Rembrandt Clancy has translated (and provided an introduction for) a speech by a member of the AfD (Alternative for Germany) named Maximilian Krah, who describes the destructive policies of Angela Merkel’s government and the likely future of the CDU.
Why is Merkel Opening the Borders Anyway?
The Cause of Merkel’s Policy and the Alternatives
by Rembrandt Clancy
But a madness has quite clearly befallen these people, meaning their actions would otherwise cause healthy intelligence guided by experience to say, ‘Hands off!’
— Maximilian Krah
About the Author
A new personality has emerged in Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. He seeks to find the underlying commonalities and causal structures below the surface play of disparate political policies and cultural disruptions which follow from them. Dr. Maximilian Krah was born in 1977 and lives in Dresden with his wife and family of six children. He is a Corporate Lawyer with a Doctor of Laws (Dresden) and an MBA (Columbia, London). He is a partner with the law firm of Weiler Krah Petersen LLP (LinkedIn).
In his capacity as corporate lawyer, Dr. Krah has represented the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), founded by French Roman Catholic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1971. The SSPX are a worldwide traditional Society of priests who reject the “reforms” of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Being largely independent of local bishops, with their 104 schools and six seminaries they are probably the largest single counter-revolutionary force within the post-Conciliar Church (cf. SSPX Districts Overview). Having been raised in the neo-Catholic Church, Dr. Krah’s gravitation toward the Society in 2003 is consistent with the metapolitical importance he places on the re-establishment of Germany’s cultural traditions as an antidote to globalism and the “popular cultural self-hatred” which accompanies it. Further detail on Dr. Krah’s biography and his controversial connection with the SSPX can be found in an interview which The Remnant Online conducted in 2012.
In September of 2016, after a long-standing and active membership in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Dr. Krah left Angela Merkel’s party to formally join the anti-mass immigration AfD. In a German language interview with RT, Dr. Krah explains that he left the CDU on account of their policies on immigration, the energy transition (the abrupt nuclear phase-out) and CDU support for the social policies of the Social Democratic Party (SPD).
Dr. Krah holds no elected position with the AfD, but being a formal member of the party he represents them as a spokesman, especially at event-driven press interviews. He also delivers lectures on culture, politics and economics. All three of these fields are included in his talk ‘Why is Merkel Opening the Borders Anyway‘, or alternatively, ‘Why is Merkel the way she is?‘
Dr. Krah delivers his talk in an informal venue reminiscent of the German Stammtisch. It is entirely extemporaneous yet highly structured and easy to follow. It took place in Chemnitz, Saxony, on 11 January 2018. The subtitled video along with the English transcript are found below.
The Structure of the Talk
The Starting point: The Effect of Immigration on Indigenous Germans
The speaker begins with a question which at first directs attention away from Frau Merkel: Why do parents allow Muslim immigrants access to their underage daughters? He mentions Mia Valentin of Kandel who was fatally stabbed by her former boyfriend, Abdul Mobin Dawodzai, on 27 December 2017. He had threatened her and posted nude photos of her on the Internet; and although she had complained to the police (German Wikipedia), the authorities still failed to protect her. This case in particular has subsequently provoked demonstrations made up of the ordinary citizens of Kandel. Dr. Krah then places Mia’s murder in the context of a social engineering film produced on the children’s channel, Kika, which aims at children between three and thirteen. The channel is run jointly by the two German public broadcasting corporations, ARD and ZDF. The production is a romanticised documentary, filmed partly in a misty sepia, in which the 16-year-old Malvina, her young mind intoxicated with emotions beyond her control, narrates her damp-eyed infatuation with a Syrian immigrant, whom Kita had identified as being “about the same age” as Malvina (Die Welt). Originally planned as a series, it was discontinued after the first episode, which is still available on the Kika website for anyone who wishes to absorb the flavour of it. Dr. Krah makes reference to the film’s opening where a reclining Malvina reads aloud a love letter against the background of saccharine romantic music. Diaa pressures Malvina to dress modestly, eat halal and become a Muslim (cf. Breitbart UK). Much later in his talk Dr. Krah mentions the murder of 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger of Freiburg, a volunteer for asylum seekers who was raped and murdered by an Afghan who in 2015 was an “unaccompanied minor”. Maria’s Roman Catholic family was socially well-placed — her father being a high-level EU legal professional in Brussels — and used her obituary to request donations in Maria’s honour to be made to Weitblick (far-sighted) a “refugee” charity which attracts young people into its service and educates them about refugees (Express UK).
Based on these examples, which issue from the broad policy of mass immigration, Dr. Krah asks a question which determines the direction of the remainder of his talk: “What will immunise” these parents against beliefs which support open borders, the “arrival of foreigners who will never work in [Germany]”? There follows a second related question which derives from Frau Merkel’s background in the GDR: “What does a person believe who is formed in such a way?” Behind the answer to both of these questions emerges a very particular model of the state to which Maximilian Krah opposes what he elsewhere calls a “classically personal model of the state” which is rooted in das Volk:
The state proceeds from the citizens, from a people (vom Volk), das Volk is made up of those who are born into it or of a few who are married into it or of those who have assimilated into it or of those who have a feeling of belonging to it. That is something personal; the state is personal. And the elected representatives of this personal entity are responsible for seeing to it that all goes well for this collective and that it keeps going. […] It is in the Constitution and that is what we learned in school. The new mode centres on the entire world. […] Every individual is equal. The state is nothing other than a province in the world… (Maximilian Krah, Straight Talk, 21 November 2017, at 2:16:00 min. ff).
