Conversation with a fellow associate to the Bundestag, Maximilian Krah (AfD).
I know that you are taking part in lively discussions, very interesting and inspiring for us, in the ranks of the alternate to Germany, and not only in them. I mean the large debate that is taking place in Germany on German identity. What is German to you?
– Since we are dealing with mass immigration of people who are not cultural Germans, we must increasingly separate between the Republican identity, the state identity described by the Constitution on dignity, freedom and human equality, and, of course, the classical cultural-ethnic identity of the Germans. If we are talking about German cultural identity, it is simply a very long and fascinating story. We can go back to Arminius, who fought the Romans in the 9th year of our era. We can talk about the mediate Ages with Walther von der Vogelweide and the Nibelungs. We can look at Renaissance, then Kanta and Enlightenment, Hegel, industrialization, Bismarck. We must, of course, analyse what went incorrect in Nazi times. We have, of course, a classical culture of a nation, an cultural community that has existed for many centuries. Today, however, has led us to the fact that the state is based on values that are, say, ethnically neutral. We are presently at the phase of this distinction.
Can different identities coexist in the territory of 1 Germany? Should everyone in Germany, each cultural group, ethnic, ethnic, religious, spiritual minority, enjoy the freedom to adhere to their own traditions, their worldview and their lifestyle?
Well, that's what liberalism is. I cannot change the liberal nature of the statehood. I can't change the constitution. And I always say that even if I could, I wouldn't. For if we started doing this, there would be many dangers that we ourselves could be the victim of. The real problem is not that liberalism upholds rights, but that it takes into account only individuals and humanity. He doesn't see anything between them. He can't see the family, which is catastrophic if we look at the birth rate. He does not realize cultural groups or nations based on ethnicity. He sees only the individual and proclaims that each individual has the right to live in accordance with his own tradition, spiritual faith, etc. So, since we have already allowed people who have completely different religion and diametrically different cultural values to settle here and naturalize, as long as they respect public order and law, they behave in accordance with legal standards, they have the right to celebrate and celebrate in a way different from the lifestyle of the majority. That's what liberalism looks like. We gotta accept that. I think it will be akin in Poland. If you open the door to immigrants and let them in, you won't be able to reverse it. They will be among you and you will gotta accept it. So I always repeat to my friends in the countries of Central and east Europe: carefully with this immigration! Then you won't be able to reverse all this.
What do you think of the concept of ethnoplurism? I'm talking about the thought that Alain de Benoist, for example. It speaks of different places in Europe with different identities, including the identities of those who come from immigration, claiming that all these identities can be retained. Do you think that's possible across the continent?
– I think this is the only way to survive, due to the fact that without ethnopluralism we will be unified in the future, which means that we will become people without identity, without cultural background. Then we would become consumers, individual who lives only here and now, not knowing what's behind it, what shaped it. As a result, we would be dealing with a culture of ugliness, which we see already in Britain or in another countries. Look who's the most celebrated celebrity in the United Kingdom today. I mean Bonnie Blue. "The Economist" even wrote that Bonnie Blue is the personification of Britain. erstwhile you get to the phase where the most popular celebrity is simply a whore, I think there's something wrong. If we want to last as different cultural groups with our own identity, we must be pluralistic. So we gotta talk about defending our identity, who we are, but at the same time we gotta accept that another groups will do the same. After all, if we thought we wanted to keep our identity, but we didn't let others do it, it wouldn't work. In short, I keep my Germanism, but the Lord can keep his Polishness, and for example the Persians can keep their Persianness. It could work. However, if we find that we are defending our Germanism, but you cannot defend your Polishness, this could not work. We must realize that there are only 2 possibilities: either we make a unified humanity consisting of specified Bonnie Blue on OnlyFans, hedonism and consumerism; or we accept that there are many different cultures and each of these many cultures has the right to exist.
You are preparing the publication of your manifesto, in which you mention the 3 pillars of the modern right. Let's start with the first one, the demography. Do you see any solution to German and European demographic problems?
