Marc Jongen, March 31, 2025, Academic Freedom

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)03-31(1-0158-0000). 

Madam President, so the Trump administration in the United States is threatening academic freedom? This claim by the European Commission and some MEPs here is pure hypocrisy. Where was the outcry from the EU and the academia in Europe when more and more non-leftist scientists in the US were dismissed or forced to resign by their radical colleagues and the left-wing student mob simply because they didn't bow to the woke ideology? Bret Weinstein, Joseph Manson and Mike Adams even committed suicide. The wokeness virus has taken over US academia and in Europe it's also widespread, including its cancel culture. 

If President Trump now takes action against the intolerant and unscientific gender ideology, if he stops DEI programmes that discriminate white people and also restricts the dogmatic, almost religious climate research, then he's taking measures that help restore scientific freedom, not suppress it. We need such measures in Europe too.

 

Alexander Gauland, March 18, 2025, Merz, CDU and Germany

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/214, pp. 27761-24462. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

In the course of this debate, on the previous Thursday as well as today, much which is correct and also false has been said. A new assessment by me is therefore not needed. Allow me then to make a couple of personal remarks. 

Herr Merz and I were for many years in the same party. I went, because I could no longer bear the destruction by Angela Merkel of the CDU as a conservative-liberal, bürgerliche alternative to the left-green mainstream. Herr Merz was a victim of her will to power. 

I grant, ladies and gentlemen, that I therefore expected much of his return to politics: A different economic and social policy, a reversal of false developments, like the illegal mass immigration to the exit from atomic power and the combustion engine. 

            Andreas Mattfeldt (CDU/CSU): That is coming! All comes!

My idea – you call it a vision – was that Germany receives a Politik of reason and judgment, thus a middle-right Politik, like many people in this country wish it as evidenced by the election results. 

            Andreas Mattfeldt (CDU/CSU): Yet you have only a hostile goal!

Instead, Herr Merz, you’ve erected a firewall, which today and in the future makes you prisoners of left-green social alterations. So as to get into the Chancellor’s Office, you have sacrificed everything that was still conservative or bürgerlich in the CDU, and your voters to whom you gave your word on the debt brake, you have betrayed with billions of euros at the pump. Seldom, ladies and gentlemen, has bügerlicher decency been so quickly replaced by political cynicism. 

Herr Merz, that you do not listen to me is fully clear. Yet you would have been able to listen to Andreas Rödder, the earlier chairman of your basic values commission, who in the Welt am Sonntag wrote precisely the same in the album of the CDU. 

You will, Herr Merz, apparently become Chancellor with a Politik like we have experienced in recent years. And this Politik will exactly so fail as that of the subsiding Ampel. Not even your transatlantic allies in Washington support your dubious efforts to solve today’s problems with yesterday’s answers. Such a change of times [Zeitenwende], dear Herr Merz, will only be with us, not with the failures of yesterday. 

And if in recent years I ever again had doubt in my own party, today I am proud and glad to have stood with others as godparent to it in the year 2013. For since this week is it clear: The Merz CDU is the continuation of the Merkel CDU – a further so, Herr Merz, in Germany’s downfall, for which you in the future need to answer. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, March 13, 2025, Finances and Values

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/213, pp. 27703-27704. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

We live in historic times. Yet no applicant for the Chancellor’s office in so brief a time has broken so many election promises as you, Herr Merz. Border controls, you no longer want, refusals certainly not. Deportation of those obliged to leave? Nonsense! Debt brake? Away with it, even though it is in your election program. You will enter history as the gravedigger of the debt brake which you in the election campaign just as vehemently as mendaciously defended. 

Without consideration, you sacrifice the well-being of the citizens so by hook or crook to become Chancellor. You have therein agreed with the SPD, the great election loser, to approve beforehand the largest debts package since the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Around one trillion euros – 1,000 billion – which is just so unclear as your entire profile. You want to force that through with an unscrupulous attack on our constitution and on democratic legitimacy, which you, with the dubious special sessions and rush jobs, make contemptible. 

Because the election results do not suit you, you again bring in the old Bundestag – thus, forces which the voters voted out and punished – with whose help you want to tie the hands of the newly elected Bundestag by means of a trillion in additional debt. These procedures show your contempt for the will of the voters. These procedures derive from your contempt for the democratic legitimization process, and these procedures derive from your character, Herr Merz. 

500 billion euros of special debts which you re-classify as “special funds” [Sondervermögen] for barely defined infrastructure measures and for the nullification of the debt brake, and for additional, in any case not more precise, defense expenditures in a similar sum, yet without an upper limit, and debts for climate protection so as to purchase the assent of the Greens. That is a gigantic mortgage with which you have indebted the coming generations who need to answer for this spending frenzy. 

With your blank check rises the debt burden per taxpayer – this value is more significant than the usually given per capita indebtedness – from today’s 58,500 euros to over 77,700 euros, that is an increase of 33 percent. Measured by GDP, Gross Domestic Product, Germany’s debt burden with your coup will rise from the present 64 percent to over 85 percent, and that is nothing other than a financial policy coup d’état which you here manage. 