If the speaker broadens the discussion to the energy transition policy, climate change, the euro-rescue policy, the export economy and the subsidisation of southern countries, it is to demonstrate that they all have the very same underlying concept of the state as the open borders policy. This last policy, however, is the most immediately ascertainable, the most emotional and therefore the most galvanising (Straight Talk 1:20:55 min. ff)
The Fellow Traveller as a Vulnerability for the Established Parties
But there is still the question of “what drives these people” to the beliefs behind these policies? The answer is found in the fellow traveller (Mitläufer), a concept which is based on an artifact of the German electoral system which may be unfamiliar to many non-Germans. Dr. Krah specifies two types of fellow traveller, the true believer and the opportunist, although he does give them labels. The former is self-explanatory; an example being Heiko Maas, the Minister of Justice who designed the Internet censorship law (cf. Gates of Vienna). The Interior Minister, Thomas de Maizière, is an example of the opportunist, for which Dr. Krah offers a truly remarkable description of how he functions. But the opportunist is also found among the parliamentary staff (Mitarbeiter). All political parties in the German system hire their own publicly paid parliamentary staff who are also party members, a combination which gives them potential influence on the elected representatives they serve. In September of 2017, the period of the last German federal election, an RT interviewer suggested to Dr. Krah that the AfD, despite their entry into the Bundestag, were still a hopeless parliamentary minority of controversial types who on that account would have no influence whatsoever. Dr. Krah explained in English:
That is a big misunderstanding because what is the CDU and the SPD bringing together? [sic] It is that they have the expectation to get jobs. And as long as Merkel and Schulz cannot guarantee jobs any more for their party members, they come into deep problems and they are forced to change their policy. So if you have 14% of AfD in, and both big parties losing seats, you make a lot of […] a lot of pressure on the party leaders of the large parties to change their politics. So it’s very important that you take them away jobs [take their jobs away] because that’s what they guarantee their members. And that’s the big message from today [the September 2017 federal election], that they don’t guarantee their jobs any more. (cf Maximilian Krah on RT Intl in English, 3:38 min. ff)
Knowledge of these conditions makes Dr. Krah’s argument easier to follow. However, this particular vulnerability of the opposition parties did not work in favour of the AfD in the last federal election, as Dr. Krah himself explains in his talk. The effect was cancelled because the overall number of representatives in the Bundestag has increased substantially since the last election, an electoral artifact too complex to explain here.
Party Politics, Culture and Opposing Concepts of the State
The same conditions apply to politics at the state level. But there may be a temptation to dismiss Dr. Krah’s entertaining discussion of Saxon politics as too local to be of much value, but in Germany regional differences may point to broader political alignments in the future. For example, there has been much speculation about the fact that the AfD is much stronger in the former GDR states than in the former West Germany. The same was true of PEGIDA. One explanation points to regional differences in mentality rooted in recent history which in turn appear to shape a quite unexpected community of interest among peoples in different countries. In the Q and A, for example, Dr. Krah observes that prior to 1989 the East German communist regime spent money on culture. The communist government, he says, was like a “blanket of snow” covering a people who were still passing their culture on to the next generation, a phenomenon which also has its equivalent in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Moreover, the East Germans and the Visegrád countries have not experienced the “popularised cultural self-hatred” that has plagued the West like a “virus” since the 1960s. In the 1980s, Krah says, German instruction in a polytechnic grammar school in Karl-Marx-Stadt was superior to what could be found in a junior secondary school in Duisburg (Lecture with Q&A 50 min. ff).
Thus the same questions which demand a party-political response also require a cultural or metapolitical one; hence Dr. Krah addresses a long-term strategy for restoring the forgotten or latent old-culture of the West. For example, it is of the utmost importance that Germans learn how to sing again, once a required programme for Prussian elementary and middle schools. But singing, singing as a class and learning song texts by heart have all been abolished. Singing is part of, and also symbolic of a larger culture actively carried out and actually practised and shared by a people who, in song, not only “discover they are das Volk, they have discovered we are ein Volk… People must learn again that they belong together…” (Straight Talk 1:30:19 ff). Implicit in Krah’s cultural antidote to globalism is an inverse relationship between culture and madness (Wahnsinn), madness in the sense of delusion (Wahn), which also corresponds to ideology:
But quite obviously a [collective] madness has befallen these people, meaning their actions would otherwise cause healthy intelligence guided by experience to say, “Hands off!”
