Dispute between Kubitschek and Krah over remigration: “We are at a terrible crossroads”

There's a rumbling in the right-wing arena. Initially, discussions took place behind closed doors. Questioning glances were exchanged. Phone calls were made. That, at least, is how author Ellen Kositza and right-wing publisher Götz Kubitschek describe what has been happening in "their circles" in recent weeks in a YouTube video. The man at the center of the debate is sitting directly across from them: AfD Bundestag member Maximilian Krah.

He came to discuss his "course correction" and clarify his positions. The once vocal "internet star" of the AfD suddenly provided exclusive quotes to the media NGO Correctiv, distanced himself from the activism of the Identitarian Movement, and spoke of a necessary "change of strategy." These statements are met with significant resistance in parts of the far-right wing – and threaten to divide the camp.

An arm's length distance: Things are getting loud between Kubitschek and Krah

"We have questions, many questions," says Ellen Kositza at the beginning of the nearly two-hour conversation. She and her husband Götz Kubitschek want answers. Within the New Right, Kubtischek, co-founder of the now-defunct right-wing extremist think tank "Institut für Staatspolitik" and managing director of the Schnellroda-based Antaios publishing house, is revered. Critics and political opponents see him as a right-wing extremist pulling the strings behind the scenes within the AfD.

Here, in the video, he sits with Krah and his wife in a dimly lit room. The atmosphere between those present, who are not meeting for the first time, is visibly tense. "You ask the questions, I give the answers, and you go home and say: 'Wonderful, everything's cleared up,'" Krah replies. But Kubitschek seems to disagree right from the start of the conversation, replying: "We'll see."

The publisher explains that he is concerned about the "discussions and turmoil that are taking place not only online, but also in many conversations." But Krah seems to relish precisely this unrest he has triggered. It is necessary to "occasionally review the strategy," says the AfD representative from Saxony.

The questions and demands placed on a "decidedly right-wing party" have changed with the rise of the AfD. Instead of setting the tone, Krah argues, the party is focusing almost exclusively on one issue: remigration. This topic is "taking up too much of a scope" and has become the sole "crucial question." The "bigger opportunities and issues" are being lost sight of, according to the AfD politician's thesis.

Currently, we are walking “into a minefield without a mine plan”

Therefore, it is important to conduct a "strategic debate" and ask ourselves whether "what we are doing is so wise" – because others could "snatch the cake we are eating now." Ellen Kositza, visibly irritated, objects that Krah herself "succeeded" with the term "remigration 2024" and has emphasized at every opportunity why "remigration is right and important."

What once was is no longer the case – at least not entirely, says Krah. While he still adheres to the term remigration because it is a "strong term," it has now become "dangerous." "The opposing side has become extremely armed on the issue of remigration, including intellectually." Therefore, it is all the more important to clearly define what and who is actually meant by remigration. Currently, he says, we are "walking into a minefield without a mine plan," and there is a lack of "intelligence and counterarguments" to effectively counter the "political opponent."

Essentially, Krah's concern is the distinction between the national people and the ethnic people when using the term remigration. Currently, arguments are far too imprecise, which could "really cost blood" in the future. His appeal to Kubitschek: "Learn to distinguish between the German people and the community of Germans."

Dividing citizens into two classes is not a majority-supported and legally enforceable definition of remigration. "If we allow ourselves to be accused of the AfD being in favor of differentiating between citizens, we risk the CDU taking the issue of immigration away from us." Much more crucial, however, is that the state will fight the AfD and all affiliated organizations with all means at its disposal if the majority accepts the undifferentiated concept of remigration as a fact. And the AfD will lose this battle.

Krah gets loud: “No, just listen to me!”

Publisher Kubitschek sees things differently. He argues that the German passport is being "sold off like sour beer," and that "these people" – meaning naturalized immigrants – "should not be granted the same rights as those who are German by descent or who have lived here for a very, very long time." The discussion becomes confusing and heated.

Krah acknowledges the dilemma, speaking of a "terrible crossroads" at which they find themselves, but at the same time emphasizes that the right to equal treatment begins with naturalization. Meanwhile, Kubitschek insists that he "won't let anyone push him around," that he wants to "scare away"citizens . The discussion goes back and forth, and those present can't reach a consensus.

The topic changes: Now it's about the activism of the Identitarian Movement and the report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which classifies the AfD as definitely right-wing extremist—although the secret service isn't allowed to make such a public statement until the outcome of a court case. Krah, based on a ruling by the Münster Higher Administrative Court, recommends a political orientation based on three principles: "Equality of citizens, religious freedom, including for Muslims, and no general hostility to the state in the libertarian sense." That's not ideal, but one can "live with it," says Krah.

Götz Kubitschek, on the other hand, "doesn't go along with it." Ultimately, he's only concerned with "normality," and therefore sees no reason to become "supple." The discussion gets loud. Krah shouts, "No, just listen to me!" at Kubitschek. Ellen Kositza remains silent. After almost two hours, Krah concludes with: "In the end, strategy wins – not tactics."

The online reactions are immediate. Maximilian Krah is being described as a "king" who was said to be vastly superior to his interlocutors. Others are making it clear that they are "Team Schnellroda" and stand behind the publishing couple. The harmony and unity that have been portrayed to the outside world in recent months have begun to show cracks.

One day later, Götz Kubitschek published a text on the website "Sezession im Netz" in which he picked up on the conversation. "It is necessary to talk about what it means to issue 300,000 German passports in a single year – to people completely alien to our culture, thus allowing them to vote and help decide what will happen to our country in the future," he wrote.

The topic needs to be discussed calmly, but there's no room for that in the podcast. Furthermore, it wasn't possible to discuss Krah's "realpolitik proposal for parallel societies that should enable us to preserve our ethnocultural identity" in detail. The tone adopted by the right-wing publisher is mild compared to the discussion. Conciliatory. And essentially, everyone is only concerned with one thing – "so that no one misunderstands: We're talking about 'Germany, but normal.' Nobody here is aiming for anything more, but that alone would be a revolt."