The German government bond is valued as a risk-free benchmark for the costs of borrowing in the euro area. Germany’s financial policy change of course thus has negative effects on the risk premiums of German state bonds; that is to say: We will need to pay higher interest rates. 

At the announcement of your plans, the return for ten-year German government bonds rose in one day around 16 basis points, and in one week until today over 50 basis points – and that, even though the ECB had previously again reduced the interest rates 25 basis points. You thereby not only shrink the scope of action of future governments and drive the German state finances into derangement. By your actions you put at risk the creditworthiness of Germany in the international financial market. 

You thereby similarly endanger the house of cards of the weak euro currency, the existence of which is still primarily based on the present triple-A top credit. Germany will lose this triple-A rating as a result of your irresponsibility, Herr Merz. The interest rates will go through the roof and the euro will be devalued with massive consequences for the people. People in this country will be paying for that by higher interest rates on mortgages, through higher rents and rising prices for import goods for production and consumption. 

Your reasonings are just as pretentious as mendacious, as we’ve heard here today. You conjure up an ostensible “suddenly altered world situation” and stir up a war panic so as to intimidate and make pliant the citizens. It is the same cheap manipulation with which earlier governments have supported themselves in the Corona hysteria and the climate mania so as to justify the massive expansion of state spending and the limitations of freedom. And you commit this grotesque enormity just at this moment when the U.S.A. and Russia are about to end the mass death in the Ukraine, while you, the black-red-green coalition, want to there unconcernedly sink financial aid and armaments. 

Yes, it is right: Germany needs to do more for its defense capability so as to create an army which does not just devour money but is also fully mission-ready for the defense of the country. Yet required for that is no debts watering can, which will be exactly so thrown away as the first so-called special funds. Required for that is first a strategy, and then targeted expenditures. To recruit motivated soldiers, required is not only money, but a positive, patriotic Selfbild of one’s own nation and one’s own army. For a woke, leftist ideology will no one give his life. 

And right: Germany urgently needs to invest in its neglected and rotting infrastructure. I ask myself: What in the last decades have you actually done as you were in the government? Yet also for that, a previously manipulated in the budget law, 500 billion euro shunting station is not the solution. Infrastructure and defense are core duties of state action. To appropriately finance them, the priorities of state expenditures need to be correctly set. 

A total state income in taxes and duties of over two trillion euros does not signify the solution of still more debt, but to rigorously slash superfluous spending. Thus eliminate all incentives for immigration into the social system. End the illegal immigration by closing the borders. Concern yourselves for a turning back without exception and a consistent sending back. End the horrendous subventions for climate protection and the failed energy change. Eliminate all payments to so-called NGOs, which in truth are not when they are dependent on state money. In this way, you can liberate a three-figure billion contribution in the budget to invest in infrastructure, defense and domestic security, and nevertheless still reduce taxes. 

Your exploratory paper negotiated with the Social Democrats is a declaration of capitulation before the green-socialist desires for which you have thrown overboard nearly all of your election promises. One may well ask, what you still want to offer the Greens after you submissively threw yourself on your knees. What you have charged to social and economic policy bears throughout the handwriting of the SPD and the Greens: Redistribution, subventions, state interference, Verbote. For this lamentable result, you betrayed your voters, ripped wide open the debts sluices and damaged the constitution. 

This voter fraud and this attack on democracy you’ve publicly planned with care. The unworthy presentation which you delivered here, Herr Merz, sounds now like an end-stage, black Ampel. It happens, just as each time it has happened: Those who vote for the CDU get presented with a left-green Politik. 

Because you cling to the firewall, you deliver yourself over to green-left-red majorities. You arrogantly show contempt for the votes of over ten million voters, who voted for the AfD, and thus for a political new beginning right of center. The duties, to which you have not awoken, continue to lie at hand: To correct the failed leftist policy which has led the country to loss of prosperity, de-industrialization, collapse of domestic security, collapse of infrastructure and public order. The wrong way of mass migration, squandering of tax money, and a planned economy, is to be left behind. We need to again bring Germany to the right way. 

We of the AfD are unalterably ready to take up these duties and assume responsibility, yet not with you, Herr Merz, and also not with the Union which maintains you as Chancellor candidate and a left-green policy. Render to this country, Herr Merz, a service, a quite great service: Give up wanting to become Chancellor. Since you cannot do it. On this point, Angela Merkel was right. Your time has run out, before you’ve at all begun. The Union should separate itself from you – for the good of our country and the good of their party; since you cannot do it. Why, Herr Merz? Because you have no principles and no values.

 

I am grateful.

 

 

 

[trans: tem]

Steffen Kotré, December 18, 2024, Germany and Syria

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/206, pp. 26598-26599. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

In contrast to the Federal government, an AfD delegation five years ago traveled to Syria so as to there form a picture of the situation. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Assad!