This passage from Dr. Krah’s talk has been somewhat broadly quoted, but with the word ‘collective’ inserted into it, perhaps inadvertently. The effect is to make explicit that the madness described is of epidemic proportions. The insertion originated with the well-known German blogger Michael Klonovsky, whom Dr. Krah mentions as offering his “solution” to the question of why the parents of Mia, Malvina and Maria have beliefs which bring them to compromise their daughters. The Klonovsky-solution is the focal point of the talk, for it offers a concise description of the content of the madness which many will recognise as part of their immediate metapolitical experience. C.G. Jung used the expression “psychic epidemic” to describe such collective phenomena. Offering National Socialism as an example, he outlines the preconditions for it:
But if there is no relation to a centre which expresses the unconscious through its symbolism, the mass psyche inevitably becomes the hypnotic focus of fascination, drawing everyone under its spell. That is why masses are always breeding-grounds of psychic epidemics, the events in Germany being a classic example of this. (Collected Works. Vol. 9, Part I, Princeton: 1971, par. 227)
Note: A few cuts were made to eliminate some microphone difficulties at the source, with no loss of thematic content.
Why is Merkel Opening the Borders Anyway?
Dr. Maximilian Krah
Chemnitz, 11 January 2018
Organisers: Konservativer Kreis der AfD, Chemnitz
Original Video Source, lecture alone: Thomas Müller
Original Video source including the Q&A: AfD and Pegida
Translation by Rembrandt Clancy
How did I come up with the topic, ‘Why is Merkel the way she is?’ Because I see that it is a question which very many people are continuing to ask. And it gives rise to very interesting theories: that she is being extorted, that she is externally controlled, and so on and so forth. And now I have a somewhat more complicated solution which I will offer you today. And it begins first of all with a question which prescinds from Frau Merkel.
Very recently, in the small Rhineland-Palatinate city of Kandel, we have the case of a 15-year-old girl [Mia] who was stabbed in a drugstore by her ex-boyfriend, an Afghan of indeterminate age — we estimate him to be in his mid-twenties. And the question occurred to me, as someone who has children himself: ‘How can it be, that he was the ex-boyfriend?’ And then the girl’s father was interviewed and he said, ‘We accepted him like a son’. It is unlikely that would happen to me now. That means, that if we ask the question ‘Why is Merkel doing this?’ we can also ask the question ‘Why did Mia’s father in Kandel do this?’
Very recently on the Children’s Channel there has been a supplement to the homicide case in Kandel; namely, a romance thematising a 16-year-old girl in love with a refugee. The man’s age was originally set at 17, but then the Children’s Channel revised it upward to 20. That is the miracle of the Children’s Channel. At first his age grew younger, from 18 to 17; and now within a month it has risen to 20. Why did he become 20? Because he had a birthday on the 1st of January, meaning this number is also an estimate. [Officials deemed January 1st as the birthday.] Among my circle of friends I asked some doctors how old the man is. They said he was at least 25. If you take a look at the video, it has romantic background music against which she is reading aloud a love letter from him. Clearly it was a promotional film.
And here too the question arises: ‘Why are the parents allowing the girl to do that?’ In this case, it is a mother. She had taken on the sponsorship of two refugees, and in this context at least, one can infer that she is looking after the friend of the friend of her daughter. We are therefore dealing with a people and era which do not belong to the elites, not the parents in Kandel any more than the parents of the girl on the Children’s Channel. They are certainly not politicians, they are also not journalists and they are also not people who involve themselves in this to earn money. But a madness has quite clearly befallen these people, meaning their actions would otherwise cause healthy intelligence guided by experience to say, ‘Hands off! I would rather not do that!’ And now comes the big question: What is going on in our country that this is happening; and above all, what is going on with these people, that they are obviously so completely wet behind the ears? Thus what will immunise them? If we could answer the question, I think we could find a solution to our political ideas and actions.
Let’s begin with Angela Merkel. Angela Merkel never actually experienced the upheaval which reunification brought to many others, including my parents; at least not to the extent that she had to be concerned about ‘what is going to happen to my employment; will I still have a job after a year’s time and where will I have one?’
Angela Merkel was a member of the Volkskammer [People’s Parliament], she was deputy government spokesman in the government of [Lothar] de Maizière. Straight away she became a member of the Bundestag in 1990, and in 1991 she was already Minister of Women’s Affairs under Helmut Kohl. That means she is seamless: she never experienced life in the reunited Germany other than in a privileged way. Thus she rode through Berlin for a year as an ordinary member of parliament as part of the Bundestag’s chauffeur-driven car pool; and a year later she already had her own official state limousine. Therefore she never experienced life in the reunified Germany.
How, then, did she experience life in the GDR? She grew up in a parsonage. Her father was ‘The Red Kasner’. He was born in Hamburg. In the 1950s he moved to the GDR, and from within the Evangelical Church in the GDR he counted as one who championed the acceptance of what was in fact an anti-Christian system, meaning he was a very red, and a very leftist pastor. During her time in this parental home, because of her excellent connections with the grandees of the East-CDU, she became especially acquainted with the de Maizière family. What applied to the de Maizière family belonged also to many Prussian aristocrats: they were always in high places. You will see that in the West, one of the de Maizières [Ulrich] was Inspector General of the Bundeswehr; the other [Lothar] was in the East, where at the end of the regime he was Chairman of the East-CDU. They were transnational, Obviously these people are a breed [Menschenschlag]. She didn’t belong to it.
