on the other hand, are appointed by the executive or the parliaments and thus only have secondary, i.e. derivative sovereignty.

To summarize once again: Courts must limit themselves to assessing formal processes when making fundamental political decisions, e.g. with regard to reception camps in Rwanda and elsewhere, and must not sell politically substantive opinions as legal justification. In the migration issue in particular, it will not be enough to withdraw from the EU and thus return the legal competence for substantive decisions to the national parliaments.

We must also be prepared for legal disputes in which politically substantive decisions, packaged in formal legal terms, are to be politically enforced. Finally, we must not shy away from withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights and the corresponding UN agreements if these essentially prevent a migration policy that is necessary for us. These conventions are certainly fundamental pillars of the Western system, but they show that this system primarily represents the interests of migrants and not the interests of national populations and states.

If we want to solve the migration problem in our sense, which means prioritizing the rights of national populations and nation states over those of migrants, then we cannot continue to remain in the so-called West, because the policy of this US-controlled system essentially provides for the dissolution of national populations and nation states in favour of a diffusely mixed world unitary population and a centrally controlled world unitary state. We must therefore not only turn our backs on the EU, but on the entire West. Only an opposition based on this fundamental attitude and directed against the West as a whole is a real opposition, an opposition that can do justice to the problems facing us.

This does not apply to the AfD, nor does it apply to the Wagenknecht group. The AfD revised its Dresden Dexit decision of 2021 in Magdeburg and Chrupalla announced that we must now ’emphasize the positive sides of the EU, there must finally be a reform of this EU’. Ms Wagenknecht, for her part, is a leftist who thinks in genuinely internationalist terms and would never dream of leaving the EU. What we have here as an opposition is a long way from adequately solving the mega-problem of migration.

The policy that is necessary for us is not nice, who likes to deport children and families on a grand scale? But if we want to prevent the ruin of our economy and the collapse of our social systems, if we don’t want civil war-like conditions with paramilitary foreigners on our streets, and if we Germans don’t want to become the Indians of Europe, then this policy is necessary and there is no alternative.

We now need Monday demonstrations again. We can’t expect much from official politics. An exit from the EU must be forced through the streets, as must the exit from supranational courts and international conventions. The connection to the Ukraine/NATO war and the Israel/Gaza war must always be made.

The Western system in Germany is beginning to totter. In all key issues, be it Ukraine, Israel, migration or the EU, official policy is completely off the mark. And in view of the increasingly catastrophic immigration situation, the black-red-green party system is coming under increasing pressure. Let’s seize the opportunity to shape the political turnaround, and that means getting out of NATO and out of the EU now.