Thüringer
Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 7/48, pp. 143-145, 149-151.
Right
honorable ladies and gentlemen, dear patriots in the sovereign house and on
livestream.
A few weeks
ago, the automobile manufacturer Audi announced that as of immediately it was
desired that gender-correct speech be used in the concern; at Audi now no
longer in proven mode and ways were Audianer
spoken of, but Audianer/-innen. It
should actually be thought that automobile manufacturers in the present time
have other problems. Yet instead of investing time and money in technological
advantage, the same prefer to invest in ideology, since genderism is nothing
other; which can be read without difficulty in its fight over the language. I
want briefly to arraign that, ladies and gentlemen.
Vice-president Kaufmann: I request
quiet so member Höcke may speak.
The
emancipation of man from God in the Enlightenment had a reverse side, of which
the freedom from the laws of the Creator, the freedom from the laws of nature
itself, made him the absolute master of his own fate. Truth was now no longer
of God, but could now also be of men believed to be in possession of the truth.
The supposedly good purpose, the establishment of a rule of reason or the leveling
of the classes, justified all means. Beginning with Jacobism, the ideologists
have drawn a path of blood in the history of mankind for the last 200 years.
Rothe-Beinlich (Greens): Says the righteous!
In this
connection, Hölderin spoke words valid to this day: “It nevertheless has made
the State a Hell, that Man wanted to make of it his Heaven.” [„Immerhin hat das den Staat zur Hölle
gemacht, dass ihn der Mensch zu seinem Himmel machen wollte.”] Ideologists were and are always
occupied with the removal of traditions, of what has grown up, so as to create
a new man. And language was and always is a lever with the aid of which one
wanted to manipulate the consciousness of man; since it is so. That which we
cannot speak, we also cannot think. In brief, the speech policy of gender-mainstreaming
is a classic ideology and has nothing to seek in a free state of law.
And without
knowing this background, the people in the country shake their heads in view of
the abuse of speech policy. When from mother, the bearing, and from father, the
non-bearing become parents, then one of the aphorisms of Henryk M. Broder comes
to mind, who said: “Germany is a madhouse. Could the Federal Republic be
roofed, it would be an asylum.”
Lukasch (Linke): You however get a single room!
We
nevertheless see the German language placed under pressure not only by means of
gender ideologies, but also by negligence.
Müller (Linke): What then is the German language?
I recall here
only the unreflective use of English words in everyday speech, and that in the
last years and decades parallel societies have spread in which the former use of
the German language seldom takes place.
Certainly in
a time in which the commonality [Gemeinsame]
will be placed ever more in question, it is the duty of the public community to
strengthen the commonality. To this in particular contributes the preservation
and care of the German language, our language.
To give
expression to this, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, is the concern of my
delegation’s draft law [Drucksache 7/2797].
The avowal of national language, the avowal of German as national language, belong
without if or but – certainly in this time which is in search of a new
commonality – in the Thüringen State Constitution.
Bilay (Linke): What about Belgium?
…
Ja, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, right honorable
Frau Marx, I am happy that you have fun at the speaker’s podium [Rednerpult].
Rothe-Beinlich (Greens): Redepult!
Your
statements naturally remain on the surface and are also seemingly those over
which all the multitude have rejoiced, not being in the position and not being willing
to search more deeply into the matter. On that account, it is also a necessity
that I continue this speech. And right honorable Herr colleague Zippel, perhaps
for once you may inform yourself concerning the flag of the Federal Republic of
Germany or else the historical development of this flag and then you may surely
come to a new recognition.
Zippel (CDU): Take a peek behind, there you see the German flag!
Thus, with my
compliments, you are somewhat well-read in this thematic.
Zippel (CDU): Place yourself beside it, then you may see the difference!
The problem
plainly is that you are somewhat deformed by the Zeitgeist, Herr colleague.
Right
honorable ladies and gentlemen, we write in our law – I cite with omission – : “…The
German language is […] the decisive bond capable of unifying the Germans in all
Federal States and in Germany as a whole with each other, yet also with those
who as persons with a migration background live here on a long-term basis. A
central social and political integration function is thereby due them.” Yet
this unifying bond, which is indispensable, right honorable colleagues, ever more
unravels. And that has two causes. The first cause is the neglect and the second
cause is the manipulation of the language by ideologists.
Rothe-Beinlich (Greens): Yes, plainly! You are an example of that!
And that,
right honorable colleague members straight from the red-red-green delegations,
right honorable colleague Marx, that exceeds by far what you have here
correctly described as natural language development and natural language
change.