Also pertaining to the de Maizières, there is an interesting anecdote. Go to the Wikipedia entry of the Western General [Ulrich] de Maizière. There you will find a very engaging story. He was a friend of the resistance fighters of 20 June [sic]. But he was not part of it. And in Wikipedia [the then] Lieutenant Colonel Ulrich de Maizière is still acclaimed today for delivering, in the Führer’s Headquarters in 1945, a particularly unsparing and direct situational assessment.
If you have once had the experience of Thomas de Maizière [Minister of the Interior] — and I did in my CDU past — I occasionally heard him speak to smaller groups — and he gives you wonderfully clear situational assessments of what immigration is bringing to our country. But the man remains faithful and wreaks destruction right to the bitter end. That is just a first answer to the question of what is actually driving people.
I do not believe that the foregoing drives Frau Merkel, but in her milieu you have people who are just primed for functioning. And even when they know everything is going off the rails, — they press on! That is obviously something: a breed of people which we have to deal with.
But this still does not yet answer the question about Angela Merkel. So she came from a leftist parsonage and joined a party called the ‘Democratic Awakening‘ [DA]. The Democratic Awakening is somewhat similar to the New Forum, meaning they were not conservatives. Now an unpleasant professional type found his chance. The Democratic Awakening had a lawyer as Chairman; he was Herr [Wolfgang] Schnur. And if you take a look at the old photos from 1990, they have these revolutionary bushy beards. And then you have one in a suit. That was Schnur. He was only a Stasi informer, but he sensed there was more progress to be made with the CDU than with the Greens. And that is why the Democratic Awakening merged with the CDU. And the entire DA membership counted now as revolutionary nobility and were placed ahead of the East-CDU Blockflöten [imitators of the anti-fascist block parties, SED, KPD and LDPD], who oftentimes only followed along, were accomplices or were at least not unsympathetic. And once she now emerged, moreover, from the immediate orbit of Herr [Lothar] de Maizière, who was Minister-President, then right after 1990 her career quickly took off.
But as Thomas Goebel said, what distinguishes us is being on the street in the fall of ’89 experiencing reunification. Then came the first wave of disillusionment, and then came professional uncertainty. Right here in Chemnitz, how many people had to lose their jobs? She knows nothing of that. And in the fall of ’89, she was not on the streets, because she was in the Academy of Sciences as the Free German Youth Secretary for Agitation and Propaganda. That means you have in front of you a person who had little in common with the entirely normal world of experience of her East German fellow citizens.
In the evangelical parsonage, she had parcels from the West, she had a bank account with Western currency and she of course read Western newspapers. Then she participated a little in the SED [Socialist Unity Party] rubbish. And because of her connections, she immediately became a federal Minister within a year of reunification. So much for Frau Merkel’s background. Hence it is unfair to say that Frau Merkel is of GDR background or that Frau Merkel had exactly the same formation as many others. She most certainly did not; instead she has a biography which is completely different. And if we continue with why she does what she does, we always have to ask the question: ‘What does a person believe who is formed in such a way?’
Therefore let’s begin with what you believe. When you now say ‘we have our families’, then you see to it, I think, first and foremost that your family is doing well. You look after those who are closest to you. Once those closest to you are thriving and you have everything fairly well under control, then you begin to concern yourself with your community, perhaps an organisation, perhaps your city and of course then Saxony and Germany, your Fatherland. And when you see that everything is going well and you have become involved, then comes the next step, and you reflect: there is misery in the world. What can we do about it, without, of course, doing any harm to ourselves on account of it? Right? And whatever you have, you try to keep it. And precisely that is the structure upon which a state should be built. The state is constructed such that one says: ‘there is ‘a people[ein Volk]; they have a feeling of solidarity’. Why do they have a feeling of solidarity? Because they share experiences in common. When I say something to you now about how it was in 1990, as Thomas Goebel just told you; when I discuss it with my parents — I was 13 years old at the time — then that constitutes similar experience. If we go back one generation and inquire about our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, then presumably they always wore the same uniform and had similar war experiences. Many were banished, my grandfather for example. And you could go back further in time.
If we ask our neighbours, then they will confirm that they are reading aloud to their children the same fairy tales which I read aloud and which were read aloud to them. That means that through history, through language, through culture, a feeling of solidarity emerges. And the farther a person is from you geographically and from that which has formed you, the more different things are. So if you now travel 100 kilometres to the South and chat with Czechs, then you will discern many commonalities, but also differences. When you travel 1,000 kilometres south, then the differences become predominant and the commonalities become fewer. And always, whenever such a people [ein Volk] arise, who belong together and also settle down together, they then establish their nation and say, ‘here in this region we govern our affairs by our own ways and means and show that together we do better under conditions of mutuality’.
