Alexander Gauland, January 30, 2026, Konrad Adenauer

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/57, pp. 6871-6872. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr Spahn, I believe it is not right to make use of Adenauer so as to place a party, which represents the conservative ideas which Adenauer represented, so to say, right away offsides. 

            Pascal Reddig (CDU/CSU): That is really just not so!

I grant you are, yes, right in many things – not in regards us, but in regards Adenauer. 

Germany has brought forth only a few important statesmen. In the Kaiserreich, it was undoubtedly Bismarck. In the Weimar Republic Stresemann, and in the early Federal Republic of course Konrad Adenauer. There, you are right. For the late Federal Republic, Brandt and Kohl still deserve the epithet. Helmut Schmidt lacked the circumstances. 

Yet what now makes an important statesman? The historian would say that he wisely analyzed the situation of his country and on the basis of this analysis successfully recognized and carried out the interests of the country. And that applies to Konrad Adenauer in especial measure. He managed, Herr Spahn, a Politik of national interests as Germany’s situation of that time made necessary. 

            Boris Mijatovic (Greens): Aha!

Hitler ruined to a maximum Germany’s power and reputation in the world and Adenauer stood before the duty to reconstruct both for the free part of Germany. He did that, in that he consistently united western Germany with the leading powers of one camp, and even against resistance offered much military assistance. That was, ten years after Germany’s unconditional surrender, daring and full of risk and for the eastern Germans, at least in the short and middle view, without profit. For that reason, to this day the way between the blocs is preferred by many as an alternative, as it so emerged in outline in the 1952 Stalin note. 

            Paula Piechotta (Greens): That is historisch!

I think those who so argue, misunderstand the deep fall of our country – in terms of power politics and morality – in distinction to the Weimar Republic which could still achieve the Politik of balance and also act correspondingly. 

Hitler completely destroyed the moral capital which is necessary for a successful foreign policy. And Adenauer first needed to rebuild it. Here, we will also likely be agreed. He did that with skill and perseverance to which also belong the settlement with and the aid for Israel. Certainly in Israel’s case, moral attentiveness and a wise German Politik of interests contributed much to rebuilding Germany’s reputation in the world; besides being one of the prerequisites of Willy Brandt’s later Ostpolitik which, without Adenauer, of course would not have worked. That Adenauer, in regards every rejection of Soviet Russia, as he Kölnisch called it, could act pragmatically, quite without ideology, the German prisoners of war were brought back in 1955. A high point of his career and also a high point for many people in this country. 

Ever again has been made a theme, primarily by leftists, that it was the reactionary Adenauer era in which old Nazis were allowed to again make careers. That remains, so far as something of it is right and is not merely due to a leftist antibürgerlichen reflex, 

            Paula Piechotta (Greens): Those are facts, Herr Gauland!

an impermissible involvement of his name with social conditions on which he once casually commented: If no clean water is at hand, the dirty needs be taken. – Or, you’ve already cited it: People need be taken as they are, there is of course nothing other. In this question he was even agreed with his great competitor, Kurt Schumacher. In fact, the people needed to once again become accustomed to democracy and a market economy. 

Yes, he was a bourgeois through and through as he showed in his passionate rejection of Hitlerism. Yet like most fathers and mothers of the Basic Law, he depended on an ethnic-cultural term for the people, and from his historical experience he mistrusted the Germans’ ability for political judgment. And, ladies and gentlemen, if I myself look at many of the debates in this country or in this parliament, he was in that thoroughly right. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, February 11, 2026, Slovakia

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-11(3-0290-0000). 

Frau President. 

With a change of the constitution, the Slovaks have rebuilt the unrestricted primacy of national law ahead of EU law. That is a victory for the national identity of the Slovak people and the sovereignty of the country. Yet when the Slovaks protect their own people, they will of course be requited by the EU by means of a treaty violation procedure. Brussels wants to annex to itself ever more rights and thus further undermine the sovereignty of the member states. In that regard, the EU emblazoned on the flag the motto “United in Diversity”. Yet real diversity means confirming and defending the distinctive cultures, peoples, identities in Europe. The woke agenda counteracts precisely these goals. We should therefore be grateful to the Slovaks that they defend themselves against this attack from Brussels. 

