Beatrix von Storch, November 7, 2024, Anti-semitism, Israel, Trump

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/197, pp. 25719-25720. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

We stand today before the end of the quite grand illusion: Trump again President of the United States and the Ampel at an end – a real double Wumms! And now this admission of the former Ampel parties and of the Union with this common motion for Jewish lives: Yes, the exploding Judenhass in Germany has something to do with immigration and with Islam. 

            Kordula Schulz-Asche (Greens): And with the AfD!

I can still well remember all of your gasping here – primarily by the Greens – as the AfD warned of imported Moslem anti-semitism. Now we read in this motion – co-introduced by the Greens – of anti-semitism which is based on, cite: “Immigration from the countries of North Africa and the Near and Middle East”. 

            Leni Breymaier (SPD): And on rightist extremism!

Those are the Green figures for imported Moslem anti-semitism. You have restrained the reality. 

And the solution proposal in your motion also goes in our direction: Cite: “Exhaust punitive possibilities, especially in criminal and citizenship law, and in asylum and residency law”. In German: Remove Moslem anti-semites on the aircraft and in the homeland. “Tschüss!” and not “Auf Wiedersehen!”

You finally recognize that in addition to your mantra-charged, extreme right anti-semitism there are also dangers from the left. 

Britta Haßelmann (Green): With what chutzpah you at all speak here! Take a peek at the “Sächsischen Separatisten”! With AfD covering! It is not to be taken seriously, your contribution as an AfDer here, with your rightist extremism!

You name that the “leftist, anti-imperialist anti-semitism”. And for your fight, you now also take up our proposal. You want to test the ban on the BDS movement. Here you need test nothing and rediscover the wheel. Our motion to ban is long since put forward. That even a portion of the Greens meanwhile take up AfD positions, we name “Zeitenwende” [change of times]. 

The problem with all of these resolutions is: With you, action never follows. Only the AfD will implement what you ever only demand, 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): Think of your Gauland! “Vogelschiss in der                              Geschichte”! Gauland citation! Enough! 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): “Sächsischen Separatisten”, Frau von Storch!

and that quite practical and concrete; for example, no more public money to colleges and cultural undertakings for Judenhass and Israel enmity. 

It is little surprising that resistance to that comes from the left wing of the Greens. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): Is it about Jewish lives in Germany here? 

Katharina Droge (Greens): Of course for Frau von Storch it’s not about Jewish lives in Germany! Who comes from so extreme a rightist party, is certainly not interested in Jewish lives in Germany!

The Greens’ national working groups for migration and refuge, for peace and international and for culture, fear, cite: “The instrumentalization …by rightist actors, and the targeted defamation and undermining of civil society work”. 

Translated into German: You are afraid that the AfD has seized the theme, and leftist and Moslem anti-semites lose their state feeding troughs. Here, I can only say to you: You are fully right to be worried. 

In the political left, there is an obsessive hatred of the State of Israel; for this anti-imperialist left, Israel is a racist, a colonizing, a white apartheid state which should disappear from the map. 

Britta Haßelmann (Green): Look at “Sächsischen Separatisten”! And the state associations which have been classified extreme right! 

The leftists hate Israel because the Jewish state represents all that Europe once was, and what they hate: A strong state, self-conscious, national, religious, prepared to protect its cultural identity and defend its borders. These Greens have spoken out against their own resolution because they know that the fight against anti-semitism today primarily affects the left and its darling Moslem minority. It’s not right-wing extremists who occupy universities, drive Jewish judges from the podium, and gather in masses in the streets behind the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah and chant “from the river to the sea”. Those are Moslems and leftists. 

Does anyone believe that without Merkel’s border opening Jews would not live here more safely? Do you believe that, Herr Merz?  Do you believe that, Herr von Notz? You know that I am right. 

Reality can be pushed aside, yet reality sooner or later catches up. That is unavoidable, and that has come to pass. 

The time of lies and extenuations is over. The defenders of Jewish lives and the friends of the Jewish state are today not found on the left, but on the democratic right side; with the AfD, with Geert Wilders, with Viktor Orbán, and with Donald Trump in whose election all democrats in this house very heartily rejoice.

 

Many thanks.

 

 

 

[trans: tem]

Nicole Höchst, October 11, 2024, Illiteracy in Germany

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/192, pp. 25064-25065. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

In this debate, it is about illiteracy, immigration dangerous to the state, and tax money squandering of the luxury class. 

            Josef Oster (CDU/CSU): Aha!

Our major inquiry [Drucksachen 20/9984, 20/11885] yielded: The phenomenon of primary illiteracy is an immigration one. Many immigrants are illiterate because in their countries of origin they never learned to read and write. 

            Kassem Taher Saleh (Greens): What percentage is that, then? How many                                people is that? 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Questions regarding the facts!

Thus, for example, the 2021 illiteracy index in Afghanistan was at 37 percent. 

            Kassem Taher Saleh (Greens): What is the source? 

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): And for that you needed to put a                                        major inquiry?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have over 400,000 persons from Afghanistan in the country, mostly young men, and almost one million Syrians. For the latter, the refuge basis for the most part has lapsed. They no longer require a literacy program, but a return home. 

Your expensive literacy program knows no total numbers for course participants. You do not know how many German citizens with a migration background are illiterates, from which countries these come, nor whether their children are in any way affected. You do not know how many illiterates are employed in Germany, and are working, and in which occupations. 

            Kassem Taher Saleh (Greens): So I ask: From where do you have the numbers?

Without this control knowledge, the tax money can only be squandered, and flow in senseless measure which indeed makes the establishment operators richer, yet all of us poorer. Integration cannot be achieved with such a squandering of tax money which sets action for action’s sake before efficiency. Only in homeopathic doses is it successful. 

The Federal governments since 2015 have expended six billion euros – that is a number with nine zeros – for integration courses; of that, 1.4 billion euros for literacy courses. The statutory goal is B1. That is a language level according to the Common European Reference Framework for Languages which Realschüler after the tenth grade need to show for their graduation in English. 

            Kassem Taher Saleh (Greens): Well recited!

Since 2015, scarcely 37,000 persons have at all attained this statutory goal for the German language. Your Start Chances Program with one billion euros of Federal funds per year aims at the same target group, namely those affected by and victims of your failed migration policy. How long shall this palavering continue, ladies and gentlemen? 