This relatively simple idea underlies the entire body politic of the modern era. And one could leave it at that. And that is the way the Constitution reads: ‘the authority of the state originates with the people [das Volk]. To the people belongs each person who is a German national and who has German citizenship’; and it continues: ‘a government exists only for the good of both the state and the people’. These are self-evident principles. And in this room they are self-evident principles which do not require a great deal of persuasion.
Now there is, however, a completely different way of thinking, and it looks like this: all men are equal, regardless of where they live; and all men have exactly the same rights; and the entire world is a kind of homogenised state. And there are in this homogenised universal world only various administrative districts; some richer, some less rich; some more secure, some less secure. And the moment when anybody whatsoever crosses the border of this administrative district, he has exactly the same rights as those who have already been living there longer. And when you listen to Frau Merkel’s speeches — and I belong unfortunately to those who occasionally did, but I did not stand up and clap, contrary to those who clapped and stood up — then pay attention to her treasonous words: ‘those who have been living here longer, and those who have not been living here for long’. Thus she does not distinguish between citizens and strangers, between those who belong to the people and those who do not belong to them, but she simply says: ‘I am now responsible here and whoever is simply there, he is there’. Her words verbatim: “Now the refugees are simply there; now that they are there, what are we supposed to do?” That is, she does not say that they have to leave again, but she says, they have the same rights.
And a friend of mine was once in the Chancellery with mayors from Chemnitzer Land, and in the preliminary discussion was asked: “Why do you believe that a Syrian should have fewer rights than you?” That is, she represented, as a point of departure, the idea that everyone in the entire world, in a universally identical way, has the same rights from the very outset. And it is only a question of where he happens to be at the moment. At the very moment that he comes here, and is more than only a tourist, then according to this way of thinking, he has exactly the same rights as every one of you: to benefits, to welfare, to accommodation, to sustenance, to education etc. And you have to accept this solution on its own terms.
Wherever I turn up, this worldview generates great astonishment and head-shaking — because, as a rule of course, I turn up where people find this worldview completely gaga, because it is completely gaga. But… occasionally I also converse with people who do not vote AfD. I was once underway in Berlin with a rather leftist oriented, but thoroughly approachable Dutch television crew and discussed this with them in a similar vein. And then they looked at me and said, “Yes, but Merkel is right”. That suggests there are quite a number of people who simply no longer accept that there are citizens and strangers, that the state has something to do with the people, with those who sustain this state, and that the others do not belong to it. This idea is completely foreign to them. And Frau Merkel is not the only one who represents this opinion, but in political Berlin, meaning across the entire group regardless of party except for the AfD, all the representatives hold to it. The first to bring up this crap were the Greens, — for which reason, by the way, I am not angry with the Greens, because at least the Greens are honest enough to admit it. And whoever is so dumb as to elect the Greens will reap the harvest of precisely that criminality which you are experiencing right now in Chemnitz, in your central processing centre [for immigrants]. The ones who took over the policy and then were weakened by it were the Social Democrats [SPD]. As a result the Social Democrats, a former national party with a 40% share of the vote, have now landed at 19.5%. Still too much!
That cannot be said even about the Liberals [FDP], who adopt this policy only half-heartedly, because as we have always known — and they have said this themselves — they are the party of higher incomes. And what really matters to them is cashing in.
But the CDU have always held to the opposite position. Those who elected the CDU, or those who were even members, never became members so that the borders could be opened, meanwhile allowing almost three million Muslims into the country since 2013. Those who elected the CDU were never in favour of this euro-rescue policy, which has the same cause — I am coming to that. They were never for open borders, or for this climate policy which leads to our becoming de-industrialised, or for an energy transition which leads to your paying a price per kilowatt hour which is 50% higher than what the Czechs pay. That is not why they were elected; meaning, the reason why the CDU is worthy of so much contempt is that they have divorced themselves from what they have always propagated; which is to say, from the reasons why they were elected. And that is why one should make this distinction clear: is the government there for the good of its people, or is the government there for the good of the entire world? Is it immediately fascist to utter that word ‘Volk’? And does anyone who cares for his own people actually become half a Nazi?
Now let us begin by going into the individual policy fields and not only the question of immigration. Let’s begin with a particularly boring theme. We’ll work our way up to it therefore, and that way I will hold your attention, hopefully.
We begin with the transition of the energy system. You pay approximately 50% more per kilowatt hour than an average consumer in the Czech Republic. That is the reality. How was it justified? The initial justification was a nuclear power plant in Japan; there was a nuclear accident; there was not a single death, but you never know, so we have to do something. In Germany there are no tsunamis, but that was the justification, hence following a whim. Behind this there always lies the belief in the climate catastrophe. Hence if we blow carbon dioxide into the air, it becomes generally warmer, and we want to prevent that. I’m not a chemist nor am I a climate theoretician, meaning I am not going to express an opinion on the theory. But I assure you, that those politicians who have made these decisions are not climate theoreticians either. We can all decide.