 

[trans: tem]

Markus Frohnmaier, January 29, 2026, Germany, Ukraine, Nordstream

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/56, pp. 6745-6746. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Chancellor Merz speaks of an age of “Great Power Politics”. The truth is: The power Politik was never gone. That, we see in the Ukraine, in Venezuela, in Greenland. New is not the reality of the power Politik. New is a persistent, chronic weakness of Germany which encounters an increasingly multipolar world in which the interests are again openly carried out. In such a world, Germany then is only capable of acting when it combines its powers, sets priorities, and finally learns to stand up for itself. 

Before all is the CDU responsible, through decades of government failures, for almost all major political mistaken decisions which have made our country vulnerable. The completely wrong mass migration, a threat to security since 2015, the anti-economic [Wirtschaftfeindliche] withdrawal from nuclear and coal energy which drove us to dependency on gas imports and de-industrialized Germany, with dramatic consequences for welfare, public finances and sozial peace. Germany cannot afford to give away its resources to the Ukraine while we here at home are vulnerable. 

Our capitol city Berlin has just experienced how vulnerable critical infrastructure is, and can be quickly omitted by sabotage. Tens of thousands of households, following a leftist extremist attack, sat in darkness and in cold. Diesel generators were lacking, diesel generators which were in the Ukraine. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Oh nee! 

            Kay Gottschalk (AfD): Listen!

Germany shall pay in the next ten years for the reconstruction of the Ukraine with sums which lie beyond any serious ability to plan. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Ja, serious!

The CDU combines that with the formula: “So long it is necessary”. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a blank check, and blank checks are in the Politik always the beginning of the end of any control. 

Every cent of the so far around 1,000 billion euros of the Ukraine aid is debt-financed – financed with debts which in the form of principal and interest cost will afflict all future Federal budget charges. 

            Stefan Keuter (AfD): The next generations!

Debts are tomorrow’s taxes, ladies and gentlemen. We forfeit the future of our children for a country the hand of which is outstretched for our money, and to thank us apparently blows up our own German infrastructure. 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): That is shabby!

Shabby is that you of the CDU permit such a thing. Shabby is that to this day you have not sought to clarify the Nordstream explosion, Herr colleague of the CDU. 

            Thomas Rachel (CDU/CSU): Shabby is that you still haven’t said a word                                         for the civilian population in the Ukraine which is attacked daily from                                      Russia!

What do we want to actually have happen? 

First: Corruption and lack of transparency. A corruption scandal again shakes the Ukraine up to the highest circles, with effects on the energy and defense infrastructure. When a state is at war, and at the same time billions seep away, then that is not only morally unbearable but is also extremely dangerous for security policy. Since money, weapons and material do not simply disappear. They again emerge elsewhere, in dark channels, in black markets, in criminal networks. 

            Stefan Keuter (AfD): Darknets! 

            Robin Wagener (CDU/CSU): Those are the things with which you are familiar.

Second: Demands without end. It is always the same process – more weapons, more money, more guaranties, more appeals. Yet where actually is the clear accounting, what happened with the donated benefits? 

Third: We as Germans can no longer afford this. While our local governments are at limit, while families and Mittelstand note every month how expensive everything has become, while the Bundeswehr cannot even secure it own basic equipment, we shall play the role of long-term paymaster in a foreign conflict thanks to the CDU Politik. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Thank Putin!

Ladies and gentlemen, there needs finally be an end to that! 

            Thomas Rachel (CDU/CSU): For that, the Russian Putin is responsible.

            What do you then say to a war of aggression counter to international law?

            What do you say to Russia’s aggressive war counter to international law? 

Listen for once! You are elected as a representative of the German people, and not as a member of the Ukrainian Rada! This, the CDU’s Politik needs finally to understand. 

            Thomas Rachel (CDU/CSU): That is,  ja, embarrassing!