– What is the fertility rate? That's the number of children born by a woman. It is usually calculated on the basis of data on women aged between 20 and about 45 years of age, or those who may have children. We're getting close to level 1 on this factor. To preserve the present population of the world, it should be around 2, due to the fact that we inactive have a male population. Otherwise, within 1 generation, our numbers will fall by half. It's a worse rate than the 1 from the 30 Years' War. This is the worst demographic situation in our history. The present generation of Z is the first generation in past in which most will be single throughout their lives. This affects our full future. It is not only that we will be halved, but besides that there will be increased mobility for a fewer young people who will not want to live in areas where older people prevail. Young people will so decision to the area where another representatives of their generation will live, and many regions will collide with the problem of the tremendous advantage of the aged and then the depopulation. How can we remedy this? Imagine the cost of caring for the elderly.
In the meantime, we will have a tiny number of young people who will gotta pay for these costs, although they will not want to do so, due to the fact that they will find that they like to invest in the future, to invest in the improvement of the fewer children they will have. Then any will say that they do not want to support people who do not have children due to the fact that they already gotta support their parents, and they want to spend money on their own children, on their future. They will so find that they do not want to pay 50% or even higher taxes on social benefits for childless aged people. It'll origin quite a few trouble. That's the first line. Another issue that needs to be discussed is that we are dealing with a catastrophic conviction resulting from a deficiency of knowing of the situation, that it is good if we are less, due to the fact that we are overcrowded. That's bullshit. We have no overcrowding. If in 1 generation our numbers shrink by half, then we will be dealing with a totally catastrophic age structure of society. This means, for example, that in any regions, properties will become worthless. Older people will not have the means to live a decent life; there will be no people who can take care of them in case they request help; there will be nothing to treat them for in the event of illness, etc. There is no solution to these problems.
Another component of your imagination of the right of the future is technology. possibly she'll solve any of the demographic problems. I mean artificial intelligence, robotization, etc. After all, the opinion of economists is known that in the future we will not request so many people on the labour market. Is that good news?
– Artificial intelligence helps solve this problem a small bit, but I wouldn't say it's gonna be able to solve it. But I'm certain she's helpful. It's hard to anticipate individual to wash them and take care of them. But, of course, SI can aid here. Automation can be helpful. However, there is another problem: who should control artificial intelligence? Who's going to program it? There is simply a hazard that in a situation where each of our actions will be under full control of computers and artificial intelligence, a very tiny group of technological oligarchs will decide everything. Let us give an example: as I mentioned over 50% of the current youth will not have a life partner. What are they gonna make up for? most likely sex dolls generated by artificial intelligence. Therefore, they will share their most individual and intimate matters with this artificial intelligence. Now imagine that individual controls this doll and is part of the network. individual can then program this artificial intelligence in specified a way that they tell their owner certain things. In this way he will gain full control of this unfortunate man. For example, he can request a virtual gift from him. If she doesn't buy her this present, there's no sex. And this unfortunate will gotta buy virtual flowers for a virtual person, for an SI doll he'll have in front of him. It's just 1 example. We can imagine many others. Who will control the AI erstwhile we become completely dependent on it, with less and less people around us? What kind of country is that?
On the 1 hand, you are absolutely right – we request artificial intelligence to reduce the problems of ageing. But on the another hand, we become totally addicted to technological oligarchs who control all these dolls and SI. Finally, we must besides remember that at any point artificial intelligence can take control of itself. These are not only benefits, but besides a number of different risks. J. D. Vance gave a speech in Paris on artificial intelligence and said plainly that Europe would not be allowed to make its own SI. Nor will she be allowed to buy artificial intelligence from Chinese. She'll gotta usage American SI. Its own improvement possible is to be passed on to the Americans. Eventually, then, all decisions will be made somewhere in Silicon Valley. Our improvement possible will be at the disposal of techno-oligarchia from Silicon Valley. So welcome to the fresh planet where we will depend on computers we have no control over.