I want to briefly
illustrate both of these causes, thus first the cause of the negligence. German
post-war linguistics, right honorable colleagues, under the impress of American
functionalist and structuralist linguistics, completed its aversion from the
previous view of language [Sprachbetrachtung]
which was historically and thoroughly laid out and displayed true to the
language [Sprachloyal]. Presently the
attention therein rested on whether the language was useful for the language
participant. Language from now on must be communicative, functional and
efficient. Language as the mirror of the nation, as Freidrich Schiller once described
it, or even as a House of Being, as it once had been classified by Martin Heidegger,
fell ever more from the field of vision. In addition came the soft American
cultural imperialism. The western Germans willingly let themselves be
Disneyfied, Coca-Colonized and McDonaldized.
Bilay (Linke): Yet that now is not German!
Media
language spoilers, advertising fuzzies straining for effect and
globalization-obsessed businessmen ever more frequently make references in a
most pitiful English, instead of setting up in a much more at hand wonder work
of rhythm, richness of expression and knife-sharp precision – the German
language.
Language
power and language fidelity, which were shaped for centuries in our old Kultur nation, forfeit ever more and
today are scarcely to be recognized. One can well recognize this in the
tendency to surrender to the loan translation. In the 50s, a pocketbook was
still a Taschenbuch, today the e-book
remains an e-book. The German Language Association counts in its index of
anglicisms 8,000 anglicisms. Only 20 percent of the entries contained in this
list were categorized as supplementary or language differentiating, as for
example, Dumpingpreis, leasen, and Rowdy. Sale, cash, and casting belong to the 80 percent of superfluous
(because well translatable) anglicisms. The German Language Association has
besides started an appeal against the gender nonsense which has been very
successfully run. 36,000 people in the meantime have subscribed to this appeal.
In the name of the AfD delegation, I want to further publicize this and
therefore call for powerful support of this appeal.
Now I am at
gender, thus at the second cause which destroys this unifying bond – the German
language. I am in the position of needing to do something which I actually would
have once not thought I need do. I must praise the former Bundestag President
Wolfgang Thierse. Yes, that Wolfgang Thierse.Wolfgang Thierse a few weeks ago
wrote a brave contribution in the FAZ
[Frankfürter Allgemeine Zeitung] in which he sharply criticized the leftist
identity political manipulation of language by means of gendering. He stated:
If variety should be lived peacefully, then this plurality must be more than a mere
co-existence of not only differentiating but also demarcating minorities and
identities. Then is required a fundamental commonality, to which self-evidently
belongs the common language; an agent of diversity – thus Wolfgang Thierse’s
good proposal – should at the same time be an agent of commonality. He so
stated. Congratulations, Herr Thierse.
Following
this box on the ears by Herr Thierse, there is then still a powerful kick in
the shins for the leftist identity politicians. I cite Thierse verbatim: “In
its determination, it is in danger of not being able to accept” – I speak of
the leftist identity politicians – “that not only minorities but also
majorities have justified cultural claims and that these may not be denounced
as merely conservative or reactionary or certainly racist.” Wolfgang Thierse.
Naturally it
needs be said, Wolfgang Thierse immediately came into the crosshairs of the
acknowledged good guys [Gutmenschen],
the gender activists and other extremists from their own ranks and in their own
parties. We do not know whether Wolfgang Thierse must do a Thilo Sarrazin. I
personally do not wish it for him. What we do however know, right honorable
ladies and gentlemen: A very clear majority of Germans reject this so-called
gendering in the language. Just recently, a Infratest-dimap poll confirmed that
65 percent of the population do not support a stronger consideration of the
different sexes in the language. According to the poll, even a majority of the
the adherents of the Greens – hear, hear! – are against the gender blah-blah. In
our neighbor country France, one is already a step ahead. There lately
gendering in the schools has been explicitly forbidden. For this, a draft law of
the Macron government was submitted to the National Assembly with which
gendering shall be forbidden in public establishments.
Right honorable
ladies and gentlemen, again: Yes, language is constantly changing. That can,
that wants to, that will no reasonable man deny. What however needs be stopped,
and what can be stopped, if one possesses the political will – we of the AfD
delegation possess it – is the manipulation of the language by ideologists by
means of negligence. This besides is also shown in the Corona crisis, which
also has become a language crisis – unfortunately, I need say and positively
emphasize this. If the responsible politicians in Germany are not ashamed to
speak of shutdown, lockdown, social distancing, superspreader, home office,
home schooling, click and meet, etc., then an end needs be made of this
ignorance.
Yes, right
honorable colleague members, we of the AfD are of the opinion that those
belonging to a language community have the right to be spoken to by the
governing politicians, by the responsible politicians, in their own mother
tongue. Period, exclamation point!
And if a
virus is thus spread in that millions cannot be reached in the national language
in appeals for restraint – over 50 percent of the patients in intensive-care
beds have a migration background, as we know – then the policy must make
unmistakably clear that learning German is an obligation for any of those who want
to live here together with us. As our state thereby functions, and because we
ourselves value it, German belongs in the State Constitution. On that account,
I request a vote in favor of transfer to the committee.
Hearty thanks
for your attention.
[trans: tem]