Fourth, and this is the point which altered everything: How do we deal with the apparent  Ukrainian attack on our infrastructure, on the sovereignty of Germany? The Federal Court of Justice in its ruling of December 10, 2025, on the Nordstream sabotage, proceeded on the basis that the attacks on the Nordstream pipelines resulted from a “highly likely […] foreign state order”. It was accepted that the act was initiated and controlled by a foreign state. The defense of the Ukrainian suspects wanted to attain immunity for these, in which – listen well, dear colleagues of the CDU – it is argued the act is a part of the war between the Ukraine and Russia. 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Who gave the order?

Everything, really everything indicates that this attack was ordered with knowledge of the Ukrainian government. The Federal government cannot simply so continue as if this was not acknowledged. I today quite clearly demand of you: Finally examine this! 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Yes, yes! For months!

Billions of German tax money were invested in this infrastructure project, and you did not attempt to manage a clarification. That is harmful for Germany and our citizens. 

We therefore want that now an investigative and tracking staff for the clarification of corruption, money laundering, arms trafficking, and finance of terrorism be established [Drucksache 21/3839]. We also want that complete transparency be established vis-à-vis Bundestag and public by a website following the model of the American Ukraine oversight structures. One matter needs finally be clarified: Who expends the taxpayers’ money, he has no right to non-transparency. 

            Claudia Roth (Green): The AfD says that!

That, the CDU needs finally learn and understand, ladies and gentlemen. 

We say today quite clearly: No more weapons deliveries, no additional armaments. Yes, humanitarian aid is possible. But all that effects a prolongation of the war, we no longer want. 

            Stefan Schmidt (Greens):  Putin has written that for you, or?

We want that German tax money finally remains here in Germany, and does not flow to whichever oligarchs. We want to take care that this money benefits our schools, our streets, our German infrastructure, our citizens – something which these gentlemen have long since forgotten. For that, we were elected to make Politik for German citizens – and not for the Ukraine! 

            Thomas Rachel (CSU/CSU): We make Politik for all peoples. That is the distinction. 

 

[trans: tem]

Petr Bystron, February 11, 2026, State of Law in the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-11(3-0213-0000). 

Frau President. Dear colleagues. 

We shall here discuss the Socialists’ motion on the state of law in the U.S.A. – thus, what a mockery! As it happens, this European Parliament this week rejected a discussion on what the European Commission has broken in the last ten years. Namely, the Commission for ten years has censored legitimate political opinions and facts, and at the same time also paid the media for defaming critics of the EU. We receive this information, as it happens, from Washington, from the U.S.A.; there, it was worked on, in contrast to here. Here, the discussion was rejected, and it was preferred to speak in plenary session on a two-years old Draghi report, or on the acceptance of Andorra and San Marino – ja, that is important to us.   

You are disturbed that Trump finally proves that you for years have lied: Remigration is possible, deportations are possible. We require in Europe exactly so an ICE. We need to act effectively and deport the criminal foreigners. And on that account, you here have instigated this discussion and have leftist extremists like Salis here speak at the podium. That is a mockery of democracy. 

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, January 29, 2026, Free Speech and the German Judiciary

German Bundestag, January 29, 2026, Plenarprotokoll 21/56,  pp. 6782-6785. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Frau Wegge, in regards to what you have just said: The frontal attack on democracy certainly proceeds from Herr Spahn. Not without a reason is his place probably now free. Ladies and  gentlemen, freedom, before all, freedom of expression of opinion, is for us of the AfD of supreme importance. We were therefore already against the intensification of this gag order or lèse-majesté paragraph 188 StGB [penal code] in 2020, besides being the only sole democratic delegation here in house. The others find the persecution and criminalization of citizens either good – so like SPD, CDU and CSU – or they were indifferent – like the Greens or the then still existing FDP. It is said – Frau Wegge has referred to it – local politicians should be better protected. Yet already in 2020 was that a transparent cover-up of the true intentions. In truth, it is and was about, for your no more to be called old parties cartel of self-named quality democrats, your own protection from criticism and satire by criminalization of citizens and the instrumentalization of state prosecutors and the courts. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): That is just such rubbish! You yourself don’t believe it!