            Martin Rabanus (SPD): That’s just in fact false! 

            Till Steffen (Greens): You can read quite well up there! You can read so good!

You throw much money at the migration industry. Alone, the 71-page annex to our major inquiry lists over 1,000 language firms which have participated in the moderately successful literacy program without the state’s tightly woven result controls. And, ladies and gentlemen, what if many immigrants simply have no interest in literacy or integration courses? There is finally Bürgergeld. 

            Till Steffen (Greens): It is soon again recitation day in the Grundschulen!

The German taxpayers in addition pay for the necessary translation services. The language groups which require translators come principally from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries in which the Moslem belief dominates. 

Many participants in integration and language courses have often led in many statistics, in the main over-proportionately to their portion of the population, such as criminal statistics, education statistics, in the categories “without school and without vocational school completion”. They have led just so over-proportionately in the recipients of Bürgergeld statistics, and at the same time are often found in the statistics of those obliged to depart. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Almost 70 percent of the Syrians are working!

That is no secret. 

The uneducated Talahon immigration bred by you has long since integrated into parallel societies. Thus, why learn the German language? The language of conquerors is initially Kanak, already recognizable in kindergartens and school classes, yet in many places is already Arabic and Turkish.

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CSU/CSU): You yourself can do better!

Many disdain our way of living, our laws, our people. 

Yet entire branches of industry have arisen: The refugee industry, the anti-racism industry, the integration and language course industry, which present nothing other than an unholy alliance between Islamists and woke leftists. Even the leftist-woke trimmed churches profit. 

Yet all the mere bleating here, all the commanded silence and glossing over, is not longer of use in view of the abuses which are recognizable by all. For the well-being of the German people, whom you either hate or whose existence you deny, you do nothing. We do not want your Great Transformation which makes us poor, woke and ever more Islamic. 

We all have good friends from all cultures, 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Frau colleague, come to a conclusion, please.

who want to live together with us here peacefully and in all friendship in mutual respect. It was never about them, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Till Steffen (Greens): You learn nothing from them, then?

And now I am curious 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Frau colleague, please come to a conclusion.

how you here again talk your way out of it.

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, July 5, 2024, Pro-Life and Criminal Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, pp. 23698-23699. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The left-greens can primarily do one thing: Discover ideological fighting words. Today, a new one: Sidewalk harassment [Gehsteigbelästigung], discovered by gender ideologue Ulrike Lembke. 

Filiz Polat (Greens): What rubbish is this, then?

All forms of relevant harassment are nevertheless today culpable, or are a violation of an ordinance. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Right!

Thus why now Gehsteigbelästigung? An Orwellian newspeak. 

You want to demolish basic rights of Christians and defenders of life. For you, it is not about climate clingers who block hundreds of thousands of motorists, or about tens of thousands of leftist extremists seeking to prevent with violence an AfD party day, and also not about Islamists who in their fighting prayers conquer our public space. You find all of that to be fantastic or democratic or acceptable. Yet when Christians and defenders of life make use of their right to freedom of opinion or freedom of assembly, then you hollow out [drehen Sie hohl]. 

The Federal Administrative Court on 23 May 2023 clearly held that defenders of life may demonstrate in front of pro-family abortion centers. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): What then is that for a term?

I cite: 

“There is in a pluralistic society no right to remain entirely exempt from the confrontation with divergent religious presentations or opinions.”

With that, all is said. 

You present in your draft law the assertion that, by means of sidewalk harassment, counseling offices and abortion clinics would be hindered in their activity, or those pregnant restrained from entering them. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): No, the women are hindered in their counseling possibilities. You need to read it correctly, Frau von Storch!

A dumb thing, that is a dumb thing! You know that. For that, there is no statistic, there is no survey, there are no police reports, there is simply nothing. You discover a problem which does not exist so that you have a reason to proceed with state repression against Christians and defenders of life. 

It is little surprising that the preparation for this comes from the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which in 2021 published an evaluation with the title, “Possibilities of Statutory New Regulation in the Conflict Field of Sidewalk Harassment”. The author: Sina Fontana. And here it becomes interesting, since Frau Fontana has written another evaluation with the title, “Universal Women’s Rights and Islamic Law”. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Oh! An interesting alliance!

Fontana therein wrote that the Scharia is quite wonderfully compatible with women’s rights. That is the Greens: Criminalize Christian prayers because against women’s rights, but praise and extol Scharia because good for women’s rights. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Unbelievable!

The central point: Who like the Greens and the Linke defend Scharia, for them it is not about women’s rights, but for them it is about the fight against our culture.           

Canan Bayram (Greens): You have a Scharia fetish, Frau von Storch!

And in this culture war, the green Verbot parties want to silence critics, naturally with friendly support of the FDP. One prayer or the protest of defenders of life: 5,000 euro fine. Here in the Bundestag, to name a specific first name in a specific context: 1,000 euro fine. The Green catalogue of fines for forbidden expressions will soon become very long. 

            Gero Clemens Hocker (FDP): Expensive for you, Frau von Storch!

This law is unconstitutional and breathes the spirit of a totalitarian Green ideology. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): A court still decides, and not you, what is compatible with the constitution!

And the CDU wants to forbid the prayers, but thinks for that the right of assembly suffices; you have indeed said it, and Frau Breiler also on Wednesday in committee. Alone the FDP – not alone the FDP is responsible, but it shares in all of this. 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Your confusion is noted.

Alone the AfD stands for defense of life and freedom of opinion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to me you will not forbid prayers, and also not the expression of the male name of Markus. 

 

[trans: tem]

Fabian Jacobi, July 4, 2024, The German Language

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23455-23456. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

With associations, it is so a matter: What in regards a new item of business comes to one spontaneously, often appears accidental and then proves to be of little help. In the case put forward, my thoughts certainly turn back more often in further course to the matter which this draft law for me initially called to mind. The famous sociologist and economist Max Weber expressed it in his entry speech at the University of Freiberg in the year 1895, and he said: 

“Big businesses which are only to be maintained at the cost of German nationality, from the standpoint of the nation are worthy of perishing…”

Now, the circumstance to which this matter referred – it was about the collapse of the noble estates in the Prussian agrarian areas – has well nigh sunk into the fogs of history. And the verbal characteristic of Weber’s speech for us today has become foreign. Yet it would be decadent arrogance to believe on that account alone we could easily do without the insights and thoughts of earlier generations. 

