The candidate for the elections of Germany Alice Weidel breeds two children with another woman but defends the traditional family

Alice Weidel (Gütersloh; North-Westfalia Rhine, February 6, 1979) is the candidate of the Alternative Party for Germany (AFD), the hegemonic force of the radical right in the country. Leader of the formation at the Bundestag since 2017, Weidel is the face of the German ultra -right that has “in love” Elon Musk himself. Among his contradictions he emphasizes that he defends the traditional family but is a lesbian and has two children who raise with another woman. Weidel He has consolidated his leadership based on a hard rhetoric against migration, defending broad border restrictions and replicating German nationalism under the logic of “antiglobalism.” With her in command, AFD has experienced broad growth, especially in Eastern Germany, the test is in the data that will be confirmed on February 23.

Alice Weidel likes precision, or at least that is the image she projects. Training economist, with a doctorate under his arm and a past in the investment bank, his world is that of clean graphics, grid balances, the accounts that always fit. But when it comes to his personal life and political discourse, the equation becomes an indecipherable hieroglyph. Weidel leads a party, which claims for the defense of the traditional family and rejects the “gender ideology”, but she lives as a couple with a woman, Swiss filmmaker of Celianlandan origin Sarah Bossard, with whom he raises two children. His political formation voices against immigration and the alleged erosion of German identity, but The mother of her children is a woman born in Sri Lanka. On the rallies, he undertakes proclaiming a iron nationalism, a strong and sovereign Germany, but his home is in Switzerland, where he spends more time than in his electoral district in Lake Constanza. Weidel is the portrait of a paradox, an enigma wrapped in the neatness of its impeccable cutting suits. His icy smile and sharp speech be confined even to those who have been track for years. It moves between layers of contradiction with the safety of those who never allow light between too much in their world. In the background, it looks like a high -level executive who has decided to make a career in the policy of the ultra -right because there he saw an opportunity, a power emptiness that knew how to fill with the calculating coldness of who understands politics as a chess board and not as a matter of principle.

An atypical German for a party that rejects atypicity

AFD has grown up nourishing the discontent of a specific sector of German society: conservative men, mostly from the ancient Germany of the East, who see in globalization and immigration the causes of all their ills. For them, Weidel’s profile should be little less than Anatema. She is a successful woman, raised in the west German, polyglot, cosmopolitan, with a professional history that would have made her shine in any liberal party. But there is, at the cusp of a formation that is increasingly sliding towards extremism, shouting on “remigning” rallies and “the Islamization of Germany”, issues that, curiously, seem to interest it much more than the economy, their Theoretical specialty. When in 2013 it entered AFD, the party still had a more academic and Eurosptic tone than openly xenophobic. It was a space where a technocrat like her could fit. But over the years, the formation turned to fierce populism, more and more nationalist and anti -immigration. All the original founders, those who talked about interest rates and bank rescue, ended up leaving. She doesn’t. He remained and adapted, becoming one of the most recognizable faces of the party. Why did he stay? The answer seems simple: because he saw the opportunity to climb to the top. Her ambition has led her to embrace a speech that, in many ways, contradicts her own life. In public, it speaks of the decline of traditional values, the threat of multiculturalism, the danger of opening the doors to refugees. In private, he builds a family that embodies everything his party despises. It is not that Weidel has tried to hide his sexual orientation or his personal life, but he does not exhibit it either. He knows that it is an awkward point within AFD and handles it with the coldness of who understands that politics is, above all, a containment exercise.

How can it military in a party that opposes LGTBIQ+ rights while having a family with another woman?

The journalists who have followed it closely agree that Weidel is a chameleonic policy. His tone is that of a safe academic of his arguments. It can become seductive, almost nice, in intimacy. But in a rally, it is pure calculation: every word, every gesture, every voice inflection is measured to resonate with your audience. But when they surprise her with uncomfortable questions, the varnish cracks. In a live television show, a public citizen asked him How she could military in a party that opposes LGTBIQ+ rights while she herself has a family with another woman. His face tensed. He responded with evasive, but could not hide the annoyance. It is not the first time he reacts like this. Weidel has learned to handle contradiction, but not to hide it completely. His life and his speech are two pieces of a puzzle that forcefully fit, without subtlety, with the edges still rough. In a party where loyalty is measured in ideological purity, its figure remains a rarity tolerated more by pragmatism than by conviction.

The surveys placed AFD in second position with 22% of voting intention. It will not govern, because the rest of the parties maintain a sanitary cord against the extreme right. But his ascent is unstoppable. Weidel has played a key role in that growth, although its future within the game is not guaranteed. The AFD ultras, led by Björn Höcke, see in it a useful ally, but not one of theirs. If at any time it ceases to be functional for the cause, they will not hesitate to get rid of it. Until now, he has managed to balance his serious policy image with the radicality required by his electorate. But the more the game grows, the more it is radicalized, and Weidel’s contradictions could become too evident even for their own followers. For now, he is still there, with his glacial gaze and his relentless speech, trying to keep in balance the impossible equation that is his political life. In a country that distrusts ambiguous leaders, its greatest challenge is not to defeat their rivals, but to prevent their own contradictions from devouring it from within.