And then it precisely so came: Thousands of criminal proceedings by notices from Habeck, Baerbock, Strack-Zimmermann, 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): …Weidel! Alice Weidel!

Fritz Merz and many other political powers. 

            Marcel Bauer (Linke): And Stefan Brandner!

Around 1,400 proceedings in year 2022, 2,600 proceedings in year 2023, 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): You speak of your own matter, ne?

4,500 proceedings in year 2024. 

            Lena Gumnior (Greens): How many proceedings are there against members                                           of your party? 

Thus explosive growth and massively absurd investigations, accusations and sentences fully unworthy of a state of law. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): Hundreds of notices from the AfD!

I name only for example the crusade of the judiciary – this compliant judiciary –         

             Helge Limburg (Greens): How many notices then has Frau Weidel presented?              Did you have the goodness to look into that? Do you find that also so bad?

against Stefan Niedhoff on account of the Habeck-Schwachkopf case, or the persecution of the chief editor of the Deutschland Kurier, David Bendels, on account of a fully harmless and substantially correct photo montage of the then still mighty, meanwhile Gott sei Dank slowly falling into oblivion Interior Minister Faeser. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): What then did Frau Weidel say to your speech and                                             your draft law? She who is, ja, not here, the Frau Weidel? 

There followed upon these harmless acts of criticism and satire house searches and complaints. 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): “Compliant judiciary”?

Draconian prison sentences on account of criticism and expressions of opinion; that, one needs imagine, and that in your democracy in Deutschland in which you have so conveniently established it. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Is it true that Frau Weidel has made a three-figure                          number of criminal complaints under §188? What then does she                                            say to that?

This system, hostile to freedom and citizens, functions exactly so as you previously planned it. We of the Alternative für Deutschland want to change that 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): Nein! You want to weaken the state of law!

and therefore put forward already in September of last year a draft law – this draft law [Drucksache 21/652] – which foresees the abolition of the §188, this special criminal law favoring the politicians. 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): Do you doubt the independence of the judiciary?

Our conception of freedom and equality is namely what? Equal rights for all, quite simple. And because to all apply the general paragraphs on insult, slander, malicious defamation – §§185 to 187 StGB – no special penal law is required. 

We brought it in. Yet what was there in the first reading? Hate, agitation, meaningless vulgarity 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes. But only from you! 

            Carmen Wegge (SPD): Everything covered by the freedom of opinion, ne?

from the old parties crowd against our draft, up to the colleague Wiegelmann of the CDU – whom I still hear – who in substance actually was in favor, who however today may not speak. Herr Wiegelmann, what have you done here? 

            President Julia Klöckner: Herr member, do you permit an interim question?

If you pause the time which continues, gladly. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Remain calm. I also can add and subtract in my head.

Ja. – Now probably comes a question for Alice Weidel and the supposed criminal complaint from her, or? 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): Herr colleague Brandner, just a quite brief                                    interim question. – Did I rightly understand you? You’ve just                                                    designated the judiciary as compliant. It would thus interest me                                                whether you are of the conviction that the judiciary in this country                                        is independent or the servant of others? – Please.

Here, we of course need to differentiate, Herr colleague. 

            Carsten Müller (CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): That is not your strength!

We are not, ja, inclined – like you, obviously – to generalizations. 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): What then have you plainly done?

But it needs be quite precisely looked at. When I for example look at the proceeding against David Bendels at the Bamberg police court [Amtsgericht]: That was simply an activist justice [Gesinnungsjustiz] which took place. Embarrassing for any state of law! 

I also say of every function: The higher the court, the less so the march through the institutions has taken place. When I for example look at many of the higher administrative courts [Oberverwaltungsgerichte]: There, judgment will be rendered rightly according to law and statute, and not according to ideology. 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): That sounds like “Make a Wish”, Herr Brandner!