You, ladies and gentlemen, want by means of the law which you today are deciding “to strengthen Germany as a venue of justice [Justizstandort Deutschland]” The expression reveals the authors’ world view. It is a view which we do not share. 

The German state is no business firm which has to compete for a share of the market. The German state is, if so desired, the worldly form [weltliche Gestalt] of the German nation the continuation of which it has to serve. To this belongs that the language of this Republic is and remains the German language. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Exactly!

You want to strengthen the justice venue in which German courts further conduct proceedings in the English language, and no longer pronounce sentence in the name of the people in the language of the people. 

This shall initially apply only for a specific category of judicial procedures. It would  nevertheless be naïve to suppose the matter will thereby rest. The FDP, the minister of which is responsible for the law, demands introducing quite generally the English language as an official language of the German state. We recognize here the first step of a classic salami tactic: Once the salami begins to be cut, it is only a question of time until it is completely consumed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we experience for long already the downfall of our language. The loss of its earlier importance beyond our borders needs not be mourned; yet it might be explained as a consequence of two destructive world wars. Meanwhile long since also occurs the decline in its own land. 

Martin Plum (CDU/CSU): In the Legal Affairs Committee, also with you!

Ever more often it happens that in businesses the staff are urged to communicate with one another not in German but in English. Universities hold teaching events in the English language, even if all participants are native German speakers or are fluent in German. 

Carsten Müller (CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): You as a member speak English in committee!

And now also shall a core area of our state, the justice, begin the process of the suppression of our language. If we open this door a crack, so will it tomorrow be completely pushed open. It should remain closed. This applies all the more as the implications disturb not only the national but also the democratic character of our polity. 

In the pre-democratic ages, the feudal ruling class spoke to one another in French, despised the German language as a language of farmers and domestics. This situation was overcome by the bürgerlichen and democratic revolution of the 19^th Century. The German national state which grew out of that revolution would be entirely perverted; in the 21^st Century, it wanted to set about abetting a revival of such a social division [Der deutsche Nationalstaat, der aus jener Revolution erwuchs, würde gänzlich pervertiert, wollte er sich im 21. Jahrhundert daranmachen, einem Wiederaufleben solcher gesellschaftlicher Spaltung Vorschub zu leisten]. I began this speech with a citation, and with a citation I also close: 

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): The main thing, to end! 

“We hope that what always distinguishes and will distinguish the nation from other nations…our beautiful language, will not become dry and common, but will renew its nobility, and with it all that finds its expression in words. If that not be done, what would all recovered great power and seeming power then help us?”

Golo Mann wrote that as a closing sentence of his Deutschen Geschichte. And if my speech will surely have no influence on today’s vote, may it still be taken to heart by one or another for his future work in this house. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Nicole Höchst, June 20, 2024, Boys in Schools

AfD Kompakt, June 20, 2024. 

Boys appear in nearly all statistics worse than girls. And the number of boys without a graduation certificate is clearly higher than that for girls. Thus in the year 2020, 62 percent of students without a high school completion certificate were boys. 

A specific and expanded support of boys in the schools is required, and it is not allowed to be placed in the narrative of the eternally oppressed little females. We of the AfD Bundestag delegation have already many times referred to this in our initiatives; for example, the inquiry “Possible Disadvantage of Boys in the German Education System” (Drucksache 20/7105). And from the answer of the Federal government to this minor inquiry, it was evident that, up to that point in time, there was no research on the school problems of boys. 

We of the AfD Bundestag delegation therefore demand that there needs to be research adapted to the school problems of boys, since in the named PISA study, especially in written expression, girls clearly achieved better results than boys. 

From the occupational education reports and from the PISA results, we know who these boys are. The left-green course settings compel the situation and disadvantage boys, especially boys with a migration background. This school policy steals the future of the boys in our country. 

The AfD Bundestag delegation demands an end to this policy and the beginning of research into the school problems of boys – and right now! 

 

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, April 24, 2024, University Policies

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/165, pp. 21235-21237. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Bologna process is, in the essentials, the attempt of an all-European unification, standardization and bureaucratization of higher education, thus the exact opposite of the variety and freedom which you always carry before you like a monstrance. 

Kai Gehring (Greens): You’ve already said that a thousand times! 

            Ria Schröder (FDP): That is nonsense!

In the past 25 years the variety of the European education traditions was ever further leveled. The Humboldt-type university, with the unity of teaching and research, the ideal of humanist education,           

Kai Gehring (Greens): And you learn nothing of that! Humboldt would turn over in his grave at your speech! Who was so very open-minded! An authentic cosmopolite!

was replaced by the guiding form of a tutelary, technocratic knowledge factory [das Leitbild einer verschulten, technokratischen Wissenfabrik], Herr Gehring. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Humboldt was a cosmopolite!

The essence of European higher education is endangered by the Bologna process. – That is written by no less than Julian Nida-Rümeln. And you all, as rotating governing parties up to now, are responsible for that. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): And may you never come into government!

It was desired to achieve comparability of conclusion of studies and a higher mobility between European universities. Neither has been made by Bologna, and the improvements were at most alloted. And at what price? The abolition of the internationally honored German Diploma-Ingenieurs, the Meisters – completely without necessity – instead, the introduction of bachelor and masters courses of study, the modulization of studies, and the fixation on the ECTS [European Transfer and Accumulation System] performance points have trained the students in a tutelary gathering of points. Independent [eigenständige] search for truth is penalized rather than rewarded. The conformity pressure today is enormous in German universities. The “freedom” science year cannot divert from that.   

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Says a Herr Doktor!

And this pressure to conform is thoroughly reinforced in that 80 percent of scholars [Wissenschaftler] in Germany are employed per term. They are dependent on external funds which the universities, since Bologna, need to additionally raise because their basic financing was reduced. 

            Laura Kraft (Greens): Since when did that interest the AfD? 

Kai Gehring (Greens): Yet you always put budget motions which place entire courses of study at zero! Ever the same nonsense!

And who pays, purchases, ladies and gentlemen. For a great part, that is the state with its lead ideologies: Man-made climate change, diversity, gender, etc. 

Ria Schröder (FDP): The only ones who ever again want to limit scholarly freedom are you!

