Christine Anderson, March 9, 2026, Political Speech Regulation

EU Parliament, March 9, 2026 

Written questions to EU Commission E-001160/2026 

Documents disclosed in a report from the US House Judiciary Committee show that, as part of the EU Internet Forum, the Commission promoted a handbook of borderline content in relation to violent extremism that explicitly classifies ‘populist rhetoric’, ‘anti-EU content’, ‘anti-elite content’, ‘political satire’, ‘meme subculture’ and ‘anti-LGBTIQ content’ as problematic categories to be monitored or limited by platforms, even though these are in themselves lawful forms of political or social expression. 

1. How does the Commission justify equating lawful Eurosceptic or anti-establishment speech and political satire with ‘violent extremism’ in an official handbook, and on what precise legal basis did it urge platforms to use these categories for content moderation beyond what is strictly illegal under EU or national law? 

2. What safeguards did the Commission put in place to ensure that such guidance would not result in systematic discrimination against peaceful opposition movements, conservative viewpoints on migration and gender, or satirical criticism of EU institutions and policies?

Anna Rathert, January 29, 2026, Strength – German and American

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/56, pp. 6715-6716. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Greens lay before us today an interesting motion – not interesting because it offers solutions, but because it reveals their worldview. The text reads like a cry for help. You note that with President Trump, an administration has entered Washington which openly says: “America First”, and no longer manages an international Politik supposedly based on rules, but is again lead by interests. 

Behind that stands a democratic reality; the majority of the Americans have voted for this course. Who finds that unbearable, he needs to learn to deal with it, not to moralize. In your motion, you fear crises and conflicts are intensified when protection and support structures erode. The entire German Politik is fixated on an international protection and support system because it is not dared to stand up for our German fatherland which itself, from itself, can bring forth strength. It is still plainly here, and it is everywhere, even in this house: The old fear of a strong Germany. That is a fallacy [Denkfehler] in which Germany sickens. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): With you, there can be no talk of thought [Denken]!

Departure is taken from material substance in the form of nuclear power, strong industry and economic performance, and one is lost in a system of international organizations like, for example, the EU. Of course, one needs also to affirm protective, rules-based orders without which one fears not to be able to assert oneself against a stronger partner. These orders should guarantee against crises. Yet crises and conflicts do not escalate because somewhere an assistance fund is lacking, or one international resolution too few was issued. Crises escalate because strength is lacking, which is needed for a natural balance of power between states: Economic strength, technological and energy policy strength, a functioning infrastructure: Deutsche Bahn, electricity supply, deterrence and defense capability, and a resilient inner order which is supported socially and culturally. 

You say the Federal government may not continue to belittle itself and needs to self-consciously formulate and represent our interests and values. Ja, nothing would be better than that. We need finally to begin to formulate national German interests, and indeed such which makes us strong and independent; yet that does not go with the self-overestimate put forward here by you. You do not seriously want to explain to the Americans how democracy and economy work 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): It would be sufficient if you would grasp it!

when you here in this country observe the opposition, and are just about de-industrializing Germany. 

            Deborah Düring (Greens): We are, besides, no longer in the government!                                                 A little side note.

Your approach for negotiations as equals is completely wrong. For you are evident the motion’s achievements which, as it happens, are what just forced Germany to its knees: Verbote, de-industrialization by energy policy, supply chain law, over-regulation, the forest protection decree – all of which weaken performance and international commerce. 

Who wants to understand America needs to grasp a historic fact: The United States generally first originated and later became a world power because it has economically and militarily asserted itself. And precisely this ability to succeed [Durchsetzungsfähigkeit] they also expect from their counterparts. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): That is just an intellectual solar eclipse!

There is respect in Washington not for appeals, but for strength and self-responsibility. 

Germany on the other hand acts like a late-stage teenager: Making claims and preaching morality, yet little readiness to take up the responsibility for its own sovereignty. As equals  plainly means first build up one’s own strength, and then talk. 

            Vincenz Glaser (Linke): What is your strength? Contact with Russia?

Who only makes demands, and at the same time makes prescriptions, will not be taken seriously. 

And still one thing: If you really find so unbearable a relationship as that of Trump, as you here argue, then you would especially need to make Germany strong and independent, as you were in government responsibility. Yet that you did not do. That, the present Federal government also  does not do – and now you live stuck with the consequences. 

We as the Alternative für Deutschland stand for the antithesis: To again make Germany capable by use of nuclear power, to be reliable, and then negotiate, sovereign, as equals – not to lecture, but to achieve. That goes only with us, and thus our time is just beginning. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, March 10, 2026, EU Defense Policy

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)03-10(2-0350-0000). 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The European Union loves crises. For crises are a wonderful means of carrying through extraordinary political measures. The typical hallmarks of the crisis rhetoric are, first, the existential threat: Climate death, Corona death, Russian death. Second, the time pressure: We must immediately act! Third, the asserted lack of alternative. And, fourth, the character of the measure itself: Strong state intervention, new laws, a common debts program and, before all, the centralization of political power. 

The EU has thus used all crises since 2008 so as to drive forward the statehood of the Union: The finance and banking crisis, the climate crisis, the refugee crisis, and the Corona crisis. The Russian invasion of the Ukraine in February 2022 was a propitious opportunity to summon up the next crisis: The security crisis and defense emergency. Under the banner of the European security, the next great integration step will be prepared: An internal market for armaments, a common procurement, ever closer military integration. This is sold to us as pragmatic efficiency measure, as a technological necessity, as a rational step. 

