Alexander Gauland, June 6, 2025, A Tragedy in Israel

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/11, pp. 911-912. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Helmut Schmidt, a German statesman whose stature is recalled with a certain nostalgia, 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): He unfortunately can no longer defend himself against you!

designated one decision as the most difficult of his political life. On September 5, 1977, RAF terrorists kidnapped the employers’ president Hanns Martin Schleyer and demanded of the Federal government the release of eleven imprisoned terrorists, otherwise Schleyer would need to die. Helmut Schmidt decided not to give in to the demands. He thus remained following the hijacking of the Landshut by Palestinian terrorists. The hostages on the Landshut could be freed, Hanns Martin Schleyer not. 

Helmut Schmidt acted as an actor in a tragedy. He knew whatever he did, he would be guilty. Yet his message was clear: One does not negotiate with terrorists. Terrorists are to be fought – with all means, ladies and gentlemen. 

Already by that time, German leftist extremists and Palestinian terrorists got along quite well. Their common enemy was and is the Western system. For them, Israel is a colonial state which should disappear from the map. In the DDR media, Israel seldom emerged without the epithet of “aggressor”. That as it happens the Linke now bring in this motion is suggestive of crocodile tears. Never could one with a better conscience be an anti-semite than presently. Never better understood are Islamist and leftist radicals than today [Nie konnte man mit besserem Gewissen Antisemit sein als derzeit. Nie verstanden sich islamische und linke Radikale besser als heute]. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): That says as it happens an AfD representative!

I want in no way to thereby say that all who criticize Israel’s proceedings in Gaza are anti-semites – um Gottes willen! I want only to thus say that there was never better times for the enemies of Jews to condemn Israel. 

In the German Bundestag, no formulation has been more frequently used than that of the German responsibility vis-à-vis the Jews and the Jewish state, which follows from the fact that in the name of Germany was attempted to make extinct the Jewish people. 

The National Socialists came horrifyingly far with that project.

           Ralf Stegner (SPD): “Vogelschiss”, what you then declared!

Today there are organizations in the Arab world which want to make extinct the Jewish state, thus continue Hitler’s work. At the head is the Hamas. Of their views, their members make no secret. They even publish the pictures of their acts of murder. The Hamas abuses civilians as defense shields. The Hamas takes the Palestinian people as a hostage. The Hamas has only one goal: The annihilation of Israel. 

Israel is a state under siege. May I therein remind you that in Israel live two million Arab Israelis, approximately 20 percent of the total population? Gaza was, however, free of Jews, and from Gaza have attacked those who would gladly have all Israel free of Jews. 

I can only here repeat what I in this place have often already said: It does not in my opinion pertain to us as Germans to condemn Israel when it defends itself against an aggressor who murders Jews and dreams of the extinction of the Jewish state. 

Germany in the years 2023 and 2024 alone transferred almost one billion euros to the Palestinians, as was produced by an inquiry of the FDP to the Federal government. From the EU in any case flows millions. From 2014 to 2020, UN organizations expended almost 4.5 billion dollars in the Gaza strip. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the aid supplied to the Palestinians between 1994 and 2020 was over 40 billion dollars. 

Gaza would have been able to become a blooming landscape. Instead of building schools and factories or founding businesses, the Hamas dug tunnels and built rockets – and on October 7, 2023, attacked Israel, massacred far over 1,000 civilians in bestial ways and put the pictures on  the internet. No one can persuade me that the Hamas has not justified a massive retaliation. I would quite well know how those who condemn Israel here in the hall, and primarily outside, would react had that been done to their children and family members. 

And I would also quite well know, ladies and gentlemen, how Israel should defend itself, without that also striking the innocent and civilians, those who were also struck by the bombing attacks of the Allies on Hamburg, Dresden, Cologne or Chemnitz. And yet we speak today rightly – and especially on the anniversary of the landing in Normandy – of liberation, and of that especially loudly by those who have brought in this motion. Henryk Broder has rightly put the question of the proportionality in such a war. 

There are in the Linke’s motion also naturally reasonable passages,

            Daniel Baldy (SPD): As opposed to your speech!

primarily in regards to the humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian assistance we of course support. Yet Israel cannot permit a two-state solution with the participation of the Hamas. Strictly speaking, Israel can no longer permit the existence of the Hamas [Israel kann streng genommen die Existenz der Hamas nicht länger zulassen]. That is the lesson from the history of the Gaza strip free of Jews. How long would it last until out of the Palestinian state rockets were again fired at Israel? 