Young scholars who, for example, want to research the natural factors of climate change, or who do not salute the Gessler’s cap of gender dogma, can similarly bend their careers; simply no corresponding research proposals will be presented. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): That appears to be a therapeutic problem!

The result is the policy of a compliant supply system of knowledge, as we needed to bitterly experience in the Corona times, and as was brought to light, at the latest, in the RKI files. Under political pressure, the Robert Koch Institute largely neglected data and facts, and furnished the absurd and harmful Corona preventive measures with the blessings of science. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Such nonsense! That’s just not right! Such rubbish! 

Kai Gehring (Greens): Did China write the speech for you? Does the speech come from Russia Today or from Chinese spies?

This may not remain without consequences. We will in that connection still debate. Our alarm clocks sound 

Kai Gehring (Greens): With your speeches, our alarm clocks sound! China and Russia propaganda!

when in the Federal government’s report there is talk of “common values” which should form the “foundation of cooperation” in the area of European universities, and which now shall be increasingly examined in the universities. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Your doctorate should be examined!

I recall that a young researcher was not allowed to make an address on the biological duality of the sexes at the Berlin Humboldt University because this allegedly contradicted the values of the university. 

Ria Schröder (FDP): What exactly has that to do with Bologna? I still do not understand that! 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Who actually? When and where?

The orientation of values begets attitude [Gesinnung] instead of knowledge, because cannot be what is not allowed to be [weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf]. That is highly dangerous, valued colleagues. 

            Alexander Föhr (CDU/CSU): What now has that to do with the Bologna process? 

Read Professor Nida-Rümelin:

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Do you still speak of Europe? 

“The instrumentalization of academia by state, clerical and business purposes has continually blocked the innovation potential of science.” 

That exactly so applies for supposed values of democracy. The fight against the right in the name of science, which the president of the Berlin Technical University now calls for, while there the lecture halls decay and the level ever further sinks, undermines science as a supra-party resort [überparteiliche Instanz]. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): That you cite the NZZ [Neue Zürcher Zeitung] is clear! 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Lack of theme!

I come to conclusion. What we need is a reform of the Bologna reform: Away from the tutelage and bureaucracy and EU control; instead, a Humboldt for the 21st Century! 

Many thanks! 

            Holger Mann (SPD): What rubbish!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, April 15, 2024, Abortion

AfD Kompakt, April 15, 2024. 

Federal Family Minister Lisa Paus already made clear, before the formation of this Commission, that her political goal is general impunity for aborted pregnancies. Even from its name, it may be concluded that for this Ampel government it has at no time been about an unbiased “Whether”, but only about the “How” of taking down the hurdles for a termination of pregnancy. Consequently, the thereby constituted working groups were extensively filled with women who themselves in the past either had attracted attention with politically approved positions, or had been active for corresponding associations like “Pro Familia” or the “Deustchen Juristinnenbund”. 

In the Commission report, the focus is one-sidedly shifted from defense of unborn life to the alleged self-determination rights of women. The hereto given jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court is thereby fully disregarded, and a liberalization of abortion law frankly presented as constitutionally imperative [verfassungsrechtlich geboten]. How the resulting defenselessness of unborn children to the end of the 22^nd week of pregnancy is reconcilable with their human dignity guaranteed by the Basic Law, the report nevertheless does not explain. 

The Ampel undertakes the public attempt to annul the defense of unborn life in favor of the right to abortion. The recommendations of its Commission merely serve as a first step of a long-term project to establish abortion as a natural “human right”. This hides the serious danger that the priority [Stellenwert] of human life in social consciousness will be generally degraded. This under all circumstances must be prevented. 

 

[trans: tem]

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, March 20, 2024, Gender Speech

AfD Kompakt, March 20, 2024. 

Speech as a fundamental pillar of our society needs to be free of ideological ballast. The decision against the gender speech underlines Bavaria’s acknowledgement of these values. The AfD expressly welcomes this step, since it fulfills our demand of many years for a renunciation of a kind of language spoliation. 

We nevertheless may not stop here. The ruling in Bavaria needs to serve as a model which conforms to that of other Federal States. For that, the AfD is committed to that the clarity and comprehensibility of the German language are placed above ideological experiments. We demand of the Federal government to follow the Bavarian example and, in common with the other Federal States, to issue a nationwide, State-inclusive ban of gender speech. 

The AfD stands for a policy which places at mid-point the citizen and the conservation of our cultural identity. Bavaria’s decision is a step in the right direction, yet may be only the beginning. 

 

[trans: tem]

Gottfried Curio, December 15, 2023, Artificial Forced Migration

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/145, pp. 18457-18458. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

These days the EU negotiates a new version of the Common European Asylum System. Prominently discussed are external borders procedures for migrants from countries of origin with low recognition rates – not the largest group, which makes the measure little effective –, as well as a “solidarity mechanism” penalty payment for countries which do not participate in the acceptance of illegal migrants, the well-known Brussels Unkultur of presumption. Yet we need discussion neither of micro set screws nor of the EU’s encroachments. What we need is an end to this quite artificial forced migration of peoples, ladies and gentlemen. 

In the Dublin III system, the respective state of first entry was responsible for the asylum application – a regulation which the Union under Merkel destroyed in a striking breach of law,  with the catastrophic consequences of open borders. Since then, migrants set out aimed at Germany. Italy and Greece equally alike omit the registration and refuse the return transfer. And Germany bears the principal burden of this entire madness with its continually further strengthened tendency by means of additional family reunification for those already landed here. In that regard, the war in Syria in the peripheral areas has been ended for years. Required now is the return of one million Syrians, and not their naturalization. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): Have you inquired of Putin? You have good connections in the Kremlin! 

            Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): The butcher Assad still commands in Syria! 

Stop with the continued misleading pretense [Vorgaukelung] of a need for protection – unconcerned with the consequences for our destroyed education system, the disaster of domestic security with over-propotional immigrant criminality in regards violent offenses, unconcerned with the 50 billion euros per year thereby squandered, the collapsing housing market, and even with the cultural identity of our homeland! Anyone who still intends well with Germany needs to end this artificial forced mass immigration, ladies and gentlemen. 