That's an interesting point. In this context, I would like to ask you about the alleged techno-right in the United States. The techno-oligarchs are people like Peter Thiel or Elon Musk, but will their techno-world, their planet of artificial intelligence, be somewhat more conservative than the present?
– Well, Peter Thiel is surely 1 of the most interesting modern thinkers. But if you have read his latest interview for the fresh York Times, then on the 1 hand, you will most likely agree with me that he identifies contemporary liberalism in there with the Antichrist. I'm glad he mentions Antichrist, due to the fact that it shows that he is simply a man on a certain spiritual level. Spirituality is very crucial in these times. And I completely agree that contemporary liberalism is the Antichrist. He then claims that 1 of the most crucial achievements of the future will be the separation of the body from the soul. What does that mean? I say that the body and soul are something inseparable, due to the fact that my soul and my thoughts have a certain biological expression, due to the fact that these thoughts come from my DNA, and my body consists of DNA. That is why, in the confession of faith, we talk of the resurrection of all of us from the Last Judgment. So we believe that the soul and body are inseparable, although we can separate them on an intellectual basis. Thiel claims that in the future the soul will be able to last without the body and in fact replace the body.
Maximilian KrahLittle by small you have mentioned the 3rd dimension of your imagination of the right hand of the future – Weltordnung or planet order. You referred to this by referring to J. D. Vance's words on the concept of hegemony in the future world, dominance over us, over our continent. Do you think that Europe is inactive able to be 1 of the actors in the multipolar world?
– I believe that the current American administration is the most pro-European of all decades. Their conservatism is based on European inspiration and they truly love Europe. So it's not the Americans who are giving us up. With Trump replacing Biden, a lot has truly changed. If Kamala Harris were president, I would powerfully propose greater skepticism and distance to the United States. Trump opens up quite a few possibilities. If his successor is J. D. Vance, we will be 12 years old – 4 years Trump and twice after 4 years Vance – who will be able to become a golden era for Europeans due to the fact that they see us as their own, as part of themselves. That's why I'm optimistic. However, Europeans themselves are the problem. For six years I sat in the European Parliament in Brussels. I do not see the anticipation of reforming Brussels. I don't think there's any sense in Brussels of the chance ahead of us. We request a fresh structure, due to the fact that it is not about us going back to tiny countries, each of which will take care of its own interests. We request cooperation, but the people I meet in Brussels don't realize what's going on. This is the first case. So we gotta rebuild everything and it is not just about any reform. It's not about exchanging a fewer people. We request to build a fresh structure, and even return to the roots and foundations. That's the problem.
In a situation where Europe is ageing and spending all its resources on pensions and older people alternatively of investing money in technology, it will be hard to participate in future competition. erstwhile you spend everything on caring for the elderly, you gotta make very advanced taxes. And if you have advanced taxes, then the best and most talented people will leave and decision to countries with lower taxes, specified as Dubai. We're very mobile now. Imagine that you are 20 years old and want to change and conquer the world. Would you like to stay in a country where you will pay 50 percent taxation to support the elderly, or would you go to Dubai where you will not pay any taxes and start your own company? The problem is that Europe is limiting its own demographics. There's no reasoning about the future. So we request to make opportunities for our young people. We have very fewer young people and we request to convince them someway to stay here – in Poland, in Germany. That we would make for them a space that would let them to build a future not only for themselves, but besides for their future families and for the world.
Today we don't offer specified space. We offer them advanced taxes, excessive regulation and so no chance. That's why I think the best and most intelligent will just leave. They'll find each another elsewhere. 1 of my children is presently studying in Zurich with many talented young Germans. They all repeat that they will no longer return to Germany due to the fact that we have besides much regulation and besides much tax. The same with Dubai, to which so much money and talent has been coming from Europe recently, as with another places in the mediate East and, of course, to the United States. German business invests more in the United States than in Germany itself. It's terrible, and that's the problem that we should kind out.