Ladies and gentlemen, we in the West have forgotten in 80 years of peace what a tragedy is. We meanwhile designate every accident a tragedy. Yet the essence of tragedy lies in that the man who acts will be guilty. The conflict in a tragedy is insoluble. In Israel, a tragedy occurred. We should thank God that we are merely on-lookers, and need not redeem our lightly made promise that Israel’s security is part of our reason of state. Yet at least we should refrain from cheap condemnations in this situation. 

I am grateful.

  

[trans: tem]

Tomasz Froelich, June 16, 2025, Hungary

EU Parliament, Strasbourg,  P10 CRE-REV(2025)06-18(3-0243-0000) 

Herr President. 

Hungary is a sovereign state, Hungary defends traditional values, and Hungary has every right to ban the Pride, for it is right to protect children from sexual exhibitionism. You here contrive a tribunal against Orbán so as to divert from your own problems. Since not in Budapest are women gang raped, the caliphate is not proclaimed in Budapest, but truly in our cities, in Berlin, in Brussels, in Paris. Here, you shut your trap. Yet when Orbán does something which does not agree with you, you turn right around. 

You do not respect Hungary, you expect obedience. Who does not obey, will be sanctioned. That is like a social credit system on a supra-national level. In countries which were under the Soviet knout, that awakens evil memories; yet you don’t get it. You don’t understand how humiliating and arrogant your words act in Hungary, because you lack every cultural sensibility. Your variety is a simple-mindedness. Your tolerance applies only to those of the same opinion. You behave like colonial masters with imperialistic values, and you do not once notice it. Hands off Hungary! 

 

[trans: tem]

Rüdiger Lucassen, May 14, 2025, Defense Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/3, p. 132. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Besides broken election promises and announcements, nothing is put forward to us from black-red one week after the assumption of government. It may be objected: New governments need time – in that regard, two things: First. Germany does not have this time; every citizen of this country feels that. Second. Half of the Merz government is not at all new. The SPD election losers are stuck – with a small intermission – for 27 years in the Federal government. How long do you still require to show results? 50 years? No, right honorable colleagues, there is no no-hunting season in politics. We’ve heard enough excuses. The AfD grants the new government no training period. 

Chancellor Merz was just in Kiev and has made photographs with his new colleagues, promised further weapons deliveries, and demanded an armistice which was just like before rejected. For me, it made the impression as if this rebuff from Moscow had been intended so to continue the old Ampel course. Otherwise, so much foreign policy naïveté cannot be explained. The Kiev trip was thus only a PR ploy, nothing other. There were no new ideas, no acknowledgment of Realpolitik facts, and no readiness to reconsider the broken down wrong way of the previous government. You simulate strength where none is. That will not work. For the German defense policy, the new government’s prognostics are in any case at a standstill. All announcements, your coalition contract and the old Defense Minister’s justifying the acceptance, that will be no rupture. You say that quite openly and call it continuity. Only, this continuity has led the German defense policy, just so as our entire country, into the dead end. Your continuity means not only a standstill, but loss of substance. 

What Germany needs is plainly no further so, but a new approach which the Merz government cannot deliver, because it lacks the prerequisite for that, the will, free and sovereign, to take in  hand Germany’s future. For that is required the exact opposite of continuity. It requires courage, a smart  readiness to take risk, and an affirmation that Germany stands for itself [ein Bekenntnis zu Deutschland, das für sich selbst steht]. My party has entered the 21^st Bundestag with exactly this claim. Our next goal is clear: We want and will overtake the government in 2029, and put the German defense policy, without restriction, in the service of our country. 

For the AfD, our armed forces, the Bundeswehr is an expression and means of a sovereign national state. Our demand is that the Bundeswehr be in the position to defend Germany on the water, on the ground and in the air. The question is thus: Which prerequisite do we require for that? 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Cyberspace!

The answer of the old Defense Minister, we know – we’ve plainly heard it: More money. The result: An armed forces not capable of national defense. Our answer is a clear acknowledgment of Germany as a nation, a clear acknowledgment of the national state as the highest regulating framework, and a clear acknowledgment of the state as a servant of the nation. 

I have in the past eight years many times said: There is not only a materiel and personnel mission  readiness, but also one of ideas [ideelle]. Without an ideational mission readiness, even a fully equipped armed forces can never undergo a mission and a fight. Two examples: The Afghan national army was for 20 years armed and trained by NATO, and surrendered to a guerilla force in sandals in a few hours. The Ukrainian army fights for three years an opponent superior in materiel and personnel and holds out. With amazement, the CDU and SPD then stand before the Ukrainians’ will to fight, without asking themselves from where comes this will to fight. It is the soldiers’ undiminished relation [Bezug] with the country and people. 