When I for example look at many of the appeals boards [Berufskammern] at the State courts: There, it might be similar. At the Higher Regional Courts [Oberlandesgerichten] it is still not that his leftist-green ideology is enforced. Thus, there one needs to differentiate. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): This defamation of the judiciary is unbearable!                               It shows that you are a real opponent of the state of law. That, you emphasize             with this answer! That is outrageous!

Yet this left-green-woke march through the institutions, which persists, ja, for decades, has naturally not stopped short of the judiciary. And if you take a look at who in recent time, for example in State governments in which the Greens have participated, are nominated as Justice Minister, you may only shake the head. Earlier, it was not completely absurd to proceed on the basis that Justice Ministers should perhaps be jurists, and not anyhow quota women, quota men, quota queers who need a job. Yet in the meantime, the judiciary in Germany in fact has degenerated into a feed barn [Versorgungsstadel]. 

            Carmen Wegge (SPD): Thanks for the material, Herr Brandner.

Thus, look at it precisely. There is in fact activist justice. And you of the old parties of course make it very simple in that you create the corresponding laws. 

            President Julia Klöckner: With that, the question is answered. Thanks.

I had herein indicated: Hate, agitation, and vulgarity against our draft law. Suddenly, Jens Spahn arrived and said: Nee, §188 StGB must go. – I thought,  I do not hear correctly. We said: That makes us happy. We bring it into committee. If the CDU then cooperates, we may do it. – Suddenly, you in committee were again against it. What then is with your CDU/CSU delegation? The chief said: Hyah! You make: Whoa! I believe Jens Spahn is at the political firing post, or not? 

Ladies and gentlemen, it is thus not only about the abolition of a paragraph of injustice, but about the Union’s overall credibility. Pinocchios, con men, charlatans, mud-slingers; 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Do you speak of your own delegation?

here, to whom does not immediately occur CDU or CSU names? Guttenberg, Merz, Schavan, Weimer, Günther, current Professor Dr. plag. Mario Voigt. Thus, if you want to carry on with this chain, then reject our draft law. 

            President Julia Klöckner: So now the time is truly up. You have greatly                                                     exceeded the time.

If you want to make honest Politik, want to be credible, then vote in favor of our motion. 

            President Julia Klöckner: I plainly gave a signal. Otherwise, I turn off                                                        your microphone. 

Many thanks, Frau Klöckner, for the generous handling of the time. 

 

[trans: tem]

Mary Khan, February 10, 2026, Mass Immigration in Spain

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, February 10, 2026, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-10(2-0460-0000). 

Herr President. 

Of what leftist governments are capable, Spain shows us. A half million illegal migrants, simply with a wave of the hand, will be thus legalized, inclusive of work permission and the prospect of a permanent residency in Europe. This, what we since 2015 experience on our continent, has nothing more to do with measure and control – and I say this to you as someone with a migration background, because there is a great distinction between regular and irregular migration. 

This, what Spain now plans, manifests a destructive policy from which our continent in foreseeable time will scarcely recover. It is quite clearly a political signal. It is a signal to the world that illegal residency – yes, and that is a crime – in the end pays. It is a signal to Europe that national ideological projects are obviously more important than responsibility in our Schengen area. Since anyone of these 500,000 illegal migrants can tomorrow freely move about in all Europe. And they will move about, and indeed to Germany, since, following the legalization, there is clearly more money here than in Spain. That shows the true face of leftist policy. 

When it is recognized in regards one’s own people – this is quite important – one in the long-term can no longer convince, then a new group of voters is sought. Thus the earlier Spanish minister from Podemos quite clearly and before all fortunately welcomed it. Migration, so she said, needs be used so as not to leave leave society and democracy to the wrong ones. Everyone knows what she thereby meant. 

Herr Magnus Brunner, directed to you: We had two important votes today which go in the right direction so as to be able to finally control the problem of the migration policy. We expect from you it will be tested here, primarily according to Article 258 of the EU Treaty. That would be for us quite right, since this, what Spain is doing, will ultimately pull us all into bankruptcy. 

 

[trans: tem]