The new regulations foreseen in Brussels however do nothing for the necessary reduction of the influx. We therefore demand: Preventing the European internal migration, excluding multiple asylum applications, fundamentally ending a transfer of competence to Germany following the time period expiration – in the first half of the year alone, 15,000 cases; that asylum applicants from Asia and Africa be able to obtain their protection requirement preferably fulfilled in a region near to home and akin to culture, in any case, in secure countries on their continent which they certainly do numerously cross on their way to far distant Deutschland; 

            Julian Pahlke (Green): Aha! The China connection! 

further, the conclusive end of residency by cessation of possible reasons for refuge – Syrian – or by the abuse of “homeland vacations” which unmasks an ostensible necessity of refuge. Only a fundamental re-direction will stop the unfortunately willed migration storm, and only with the AfD is there a parliamentary majority for that, ladies and gentlemen. 

For all of that is also required an end to the false focusings in the migration debate.   

First, it is often not a question of seeking refuge – after crossing secure third countries, certainly not – often not even about leaving the country of origin. Many migrants themselves openly declare the wealth disparity as a reason. 

Second, the fairy tales of the good rescuers at sea. The foreign traffickers are service providers to their deliberately negotiating customers who, for a life-long full provision, slip a couple of thousand. 

            Michael Sacher (Greens): Hopefully, you never need to flee in your life! 

The German trafficking fleet operates no rescue at sea. That would be a bringing to the nearest safe harbor a few kilometers distant on the coast of Africa, instead of to Lampedusa at a distance of hundreds of kilometers. 

End also the lie of a lifetime of the “ability to produce integration” [Herstellbarkeit von Integration]! 

Julian Pahlke (Green): Na ja, your lifetime reality is the surveillance by the Constitution Defense, Herr Curio! Quite lovely greetings from Herr Haldenwang! 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): That again shows where you have remained hanging, in which era, from which you yell out! 

The codification of standards of conduct – as in the Basic Law – is always a durable summary of matching realities [nachträgliche Zusammenfassung von gewachsenen Realitäten]. The idea of being able to successfully lead to its adherence in a brief time anyone from another culture is a failure of categories. Such culture codes will in the long term be accepted by means of an unconscious assumption of relations from the social surroundings – by no means through a merely rational acknowledgement of their codified form. The idea that contempt for women, an excessive male sense of honor, or a positive connotation of a lived-out propensity to violence, are to be corrected by a Basic Law presentation [Grundgesetzüberreichung], or an integration course, is at an absurd distance from life, ladies and gentlemen. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): “To present the Basic Law” [„Grundgesetz überreichen”] is a good keyword, Herr Curio! 

Filiz Polat (Greens): You need an integration course, a values course! You should here make transparent in which networks you act in your constituency. That would interest us!

And surely it may not ever again be only about how illegal masses of immigrants by unfortunate organization are allowed to run through the system, be it with debt money or mis-purposed gymnasiums and hotels!  Nein, the stream itself is to be prevented. For that, is required the elimination of all incentives here in this country, a most concentrated as possible action in Europe. Ever more states understand this. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): What do you actually know of the China connection in your delegation? 

Only Germany is the wrong way driver, which thinks all others should convert to its wrong way. 

Therefore is required a decisive re-direction that really represents the interests of our citizens. These threatened interests have found their asylum with the AfD. 

I thank you.           

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): How long did you require for the witticism? The entire legislative period, or longer? 

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, November 16, 2023, Islamization

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/137, pp. 17298-17299. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Certainly in the last days has it become clear: The alleged conspiracy theory of an increasing Islamization of Germany is in fact a terrifying reality. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Such nonsense! 

The pictures of pro-Hamas demonstrations on German streets allow no other explanation: A situation over which you are now overheated, yet a situation which you have brought about. 

These demonstrations are only the current high point of a creeping Islamization of Germany which is expressed in many facets: So-called honor killings, forced marriages, yet which is also manifested in the symbolic occupation in day-cares and elementary schools by means of wearing the children’s head scarf, and in polygamy which unfortunately becomes ever more prevalent. All of this is the result of our own weakness, of a woke culture, which hates all that is one’s own and our cultural identity as well as our tradition. And this self-hate makes one susceptible: To welcome culture and to mass migration, 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Apparently you really need to hate yourself.

to children’s head scarves and to polygamy. It becomes high time to esteem one’s own, instead of sacrificing it to the foreigners. Otherwise, Germany becomes a caliphate. And we want no caliphate. We want a Germany that remains German, dear friends. 

Let us thus begin with the little ones. Let us ban the head scarf for children under 14 years in schools and day-cares. Since this head scarf for little girls is nothing other than a continual bodily and psychic disciplining. Free running, playing, swimming, etc., with it is scarcely possible. The writer Fatma Bläser, who as a child was herself forced to wear a head scarf, sees therein an “endangerment of children’s well-being”. The head scarf may become for young girls a “second skin” by which they are robbed of their freedom and childhood. It suppresses the children of today and makes them the suppressed women of tomorrow – and that may no longer be. 

And no, the children’s head scarf has nothing to do with religious freedom, since there is in Islam no religious precept for children to wear it. Until a few years ago, it was fully unusual in Islamic countries. 

The state of law is not allowed to tolerate it when little girls are thereby abused for transporting Islamist messages into our kindergartens and schools. For it is nothing other than political child abuse, what is happening here. This political child abuse needs to be forbidden; since it leads to parallel societies, it leads to the dis-integration of young girls and to the suppression of women. Such power demonstrations of political Islam have nothing to lose in Germany. 

These days, this becomes more clear than ever. The French and Austrians have long since recognized this and forbidden the head scarf in schools – in France besides, with the votes of the socialists. Let us thus defend young girls from the head scarf, and let us defend Germany from parallel societies! 

Polygamous marriages are also an expression of these parallel societies and they lead to a parallel justice. Where that leads to is shown in the many so-called honor killings. A stop to them must  be ordered. To them must be opposed law and order, and in fact our law and our order. Here, the statistical registration of polygamous marriages in Germany is required. Here, a general ban on religious early marriage is required. Here, polygamous marriages concluded in foreign countries need to be annulled. Here are required rigorous penalties for violations against the ban on bigamous marriage. 

Children’s head scarves and polygamy do not go in our country. Germany may no longer decay into a multicultural test laboratory; since it is not compatible with these imported conflicts. There must finally again 

            Vice-president Yvonne Magwas: Please come to a conclusion.

be recollected its culture and tradition. Germany must finally again be German. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Götz Frömming, October 18, 2023, Gender Ideology

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/131, pp. 16301-16302. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

In the year 1817, thus around 200 years ago, the last teaching chair for astrology at a German university was closed. Who now thinks that the Enlightenment has finally triumphed, he is in error. 