Ladies and gentlemen, such a positive relation to one’s own nation is restrained by the self-named democratic middle, not only for our soldiers but also for our countrymen. You also restrain it for yourselves. At the same time, this positive relation is the clear acknowledgment of our grand country, which is what we require to again set Germany aright in defense policy, but also in all other policy fields. Precisely that, we of the AfD want to achieve and will at the latest by 2029 implement. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Boris Pistorius is representative of the new Federal government. He can ever only say what he wants to fight against: Against the Russians, against hate and agitation, against the AfD. Yet the AfD knows what is worth fighting for. Our soldiers know it also, their oath demands to bravely defend the German people. That is what is worth fighting for. 

Thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Götz Frömming, May 14, 2025, Cultural Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/3, pp. 109-110. 

Right honorable Frau Vice-president. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Immediately after me, the new Culture State Minister Wolfram Weimer will here make his first speech. I can say: We are very curious [gespannt], Herr Weimer. In the run up, it was reported that you are a conservative man and that here was negotiated an ideological decision to now name you Culture Minister. The talk was even of a shift to the right [Rechtsruck] and the beginning of a new Kulturkampf.

We find that astonishing in view of the fact that you replace Claudia Roth. More ideological than the previous culture policy under Claudia Roth, it can scarcely be, ladies and gentlemen. The talk of a shift to the right in the culture policy is therefore pure hypocrisy. A shift to the right considered from the standpoint of a Claudia Roth, that would be nothing further than a normalization. 

In fact in regards these accusations, it’s about the money. The culture scene is highly subventioned, without tax money it is scarcely viable. The Spiegel interpreted the naming of Weimer as “a prolongation of the minor inquiry” of the Union to the Federal government which is known under the shorthand, “551 questions”. Now the Federal government could itself answer these questions. We will remind you not to forget that.

We certainly expect from the new Federal government no shift to the right, ladies and gentlemen. An escape from the left would be fully sufficient. It would be fully sufficient if no more tax money flows into extreme leftist propaganda which passes itself off as art. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): So, really! What is that then?

 I know that you here feel yourselves addressed; that is also thus correct. 

The culture policy in the era of Frau Roth was not merely leftist, ladies and gentlemen, it was anti-German, anti-Christian, and was directed – we have previously heard – also against Israel. What we, with the documenta and during the Berlinale, needed to experience in anti-semitic invective was unbearable. It has never come to a real reappraisal of those events. 

Much thereof speaks that in regards to what we have seen, only the tip of the iceberg is dealt with. The leftist anti-semitism has more deeply penetrated the culture scene than many want to admit. Were it an anti-semitism coming from the right, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure Heaven and Hell would have long since been set in motion against it. 

We therefore welcome that the new State Minister, as a first act in office, has separated himself from the upper officials and confidants of his predecessor – I now leave the names aside. Their anti-Israel attitude was “known to the scene”, as the Judische Allgemeine recently wrote. 

So as to name one additional positive point: The agreement with the house of Hohenzollern on the storage place of art treasures is a good sign. Since let us look back: Frau Roth and the Greens wanted, as is known, to break up and re-name the Prussian Cultural Foundation. It meant nothing other than to eradicate Prussia. Frau Baerbock even let the Bismarck room in the Foreign Office be re-named. Frau Roth wanted to fade out [überblenden] the Christian inscription on the Berliner Schloss and have the cross on the roof preferably dismantled. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to the Greens, all is a horror which is German. Peoples and cultures they only accept when they are as foreign and exotic as possible. Yet who does not love his own, ladies and gentlemen, he cannot also respect the foreign. 

            Alice Weidel (AfD): Exactly!

 Herr Weimer, you see in Christianity, as you formulated, the opportunity for a “cultural renaissance of the West”. You thus clearly have concepts different from your predecessor and we are therein very curious. Primarily, we are curious as to how you will get along with Frau Nancy Faeser, who now as a kind of revenge of the SPD could possibly overtake the chairmanship of the Culture Committee so as to be able to there continue her fight against so-called disinformation which, ja, principally comes from her house. That will become an exciting show. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): What then is that for an unashamed imputation?

 Ladies and gentlemen, it is besides no political goal of the AfD to generally abolish the cultural subventions which were here and there maintained. It is merely our goal to end the one-sided political enlistment of theaters and other cultural institutions. We want to no rightist theater. We also want no leftist theater. We want an independent theater. 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): What you want is nevertheless not to be reconciled                        with artistic and cultural freedom! 

