When Maximilian Krah appears in public, it is rarely without calculation. The AfD politician, long controversial for his proximity to far-right networks and his role in European scandals, likes to present himself as the intellectual conscience of a new right. In a recent tweet, he announced a strategic debate with none other than Martin Sellner – the leading ideologue of the “Identitarian Movement,” which is monitored by the German domestic intelligence agency. Krah emphasizes that there is a “substantive dissent,” not a personal one. That may be true. But what is far more interesting is the agreement: both are united by the declared goal of securing the “preservation of the German and its significance in the future” – a phrase that reveals more than it may initially suggest. This is about culture war, ethnonationalist identity politics, and the ideological backbone of the New Right in Europe. And it is, implicitly but clearly, about a revision of the understanding of citizenship and belonging.
Martin Sellner is regarded as a dazzling and at the same time dangerous figure in this milieu. Once the head of the Identitarian Movement in Austria, he shaped its martial vocabulary and aesthetics – from symbolic house occupations to targeted social media campaigns against migration and the supposed “population replacement.” Sellner, who for years maintained contacts with white supremacy circles in the US and New Zealand, is not a moderate conversation partner. Those who, like Krah, engage in a “strategic debate” with him about Germany’s future are not just shifting political boundaries – they are normalizing positions that only a few years ago were considered anti-democratic. Krah’s attempt to present the planned discussion as factual, transparent, and clarifying is therefore highly problematic. The reference to “substantive differences” seems pretextual when the shared goal provides the ideological glue. And the rhetoric of “open discussion” turns into its opposite when the debate serves to make far-right patterns of thought socially acceptable. That Krah defends himself against “personal attacks” is a typical reversal of perpetrator and victim – those who cross lines portray themselves as martyrs of free speech as soon as criticism arises.
In truth, this tweet once again makes it clear: the AfD is not concerned with democratic discourse. It is about the long-term transformation of political language, about cultural hegemony, about “metapolitics,” as it is called in identitarian jargon. Krah and Sellner are testing how far they can go – and they know: every outraged tweet, every critical report extends the reach of their message. But those who remain silent become complicit in the normalization of authoritarian ideologies. The debate is thus not only a matter of content – it is about the democratic foundation of the Federal Republic. Anyone who “strategically” allies with Martin Sellner these days is not just entering a discussion. They are aligning themselves with a project that is sawing away at the foundations of the open society.
English 
German 