            Maria Klein-Schmeink (Greens): You are evidence of that!

For a number of years, another pseudo-science has been on the march at our colleges. We speak today of the so-called gender research whereby in this connection the word “research” is a gross euphemism. Astrology could be better designated as a science than this gender ideology. 

The entire gender ideology, ladies and gentlemen, is based on the thesis, initially formulated by Judith Butler, that sex and indeed also biology may be freely chosen or – more precisely – constructed. When today you see on the internet pictures of young people who have undergone with the scalpel a sex change, these shocking, unhappy faces of mutilated children treated with puberty blockers, then you see modern human sacrifices brought there to the altar of the gender ideology. 

The acceptance of these trespasses upon the bodily inviolability increases with the medical-technical potentialities and – yes – with the money which can thereby be earned. Numerous clinics in the U.S.A., yet also in Germany, are already fixated on this business model. Gender ideology is thereby one of the present masks of Marxism. It could also be formulated: It is the theology of the woke left. It has nothing to do with medicine or science, ladies and gentlemen. 

The gender ideology besides also places in question the rights of women and homosexuals. A shrewd woman like Alice Schwarzer recognized this. She is therefore removed with hatred and spite from the left corner. 

Gender ideologues cannot answer the simple question of why the two sexes, which were allegedly invented by society and imposed upon people, exist in the animal realm. They also cannot answer how many socially constructed sexes there generally are and where they can be found. 

In Hamburg officially live just 31 people who designate themselves as diverse. An AfD delegation inquiry to the Senate has yielded this. 

            Martin Sichert (AfD); Hear, hear!

Nationwide, just about 400 people up to February 2021 have had themselves registered as diverse. That thus corresponds to .00047 percent of the population. 

            Maria Klein-Schmeink (Greens): Why then do you feel threatened?

We have thereby needed to be accustomed to how under a leftist discourse hegemony one wronged minority after another was discovered and then needed to be pampered by the taxpayers. Yet how could it actually come to that such a small and exotic fringe group is able to push forward into the center of all Western societies? 

With his fringe group, it is not as usual. Their lawyers are responsible for that, who themselves as usual have issued the mandate. For these lawyers, who exert this theme with an enormous moral extortion pressure on the Western public, conduct themselves like a woke left. They want to remove from biology the sex theme so as to use it as a weapon in a political struggle. 

            Renate Künst (Linke): Speak German!

The so-called gender research also has not any scientific yield; political proceeds are put forward throughout. Here primarily needs to be named the dictatorship of gender speech and the early sexualization of children. Both follow the ancient Marxist goal: The attack on the traditional family, the elementary foundation of bürgerlichen society. It’s about re-education. 

Scientists, ladies and gentlemen, concern themselves with what is. Gender ideologues are only interested in what should be. Thus for the gender ideologues it is all the same that gender speech is hideous and semantic nonsense. A Studierende, ladies and gentlemen, needs to bring her child into the world in an auditorium, otherwise she would be a student giving birth. Thus for the gender ideologues it is also all the same that in all surveys a great part of the population rejects gender speech. 

Yet for all that – a little glimmer of hope – some of the Federal States and administrations are on the way to no longer taking part in this nonsense. Ladies and gentlemen of the CDU, we also have hope in the CDU delegation in Thüringen which prepares a similar motion. We will of course vote in favor. Pleasant greetings to Herr Merz. The wall must go, ladies and gentlemen. 

The mental health of our children is also all the same to the gender ideologues. In the meantime, in school books also are biological facts contorted. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to it. Post-secondary schools [Hochschulen] need again to recall ideology-free research and teaching. Elementary education [Schulbildung] needs again to return to a value-neutral, age-appropriate investigation of knowledge on a foundation of fact-based recogntion of human propagation [wertneutralen und altersentsprechenden Wissensvermittlung auf Grundlage faktenbasierter Erkenntnisse zur menschlichen Fortpflanzung]. Gender is a dangerous, manipulative, unscientific nonsense. 

            Vice-president Aydan Özoğuz: Please come to a conclusion.

 Jawohl, Frau President. – Follow our motion [Drucksache 20/8862]. Let us deprive gender ideology of the the financial swamp. 

Many thanks, ladies and gentlemen. 

 

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, September 6, 2023, Culture by Decree

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/118, pp. 14571-14572. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Who comes forward as Germany’s “rupture squad” [Abbruchkommando] – I very gladly overtake your term, Herr Scholz, for it perfectly fits this Federal government – needs obviously to make a high expenditure on propaganda. 

At the so-called green culture conference, Culture State Minister Claudia Roth swore in the culture branch to “climate defense and sustainability”, and indeed not only to what concerns energy consumption and the like, but – as we have heard – it will also be called upon for “aesthetic discussion with the climate crisis”, for the “sensitization of the public” in regards to “man-made climate change”. Gender and diversity guidelines in film promotion have already been announced. It is frightening with what sang-froid art and culture are being instrumentalized by this government. That has nothing to do with freedom of art, Frau Roth. That is decreed state art [verordnete Staatskunst]. Yet the lack of success of the woke Netflix series or the politically correct German films very clearly shows what the public thinks of such educative and instructional art; namely, simply nothing, ladies and gentlemen. 

Quite important themes for this Federal government: Sexual harassment and violence. No, not on Germany’s streets at night, but in the culture and media branches. The culture council shall now prepare a relations code, initially for voluntary personal commitment. Yet Frau Roth already threatens: Should this no “thorough effect show, we will go to the next step and make our requirements mandatory for all”. End citation. Say it: Who before state feminism is not a well-behaved little man receives no more funding. 

Ladies and gentlemen, one need not be a fan of Till Lindemann, yet the Rammstein affair has nevertheless shown that the denunciation and indignation industry in this country long since runs wild [freidrehen], according to the motto, “Just throw dirt, something will stick”. This Unkultur you systematically promote, and with the reporting person defense law – Orwellian title – whereby any citizen can be slandered with impunity by specifically created reporting offices. That is the way to a totalitarian state, ladies and gentlemen. 