Ladies and gentlemen, the leftist daily newspaper taz fears, following the change of government, a headwind for many leftist cultural projects. We do not fear that. We even hope for it. To stay in the metaphor, ladies and gentlemen: He can really sail who also comes forward with a headwind. In this sense: Herr State Minister, make a steady wind [machen Sie ordentlich Wind]! In this regard, you can count on us. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Götz Frömming, May 22, 2025, Cultural Goods

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/7, pp. 540-541. 

Herr President. Herr State Minister. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The protection of cultural goods is a concern which we share. Nevertheless, this lofty aim ever again encounters the question: To whom belong culturally significant works of art actually? We in the past years have learned that to each people is due a right to its cultural goods, and these cultural goods if necessary need to be returned. If that however, ladies and gentlemen, applies for African peoples, so it needs also apply for our own people. 

Three years ago, our former Foreign Minister, in common with the then Federal Commissioner for Culture, handed over the so-called Benin Bronzes to the state of Nigeria. The Nigerian President immediately gave by decree the rights of ownership to the official Oba of Benin, and thereby to the private possession of the ruling family. In the U.S.A., there is a group of descendants of former slaves from Benin, who expressly rejected the return of the Bronzes, and indeed with the words – cite: As a result, the descendants of slaveholders receive a second opportunity to profit from the enslavement of people. It is embarrassing that the Federal government had a hand in that. 

Western ethnological museums for long saw therein their mission to preserve such cultural goods, to research and to make them accessible to the public. Today, all of that is colonial robbery art which needs to be given back, and then in the worst case disappears. Protection of culture can be very paradoxical, ladies and gentlemen.   

Let us look at the reverse case. The State Museum of Berlin and the Prussian State Library stored during the Second World War a large part of their inventory in places which today belong to Poland. The most well-known collection is the Berlinka, from the Prussian treasury, which is now to be found in Cracow. Among thousands of valuable, Middle Age manuscripts are writings of Luther, Goethe and Schiller – clearly, German national cultural goods. Ladies and gentlemen, these manuscripts need finally return to Germany. We expect your engagement, Herr State Minister. 

Additional German cultural goods are found in depositories and storerooms in Russia – presently difficult to access – and in the surrounding states, and in the Ukraine. Why actually has the Federal government not demanded, in consideration for our billions in assistance payments to the Ukraine, the return of the art still to be found there, among which are valuable paintings and precious porcelains; for example, from Dresden? These cultural goods also belong to us, and we gladly want it back. 

Ladies and gentlemen, an inquiry of the AfD delegation has yielded that also in Georgia German cultural goods are still to be found. 70,000 books have been found in a cellar of the University of Tiflis. This treasure was offered to the Federal Republic of Germany, yet the gift was rejected. Supposedly, it is too expensive to restore these books. I need be quite astonished. Recently, the Elders Council decided, in compensation for members’ air travel, to pay hundreds of thousands of euros to water swamps and for cooking pots for Rwanda. Ladies and gentlemen, this money should have better been used for the German cultural goods, in this case in Georgia. 

            Rebecca Lenhard (Greens): That is repulsive!

There are still further examples; for example, the Paramentenschatz [liturgical vestments]. Here, we have a cultural good in the hands of the church; the state has not the least access. The Evangelical Church decided to simply give it away. Here unfortunately, the law put forward does not have effect. We see here a need for subsequent improvement. 

Ladies and gentlemen, let me in closing say: We should grant all peoples and nations have the right to the conservation of their respective cultural goods. Yet we have not only the right, but also the obligation to conserve our own culture and all cultural goods which the German people have created. We owe that to our ancestors and to the generations which come after us. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Anja Arndt, April 1, 2025, Christians in the Congo

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)04-01(2-0571-0000). 

Frau President. 

On February 12^th occurred in the Congo a horrific massacre: Seventy Christians – men, women and children – were kidnapped by the Islamist ADF militia and in barbaric ways and means murdered with machetes and hammers. This Islamist brutality is no single instance. I thank the Commission that it makes this terror a theme here, and finally commits itself to the religious freedom and security of Christians. 

In the Congo, 95 percent of the population are Christians; in Europe, it is 72 percent. Despite this overwhelming majority, they are selectively eradicated. And with us, Islamist murders as in Aschaffenburg, Mannheim und Solingen are a gruesome reality. My compassion is for all victims and relatives among us, in the Congo and in the entire world. 

The EU needs to come to terms with this violence. It needs to be the advocate of the Christians – with more secure borders, a clearer rigor against Islamists and an authentic protection. Germany needs the AfD, and Europe needs the Europe of Sovereign Nations. 

 

[trans: tem]

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 Selbstbild 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]