Let us look at what is happening. Germany has an extremely low proportion of worldwide carbon dioxide emission. If we therefore reduce our emissions by about 20-30 percent, which implies a country which has long been industrialised, that changes absolutely nothing in climate emissions worldwide. But we are harming ourselves enormously. What is the concern of the government? They are concerned with symbolic politics. And upon what is it based? The climate catastrophe is said to be global problem, and therefore all peoples should work together. It is said to be no longer possible to make sensible climate-energy policy at a national level. There is absolutely no examination of what the real outcomes are; instead, a mere symbol is created, because it is believed that one must do something which serves the whole world. And no longer is it a question of whether it benefits our own country or our own people.
You have the same problem when you look at the euro-rescue policy; — there I know my way around somewhat better because Economics was part of my studies — it amounts to exactly the same thing. The subsidisation of southern countries and their national budgets through German State guarantees leads above all to the following disparities. The South does not have to reform. They can continue to go into debt. Why would you vouch for them with your savings, if you have any? You no longer receive interest on your savings account. You may have a retirement savings plan, which was the worst investment of the decade; and you are slowly heading into poverty in old age. Since the beginning of the year 2000 you have had a real wage increase of 3%, meaning your wages are stagnating. The income of the state has doubled over the same period.
Although you work diligently, the money does not go to you but to the state. That is the reality. Germany generates a considerable export growth from which you get nothing because your wages are not rising. We are experiencing, therefore, an enormous redistribution from you, the middle class who works and saves, to the state, to the exporting industries — which because of low wages, can export goods — and to the countries in the South, who can continue to generate interest supported by German guarantees. Does this policy benefit Germany? It does not benefit Germany at all. Upon what is it based — ‘if the euro fails, Europe fails’? I’m telling you, they really take the woman seriously! They listen to this rubbish! The next question would be: What does it mean then, if the euro fails? What does it mean for us? What does it mean for each of you? The truth is that you are currently paying for this euro-rescue policy with permanent loss of purchasing power.
And now we come to the actual crux of the matter, to the third largest Merkel-sin, which you in Chemnitz are experiencing because you are the central reception point for Saxony: the open borders. When we look at immigration, there were people like myself in 2015 who said that this cannot turn out well. But one could say that anyway…
The question is, what drives these people? If you first of all begin at the very top, with the government, then you can expect that in each instance they are completely unaware. Thus as someone said to me, ‘the distance of a normal human being from the moon is less than the distance of a normal human being from Angela Merkel’, because she is propped up. We can no longer approach this woman. Why not? There is always the question of her being voted out of office at some point, charges will be brought and she will be put before a court. Then she will learn what she has inflicted on Germany. Unfortunately I have to deprive you of this hope. She will be voted out of office and she will be invited to give lectures to banks, insurance companies and to state organisations for an honorarium of 100,000 euros per evening. Then she will fly in first class aircraft and stay in the best hotels. And that is still not the most expensive. Barack Obama receives $300,000 per evening. That means you will be at a loss to catch Frau Merkel.
But then there are the fellow travellers. And therefore we ask the first question: What worries the fellow travellers? The first type of fellow traveller is the one who is convinced. Herr [Heiko] Maas [SPD], for example. He believes in what he says. There are very many people who believe in what they currently are being told. I think that the parents of Mia from Kandel also believed in that. The parents of Maria from Freiburg believed in the things they were saying. They in particular were active. And at the very least, the mother of the girl on the Children’s Channel believes and is completely convinced of it.
Why these people believe in open borders, I cannot tell you, but they really are of this opinion, [while] in the last ten years our country has been bled to death because of the enormous money which we have sent abroad, and because of the arrival of foreigners who will never work here.
Why these people believe it is hard to say. On the way here I once more called Michael Klonovsky, the well-known writer whom most of you certainly know, and I asked him for his solution as to the reason for their belief. And he said: “They believe in it because they think Germany has at long last become modern.” And when I asked him why I am exempt from this madness, he said there are two reasons why one is exempt from the madness: either one has been abroad or one lives in Saxony. Those things help him [Klonovsky is a Saxon], but whoever lives in Berlin, in this cheese dome, lives neither abroad nor in Saxony and he really thinks he is now modern.
And consider a very current example. Take Noah Becker. This man in all seriousness said that Berlin is too white for him. And because it is too white, he feels all the closer to his black brothers. Those are two racist statements. I am not of the opinion that one has to necessarily answer two racist statements with one racist retort. I told Jens Maier that personally [Rep. Maier (AfD) had called Noah Becker “the little half-Negro”]. But I also do not believe that one may condemn someone who is only defending himself. And this man passes today for modern. These are obviously the ideals that we have. And it says, I think, much about our country that Noah Becker passes for modern and is quoted in a newspaper. The man makes a profession of being the son of a man who is by profession a tennis player [Boris Becker]. But at the same time, that is the qualification which passes for modern and which one must trendily pant after. So these are clearly the ideals that we have.
I believe that in former times ideals were what one had when one worked regularly, provided for his family, invented something, established a firm and provided many people with employment. But that one as an unsuccessful DJ, who is a professional son, is at the same time the standard for the youth is, in my opinion, a sign of cultural decadence.