It was quickly clear: The western sanctions destroy the country and primarily affect the people. Syria was one of the wealthiest countries of the region. There was schooling without cost, a good healthcare system, relative freedom of religion and the doors of houses were never locked. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Such rubbish!

And then came the civil war with support of the West. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Unbelievable!

The U.S.A. has diligently exploited the oil resources, and Turkey then supported the Islamists. It was a service of the Russians which weakened the Islamic State, if not having entirely defeated it. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Rubbish! That is such idiocy! Radio Moscow!

Following the logic of my preceding speaker, Herr Kuhle, it thus needed be that the “Islamic State” now should govern in Syria. 

Sara Nanni (Greens): What then brings you to the point that you tell such idiocy here? Unbelievable!

Or how should I understand it? And if he means that migration here is to be used as a weapon: It is nevertheless exactly the Federal government which has made possible this mass migration, 

Sara Nanni (Greens): The butcher Assad, whom you visited, he drove the people to flight. Already forget?

and thereby employed it as a weapon against our society; it is nothing other. Yet one thing was already then clear; namely, what German interests are: 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): It is pretty clear what your interests here are!

Reconstruction of the country and a repatriation of Syrian migrants. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Nazis raus!

The AfD already then had a time table which just now is being slowly taken over by the Federal government: 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Herr Kotré, what then are your interests?

Setting up channels of communication and a step-by-step taking up of diplomatic relations, re-opening the German embassy, lifting the sanctions which primarily affect the people, access to international payments commerce, a reconstruction plan in common with all international partners and with inclusion of the German Mitteslstand           

Sara Nanni (Greens): Your colleague from Hamburg, is she not in a WG with Assad, or how need I imagine that? The living room slowly becomes scarce!

and, lastly, remigration and re-integration of all Syrians living with us – but then in Syria; Syrians who have not integrated with us are those thereby meant. Yet Syrians who have integrated with us, and who recognize the Basic Law, who themselves provide their livelihood, are heartily welcome. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Ja, all heartily welcome. That shines from you!

Yet unfortunately that is not the largest group. And the lie, that every Syrian would be a skilled worker, nevertheless has long since collapsed. 

            Karamba Diaby (SPD): No one said that!

Why is the remigration 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): There it is again, that word!

of Syrians unwilling to integrate in the German interest; before all things, in the interest of our pensioners? 

Sara Nanni (Greens): Whom do you mean? The pensioners who are cared for by Syrian refugees, or whom do you mean?

We have approximately one million Syrians in the country. Their employment rate [Erwerbsquote] is slight. The Germans are working quasi for the Syrians. And when the Syrians have work, it is rather in the low wage sector. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): Like the over 5,000 doctors?

They will have to rely on social beneifts and tax money, at the latest until pensioned. The average costs of the annual sums run in a total of approximately 25 billion euros. What does this sum signify? The sum signifies that in two years the entire school grounds in Germany could be restored. 

            Jörg Nürnberger (SPD):  You yourself do not believe that!

Among the Syrians are terrorists; even Frau Merkel has admitted that. Essen, Solingen, Bad Oeynhausen – the worst perpetrators are Syrians. 

            Till Steffen (SPD): You can tell that to Putin! 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): And the biggest Nazis are German!

Among the Syrians are many who reject our free, democratic, basic order. 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): Toss out the criminals from your delegation just for once! Who then sits there?

In Stuttgart and Hamburg, thousands have clearly positioned themselves with cries of “Allahu-Akbar” at Christmas markets – anti-democratic, disdaining our customs, traditions and practices, seizing power, and ultimately with a claim of forcing all others to the wall. Every one of these needs to be deported, ladies and gentlemen. 

And the German law demands remigration. The Syrians have no right to asylum. They have a subsidiary status as refugees. With the end of the civil war and the fall of Assad, their residency right has expired, since the refugee status has fallen away. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Assad, your pal!

It is thereby automatically given that they need to leave our country, 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): AfD, Assad for Deutschland!

since no EU law supports that deportations somehow be opposed. That, from humanitarian viewpoints, naturally needs to follow, that is fully clear. Germany in this regard is quite generous, and will support the reconstruction and thereby the future perspectives in Syria. That means, reconstruction, future perspectives and the return of Syrians are united with one another. 

            Till Steffen (SPD): You can take the lead and make everything nice!

The HTS, the new leadership in Syria, is an Islamist organization; a bounty of 10 million euros has been set for its leader. Yet many Syrians here in the country celebrated Assad’s fall. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Unlike you!

They thereby show that they have no problem 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your speaking time is up. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Thank God!

that now, as the Federal government names the leadership there, rebels govern.

 

Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Please sit down and be calm. All have more,                                     Herr Kotré! Really! 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your speaking time, Herr Kotré, is up.

Therefore: Remigration can save human lives. The AfD demands the repatriation and thereby represents the people’s interests           

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Stop speaking! 

Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: The speaking time is up, even if you simply speak. I can next turn off your microphone.

and those of well integrated foreigners. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

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]