The anti-racism commissioner, Frau Alabali-Radovan, naturally here does not want to come up short and demands more complaint offices for victims of racism where then can be happily denounced he who expresses wrong views on mass migration and thereby proves himself  a “structural racist”. What then do you actually say to the Zeche Zollern Museum in Dortmund, Frau Alabali, where whites on Saturdays are not allowed to enter the colonialism exhibition; evidently so that their historical guilt based on their being white will be remembered? That is the racism which needs disturb us today in Germany. And it does not proceed from the majority society, but from an aggressive ideology into which this Federal government has long since lapsed. 

What else do we we see in this Culture budget? Growth for the Prussian Cultural Foundation – yes, that is good – yet a threefold increase of means to around 6 million euros for the deep red socio-cultural centers, of which the association chief has disparaged the idea of a “deutsche Kultur” as “nationalistic”. And zero euros for the memorial for the victims of communist tyranny. You again put off its construction, Frau Roth. That, you should here also honestly admit. 

And still a word for the Federal government’s eastern commissioner, Carsten Schneider. When you tell the press that the strength of the AfD in eastern Germany is a danger for economy and society, 

            Wiebke Esdar (SPD): He’s right there!

you thereby prove only one thing, namely your complete de-coupling from the reality. From a government which drives industry out of the country and permanently defames the citizens as “racists” and “extremists”, the eastern Germans quite clearly need not let themselves be arrogantly tutored, and they no longer do so: 35 percent for the AfD in Saxony and 7 percent for the SPD speaks a clear Sprache. You perhaps should ponder who on your summer vacation was underway as a wrong-way driver. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Bernd Baumann, July 6, 2023, Criminal Clans

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14233-14234. 

Frau President. 

Across all Europe, the consequences of a catastrophic migration policy are setting in. In France, the inner cities burned for one week long. With us, such an outbreak of violence has not yet arrived. Yet migrant violence and parallel societies are long since here also. Example NRW [Nordrhein-Westfalen]: 500 armed men go at one another with iron bars and knives, countless victims lie in the streets with serious wounds. In the midst of our homeland, newly immigrated clans from Syria fight against long established Turkish-Arab clans. It is a fight for territory, a fight for mastery in entire quarters of the city. The Germans can only look on helplessly, they fear what is happening to their homeland. All of you here are to answer for this situation, ladies and gentlemen! 

The latest numbers indeed show: Clan criminality is rising; in Lower Saxony alone around 40 percent in just one year. 

            Dunja Kreiser (SPD): Please use absolute numbers! Absolute numbers!

How could it have come so far? In Germany there is just one, single scholar who for decades  researches the theme of clans: Dr. Ralph Ghadban. He is an Islam researcher and political scientist and himself comes from Lebanon, 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Therefore he is an expert?

the place of origin of many clans. In the past weeks, he was questioned from ARD to ZDF. Ghadban said: The large families or clans form the basic unity of social life in all countries of the Near East and North Africa. Here, a man’s loyalty is directed primarily to his own large family. They thus form complete unities. Ghadban, further: When these large families come to us, then they bring these structures. Perhaps single individuals can still be integrated; in regards complete, large families, that is scarcely imaginable. 

Ghadban himself has lived it – at the end of the 70s, as a social worker – how several of the large families unfortunately developed as criminal. He himself saw how they began their predations; first, in a small grocery store with their, as Ghadban says, herd tactics [Rudeltaktiks]: One diverts the owner, the others rob him. When the police arrive, all are long since gone. Ghadban saw this and warned the Politik. Yet the multicultural fanatics, he said, did not want to acknowledge this, they looked away. – You are responsible for what has happened here!    

The clans learned therefrom: So easily does money come to hand in Germany. Now they rob quite large supermarkets. The criminal police wrote heated letters [Brandbriefe] to the Politik, demanded support. Yet the Politiker did nothing. Worse still: They did not once permit the police to even name the ethnic origin of the perpetrators. That for once needs to be brought forward, ladies and gentlemen. 

That of course strengthened the clans. They now entered into drug dealing, forced prostitution, extortion of protection money, spectacular break-ins, as in the Dresden Grüne Gewolbe. Through open borders, they coalesced into giant mafia organizations with hundreds of thousands of members. They live in luxury villas without ever having worked. They drive ostentatious limousines through German cities while on the side of the road pensioners, who toiled a lifetime, search for bottles in the trash. – What have we come to, ladies and gentlemen? Guilt for this frightening development is borne by those who permit all of this: CDU, SPD, FDP, Greens. Those are the ones responsible! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): The Linke also.

More than a year ago here I put forward an 18 point plan [Drucksache 20/7576] for fighting the clans. Much of which the criminal police also demanded. Yet all of you here in the Interior Committee rejected every single point. 

Recently, the Interior politician Sebastian Fiedler of the SPD, 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Very good man!

himself a police officer, was asked in a ZDF talkshow: “ Why then have you politicians all the years done nothing about it?” Do you know what he answered? “We all of us simply did not dare to name the thing by name.” 

Herr Fiedler, did not dare? You as a police officer have sworn to defend the population, and as a Member to avert harm from the German people. Here is seen how irresponsible and cowardly the Politik can be. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Do not scream so! 

           Johannes Fechner (SPD): Do not bellow!

Take an example from Herr Ghadban! Ghadban named the thing by name – and for that, needs to live for decades under police protection. His courage shows that many migrants help us in Germany more than all the cowardly governing parties put together! 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): And you harm our country!

            Dunja Kreiser (SPD): Horrible! You can pat yourself on the back if you want.                                        No fine speech!

            Marcel Emmerich (Greens): Impossible!

 

 

[trans: tem]

           

 

 

 

 

 

Beatrix von Storch, July 6, 2023, Assisted Suicide

German Bundestag, July 6, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14083-14084. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Federal Constitutional Court in 2020 declared the ban on commercial promotion [geschäftsmäßigen Förderung] of self-killing to be null. Pandora’s Box was thereby opened. 

To declare suicide to be an act of personal autonomy leads us, in my firm conviction, to a terrible and deadly path. The Netherlands have gone before us in this way. The result is devastating: In 2021, 7,666 deaths by assisted suicide, and in that regard overwhelmingly by means of killing on demand [Tötung auf Verlangen]. That is 4.5 percent of all deaths there, 10 percent more than in the previous year, ten times more than traffic deaths. Calculated for Germany, that would be 34,000, three times more than presently. 