And also this wreaks destruction, because unsound guiding principles are set up as a result. And these guiding principles then lead to seriously allowing an Afghan refugee of unknown age access to one’s 15-year-old daughter, just because to do so is multiculti [bunt], and because it is modern, and because it is much cooler than a classmate of only 16 years of age, who is perhaps just a little boring because he is always going flower-picking. That is the misalignment of today.
But the second [type of fellow traveller] which we have is the one which I find more interesting because we can change something.
We shall never reach people [the first type of fellow traveller] who believe in all seriousness that Germany is becoming modern under Frau Merkel. That is a waste of time. Certainly one can say that one is fond of them and that one is of a different opinion from them; but if you really wish to have a discussion with them, then that is completely futile. It is as if these people are on railway tracks. And when a train travels along tracks, you can place your car on them and the train will nevertheless keep going and will not swerve off the tracks. As I said before, they are often agreeable people; and that may be, but it is a waste of time to wish to convince these people.
But there is a second group whom one can convince. These are [also] fellow travellers. Every regime lives in some way off of fellow travellers who know better. And one of these we have already mentioned. He is Herr [Thomas] de Maizière, who actually has to know better.
There is another one whom you also know. He is our new Minister-President [of Saxony], Herr [Michael] Kretschmer. He too is a classical fellow traveller. At the CDU Congress in Karlsruhe in 2015 he stood on the podium. He stood there for 10 minutes. He clapped. He ensured that as many Saxon delegates as possible clapped along. He ensured that there was no countermotion on the issue of a ceiling [on immigration] and so on. Then having lost seats in Chemnitz and Görlitz [to the AfD], he declared himself to be opposed to family reunification. He has now gone to the CSU [in Bavaria] and has said he is against family reunification.
I am telling you right now, there will be family reunification. Herr Kretschmer will stand at the party congress. He will also stand up and clap. I am telling you this because I have long known him, only from my time as a CDU member, and his entire team will go along. And he knows perfectly well that it will not work out positively, meaning that we are dealing with fellow travellers.
The Bundestag has roughly 600 elected representatives [in theory]; currently it is under 700 but over 600. It has 6,000 parliamentary staff [who are also party members]. If the AfD had 10% of the votes (we have 12%), that means that not only 60 representatives from the other parties lose their jobs — unfortunately that did not happen this time because the Bundestag has become so large — that also means that 600 parliamentary staff members will lose their jobs.
If in the Saxon Landtag the AfD increases their share of votes from 10% to 30% by 120 representatives, that means that 24 representatives from the other parties will suddenly become unemployed; and with these 24, approximately four times again as many parliamentary staff members will lose their jobs. This is what makes these people anxious. And that means there exists an opportunity to carry anxiety to the fellow travellers.
I have given up convincing people whom we can no longer reach. And the more I examine this, the clearer it has become that it is a madness. Immigration is a madness, the euro-rescue is a madness: not “if the euro fails, Europe fails”; what else should still fail, the British have already withdrawn?
And the same goes for climate change. When someone is convinced of it, then there is climate change. These are people who, as a rule, have never come in contact with the natural sciences. Then you need not explain to them that there is no use reducing the German carbon dioxide emissions to 20% when at the same time China and India are raising theirs. You may as well discuss climate change with your cat.
But talk with the fellow travellers and say to them: ‘you are fellow travellers; you can do nothing other than chatter, or as in parliament, carry water, and if you don’t finally pay attention, you won’t be able to do anything about it; then you can work rather more seriously’. Right, that is the big thing after all. What is the difference between a political scientist who works in the Bundestag and one who doesn’t work? One stands in front the counter and the other stands behind it. And that is exactly what we have to make clear to these people.
This means that the votes count, even for a first-time opposition, because they trigger anxiety. And we are triggering this anxiety right here in the state of Saxony, because the CDU knows perfectly well that they risk being ousted as the strongest power. And then we shall drive the anxiety not only into the corridors of the Landtag to staff of the Landtag, but also right into the ministerial administrations, because there is an entire array of people who got on board at the age of 25 to 30 and have a career plan extending to the age of 65. And that evaporates very quickly when the wind suddenly changes. And that leads to uncertainty and dissatisfaction which will then be transmitted to the top. That means they will no longer provide Frau Merkel with salutary curatives. You will also not see Frau Merkel brought before a court, but you will see Frau Merkel in a private jet or in the first class with Lufthansa as she flies from lecture to lecture and as she earns more money in a year than you will earn in your entire life. That is a finished matter.
With Herr Maas, that will be a different matter. You will no longer see him after that, and I’m eager to see how things will proceed with his actress friend. He already has a certain distance to fall. He will not fall upwards; since the laws of gravitation are still valid.
But let’s go to Chemnitz. What is the name of your Federal member of parliament here? Exactly! Herr [Frank] Heinrich [CDU]. Do you think he can be placed in the mainstream labour market? You have just four years to send him to the unemployment office. He is anxious! — Of course!