Poland, together with another countries of Central Europe, is part of what any mention to as Grossraumwirtschaft Germany. We are heavy dependent on the condition of the German economy. There's no uncertainty about that. What are possible scenarios for her?
– Firstly, Poland has been doing almost everything in the economical sphere for the last 30 years. I mean, since 1990, your GDP growth has been impressive, like Asian tigers. problem is, you're paying a advanced price for this. Just look at your fertility rate. You took advanced credit for the future due to the fact that you don't have children. It is the biggest hazard origin for Poland. As long as you are in the same economical space as Germany, there is inactive a hazard that Germany is making the rules. We're dealing with this now. So you tend to over-regulate, like working time standards set by 2035, quite a few nonsense about manufacture standards, etc. All this makes you lose your global competitiveness. On the another hand, you can't escape it due to the fact that you're besides weak. So we sail aboard 1 ship, although you may be in a somewhat better cabin. If that ship sinks, you'll sink a small later. We have akin problems with Brussels regulations, and you have a terriblely bad demographic situation. What's the solution?
Firstly, we should re-create the European economical region and extend it. Our marketplace is besides small, possibly not today, but just look at the demography. France is dominated by older people and populated by immigrants. Italy is in a demographic situation worse than Germany and Poland. We so request an extension to young and hungry societies. In my opinion, therefore, we should integrate in economical terms with Turkey and the countries of Central Asia, creating a common economical zone. This would open the way for us to the increasing economical area of the mediate East. It would give us access to goods we don't produce ourselves. We should think in more continental terms. We traditionally see the West as a region ending in the Atlantic, France, England, etc. Today, however, the top possible lies in the southeast. This is so about the Balkans, Turkey, with Turkey treated as a gateway to Central Asia and the mediate East. Europe should gain access to these markets. That's one. Secondly, we must get free of Brussels bureaucracy. Go towards deregulation and taxation cuts. Thirdly, we must reconstruct the desire in people to start families and have children. It's not just economical issues. People don't quit having children just due to the fact that they can afford it. If that were the case, wealthy people would have children, but they do not. It's more about attitude, something that goes beyond political issues. The aim is to encourage young Poles to be Catholic again. And possibly even more crucial – to make the Catholic Church Catholic again. I personally do not associate with 1 Polish bishop today, whom I would consider intellectually interesting.
It's true.
– Remember the times of John Paul II or Cardinal Wyszyński in Warsaw. There were many Polish bishops who were worth listening to, even if you disagreed with them due to the fact that they had something to say. Those present are at most mediocre. Most of them have nothing crucial to say. That's better than the German bishops, most of whom are idiots. It is so crucial that we awaken in young Poles and Germans the desire for the future, the desire to have children and to watch another generations proceed what they have begun. It's a cultural issue. The current strategy causes depression. He won't have children liberals looking at the rainbow flag. On a global scale, most children are religious, and the second is nationalistic. Liberals don't have kids. We are drawn into a spiral of depression, overregulation and taking distant our passion for the future. We gotta break these structures, due to the fact that if they disappear, people will feel that they can change everything again. And if they believe that, they will look forward to the future. But if they proceed to believe that they can't change anything, that everything is fixed erstwhile and for all, that they are in a spiral leading to always worse times – they will not believe in themselves or the future. We request to get out of this intellectual depression, creating structures ready for a continuous change. I am not a libertarian or a fan of Milei in Argentina, but 50% of the growth he generated comes from restoring people's religion in a fresh beginning. So we request to give people religion in this fresh beginning that will motivate them to make their own effort.
Thank you for talking to me.
Matthew Piskorski spoke
The full video conversation available on YouTube channel Against Censur.
Maximilian Krah (born 1977 in Räckelwitz) is simply a German lawyer (doctor of legal science) and politician. Initially, he was a associate of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), followed by Alternatives for Germany (AfD). associate of the European Parliament from 2019 to 2020. He is presently a Bundestag MP and an crucial co-author of the party's ideological-programming documents.
Think Poland, No. 35-36 (31.08-7.09.2025)
Photo by M. Krah on fb