When the assisted suicide law was decided on in the Netherlands, it was about extreme cases in which people were severely ill, without a perspective of survival. Now it is not only about incurable illness, it is ever more about physically healthy people who still have a long life ahead of them who actually need and seek assistance. 

Kingston University made a study in the Netherlands. There, people with mental handicap and autism are legally killed. The study uncovered 39 such cases from 2012 to 2021 by means of a random sample of 900 from 60,000 cases. If that is calculated for Germany, then that would be 11,500 people in Germany, mentally handicapped and autistic, who would have been killed. A particularly tragic example from the study: A young man in his 20s who named the reason for his death wish: Social isolation. He wanted to die because he was lonely. 

The circle of those affected thereby becomes almost limitless. In surveys of socio-economic panels, 42 percent of Germans declare that they feel lonely. The Dutch psychiatrist Dr. Bram Sizzo explains the motivation of people seeking assistance for suicide. I cite: 

They believe this will be the end of their problems and the end of the problems of their families.

That means, they take their own lives because they do not want to be a burden on their families. That is terrifying. 

The draft laws put forward emphasize that the suicide should result from one’s own accord as an autonomous decision. They thus see entirely the danger that people take their own life under social pressure. I do not believe that they will prevent that; not one of the drafts. Against social pressure helps no double consultation obligation and no remark on a consultation document. Precisely in times of crisis, the pressure grows on the old and sick – not only on them, but on them especially – to be a burden on no one. We will have very many old and sick without families and very many more crises. 

The Chancellor has spoken for more respect. The reality appears otherwise. A frequent headline in the spring was “Housing Emergency in Germany: Pensioners Live Too Grandly”. Regensburg University has proposed forcing the pensioners into smaller residences by increasing the rental prices, and in Berlin the Berlin Church Institute has shown the door to 110 seniors. 

And added to that: The entire infrastructure of supervision, counseling and care of the old, the sick and those needing assistance, and of physically and mentally ill people, finds itself in an existential crisis. Care homes in great numbers are going insolvent. In Hesse, 25 percent closed this year. 60 percent of hospitals are in a business imbalance; many will close. The local provision for old and ill people is already bad and is becoming much worse. The emergency is growing. The average wait time for a therapy place for people in psychological distress amounts to five months. What will be the consequences if, in view of the crisis in care and health provision, it will be simpler to receive a nearby, open-ended [ergebnisoffene] suicide consultation than a care or therapy place? Before we strengthen the suicide prevention, you want to be concerned with open-ended suicide consultation. 

These are not my values. We should live our lives in freedom and responsibility before God. The beginning and end of life lie alone in the Hand of God. In that, I believe. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

 

 

Jürgen Braun, January 27, 2023, Persecution of Christians

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/83, pp. 9922-9923.

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear colleagues.

“A message written in blood to the nation of the cross” was the title of a video which the “Islamic State” published on February 15, 2015. It showed the beheading of 21 mostly Coptic Christians on the Libyan seashore. The Catholic writer Martin Mosebach has dedicated a book to the 21 martyrs. Mosebach considered this video – cite:

to be a picture of enmity…which in the Western world actually appeared to be overcome following the victory over Hitler – unconditional and uncompromising enmity; enmity which can only end with the annihilation of one of the two enemies.

This act was no single incident. That this and other mass murders were at all possible is also a consequence of Western policy. What Barack Obama and the Merkel government concerted to euphemize as an “Arab Spring” was in the end nothing other than a victory march of Islamism

            Thomas Rachel (CDU/CSU): Shameless!

which cost thousands of human lives.

The scorn and persecution of Christians is on the daily order of almost all Islamic countries. The murderers commit their acts not seldom targeted on Christian holy days; and that, worldwide: Christmas 2011, Nigeria: Islamic attack on a church, 37 people murdered; Palm Sunday, 2017, Egypt: Islamic bomb attack on two churches, 45 people murdered; Easter Sunday 2019, Sri Lanka: Islamic bomb attacks on three churches, more than 300 people murdered – that is just a tiny selection from an endlessly long series of murders. Despite this, there is still no remembrance day against hatred of Christians. That, we want to change [Drucksache 20/5368].

“Islamophobia” is a combat term of the Iranian terror master Khomeni. Yet there are three days of remembrance or action alone against this so-called “Islamophobia”: Of the UN, of the EU and in Germany. All of these remembrance days have the purpose of drumming into us that Moslems especially suffer under persecution. In that regard, Moslems are most persecuted not by some other religion, but primarily by Moslems of other orientations within Moslem states.

Götz Frömming (AfD): That is so!

The Islamic hatred of Christians is as old as Islam, and it claims countless human lives.

That this state of affairs is scarcely established in the people’s consciousness is not least to be  ascribed to the political-media complex. Yet hostility to Christians also enters where there is no state persecution of Christians, not least in Europe. The excesses of Islamic hostility to Christians reach us also: In France, the Interior Ministry alone in 2021 counted more than 800 anti-Christian criminal acts of which around 150 were spoliations of church buildings. France threatens to become a Menetekel. What is usual there will also overflow into neighboring countries like Germany. Just this week, an Islamist again committed an attack in a church – in a Spanish church: He murdered a sacristan and wounded a priest.

The German-Israeli author Chaim Noll deems that Europe needs to watch over its churches as we now already need to watch over our synagogues. The Isis beheading video ends with a view which shows the sea drenched with the blood of Christians. Mosebach writes of that – cite:

Many perpetrators of political violence in the past 100 years have hoped that a new world and new rectitude would come forth from streams of blood   

In regards these perpetrators of violence, it is primarily a matter of communists. There are still today Communist states. In China, North Korea and Cuba, we encounter in any case massive persecution of Christians.

Yet the political-media complex is not interested in solidarity with our brothers in faith throughout the world. Instead, it participates in the hostility to Christians, somewhat like Claudia Roth demanding the removal of the Bible verse from the cupola of the Berliner Stadtschloss.

            Peter Heidt (FDP): That must come!

In that regard, scarcely any religion is so peace-loving as Christianity with its rejection of worldly vengeance. Thus, religious minorities live nowhere so unmolested as in Christian countries. It is time that we demand such a freedom from fear [Unbelligtsein] for Christians worldwide.  

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): That you happen today to put such a motion! A disgrace!

 

[trans: tem]