If we move beyond Chemnitzer Land, we have this [CDU Bundestag] representative [for electoral district Zwickau] who is currently in trouble with the public prosecutor’s office because he beat up his girlfriend — this is in Zwickauer Land. And prior to that, if I remember correctly, he attracted attention because he acted in a porno flick. What is he going to do when he is chucked out? And in Zwickauer Land, too, the majority had to see what was going on. Just run through all these people; we know this lot and what to expect from them! And the Landtag appears to be no better.
In other words, if you keep in mind that Frau Merkel thinks in a completely different way than you, that she is not concerned about Germany, but about the whole world; that she is not concerned about citizens and foreigners, but about everyone, regardless of where he happens to be; that her policies do not serve the German people [dem deutschen Volke] as written atop the Reichstag, but serve a population [Bevölkerung] like tiles engraved along the floor of a side-corridor; and that therefore those who are here by chance are just as much ‘a people’ [Völker] as those who have a tradition here, then you know that this woman cannot change. You also know that this woman does not have to be extorted into these policies.
It is true that there are people who applaud her for it; it is true that there are people who pay a great deal of money for her to continue with it. All that is indisputable. And everyone knows more or less something of the sort; we are not the only ones. But what she does, issues from within herself. It is her own personal madness. And in her milieu there are a sufficient number of people who share this madness. And then there are people who go along with it because they think it leads them to an official car, to pension entitlement and to the good life as well. Those are the weakest links. And they are the ones we tackle by means of good election results on behalf of our own party which does not go along with the nonsense. And then when the power base erodes, you will see that Frau Merkel and her Altmaiers and Maases, or whatever they might be called, will topple. That is the way we can change that. That is the political way and the shortest way. And there is always the wonderful phrase by Václav Klaus of Prague. He once said: “Optimism is a duty”.
Therefore, after the minor key which I have offered, take away a brief, final chord in a major key so that you may at least leave the room content with a positive message. The first thing is: is everything lost? Of course not! I have occasionally attended court in Hagen in Westphalia, which borders on the Ruhr. I believe that in Hagen and Westphalia I would not be so casual in saying that ‘everything is not yet lost’. It is simply dreadful there. But we are here in Saxony, meaning on the one hand there is, I think, such a large turnaround to be gained here in the Landtag election of 2019, that the fellow travellers in the CDU will begin to wake up. In Saxony we shall succeed in such a way that the influx and the negative trend can be stopped. That is the first good news.
We shall likewise see that many other European countries will not follow the Germans. We are already seeing that in Eastern Europe. Look at the Polish government. Compared to them I am a left-wing radical. Look at what is happening in Russia. They too will not go along. The Hungarians are not going along. In Austria we have a change of government. This means the headwind is building up, and I think that we in Saxony can more or less also hold on. That is the first point.
The second point is, that if we want to manage to hold on over the long term, we require a change in consciousness. Go to the academic secondary schools, and present them with the question, ‘what is your policy, should you serve the entire world and every person or should you first of all serve our families, our city, our country and only after that the entire world?’ And you will find a majority who will say to you: ‘the whole world is the standard, and not our country’. Therefore one has to approach these people and explain to them the fundamental principles of politics and economics. One will have to explain to them, that it is not so. Hence one must act against this hypermoralisation. And for this purpose there is quite a simple trick by which one conveys to them esteem for their own tradition and history. [In former times, we know someone] is first chosen. He always narrates a wonderful story. Then in the evenings students gather around the campfire and they are supposed to sing. There is one nation which cannot sing. It is the Germans. They can no longer sing folk songs. Therefore they cannot value their culture because they are not acquainted with it.
But when we succeed in getting the people to know once more who they are, and what they are; when they know once again who the Brothers Grimm were, and read not only Cinderella, but also Aschenputtel [Cinderella]. And when they can do all that again; when they therefore have a certain pride in their homeland, in its history, in their fathers, in their grandfathers and of course in their grandmothers also; then even when all of that is maligned, they will also understand that they can lose something. That sensitises. That is a long road, but only he who knows who he is, can also defend what he is. The alternative is simply only a user, a consumer, who is really of no great consequence.
And thus the battle begins on two levels; one is the short-term political level, so that we can meet with each other here, exchange our outrage, but also give each other mutual encouragement. The second is, that we go into ourselves and ask ‘who are we actually, who do we wish to be and what do we wish to pass on?’ Therein lies the key to making it long-term. And if we do both of these things, then we do exactly the opposite to what Frau Merkel and the politicians in Berlin are doing; which is to say, they are not at all interested in what constitutes tradition and history in this country. They look only at today and, if possible, wish to prevent you from finding each other and engaging in politics. Rather they want you to sit at home and watch television and as far as possible allow yourselves to be snowed. And therefore the answer to what has taken place amongst us is that the mature, astute citizen, who is active, who courageously trusts in himself, does not think ‘I cannot achieve anything anyway’,…but he says, ‘I am going to do this, this is my city’ and he gets together with others and never becomes discouraged. And I have come here to you today in the hope of conveying a little encouragement so that you can carry on here in Chemnitz, that you come together, that you also connect with the gentlemen up here at the front and that step by step, from the bottom up, you manage the turnaround.