In truth, it is a matter of something quite other: A political project. Since as soon as defense industries and military planning are interwoven with one another, dependencies arise which are scarcely to be rescinded. Then integration will no more be decided politically, it will be structurally compelled. With other words: An ostensible threatening situation is used so as to more closely and irreversibly interlock the member states one with another. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Alternative für Deutschland expressly supports the goal of Europe’s strategic autonomy. The acquisition of the required military capabilities is however a fundamental decision, not a crisis project. The planned measures for the erection of an internal defense market will therefore not be supported by the ESN delegation. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, January 30, 2026, Konrad Adenauer

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

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

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

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

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

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

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

            Boris Mijatovic (Greens): Aha!

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

            Paula Piechotta (Greens): That is historisch!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, February 11, 2026, Slovakia

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

Frau President. 

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

 

[trans: tem]

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

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

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

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

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

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

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

Fritz Merz and many other political powers. 

            Marcel Bauer (Linke): And Stefan Brandner!

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

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

4,500 proceedings in year 2024. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you pause the time which continues, gladly. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[trans: tem]

Markus Frohnmaier, December 19, 2025, U.S. National Security Strategy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/51, pp. 6139-6140. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The foreign policy spokesman of the CDU, Jürgen Hardt, lost himself [verstieg sich] in a remarkable analysis of the new National Security Strategy of the United States. He called it – and I cite: “AfD nonsense”, which somehow found access into American strategy. You hear correctly: In the bizarre, imaginary world of the Union, the AfD is no longer only remote-controlled from Moscow. No, now we even guide the pen of U.S. President Donald Trump for his National Security Strategy. We are the auto-pen, when wanted. 

Who looks away from CDU propaganda to reality nevertheless quickly recognizes: Godfather of the strategy was not the AfD, but healthy human understanding. 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): Nice that you confirm the distinction.

In the introduction, it says – Listen: “The purpose of foreign policy is the protection of the core national interests; that is the sole focus of this strategy” [*https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf, 1]. A sentence like a rock, a sentence for the ages! And now compare this sentence for once with the expressions of Foreign Minister Wadephul this week, who justified the flying in of Afghans at taxpayers expense. Wadephul said, I cite: “I see in each refugee a creature of God.” 

            Peter Beyer (CSU/CSU): Do you see it differently?

Herein appears the fundamental rupture. The U.S.A. makes an interests-guided Realpolitik, the Federal government continues to make a values-guided, feelings policy. Only the flavor has been shifted a bit. Under the Green Baerbock, the foreign policy was feminist, under the Christian Democrat Wadephul, it is now pastoral. Church day sayings are Wadephul’s foreign policy offering. That is no policy change, and that is no “left is past”. That is old wine in new bottles. 

Donald Trump said what the German foreign policy for decades sought to deny: States have no friends, states also have no values, at least not in foreign policy. States have interests. And who believes foreign policy is a study circle for values friendships, he errs not only like the Union, but treads underfoot our German interests. 

            Deborah Düring (Greens): Which interests do you then represent?

The misfortune of values-guided foreign policy is chronic double-morality and impotence. Frau Baerbock was so feminist that she fed the Islamist regime of al-Julani in Syria with millions of euros of German tax money. In thanks, the latter refused to shake her hand and ordered the massacre of minorities. A truly great moment in feminist diplomacy. 

Wadephul prates: “Each refugee is a creature of God.” Yet does he overtake every refugee on this planet to Germany? Naturally not, even if the Union would perhaps gladly do it. Such statements are thus cheap courage free of cost. Out of the mouth of a German foreign minister, they are a declaration of political bankruptcy. At the end of the day, you sell to the population values promises which in the hard reality are not to be kept, and which, with permission, in the migration policy also should not be kept. 

How refreshingly clear on the other hand is the U.S. American strategy. Cite: 

            “We want full control over our borders, over our immigration system,                                        and over transportation networks through which people come to our                                                          country – legally and illegally.”[*, 3]

Why exists no German paper which expresses this self-evident thing, why does there exist no German paper which clearly says this? A glance at the government bench here delivers the answer: This government has no strategy, this government is incapable of strategy. 

It is revealing there is just one, single area in which the CDU/CSU is suddenly not at all interested in political values. Cite from the U.S. Strategy: 

            “The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and                      other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty,               migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife,                                                   censorship of free speech, and” 

– listen well, dear colleagues of the Union –

             “suppression of political opposition, cratering of birthrates, and loss of national                                      identities and self-confidence.” [*, 25] 

End citation from the U.S. Security Strategy.

Ja, ladies and gentlemen, your anti-democratic, even wicked machinations do not remain hidden on that side of the Atlantic. A wrong word on the net? House search! Criticism of migration? A case for the Constitution Defense! Engagement in an association? Only with the correct party book! Election success of the opposition? Verbieten! – that is your policy. You have changed Germany into a attitude-state, into a woke, open-air prison. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD):  Rubbish!

And when the U.S.A. holds up the mirror to you, you react with whining and are outraged. That is the hideous reality which you yourselves have created. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): You don’t believe that yourself! You yourself                                need to laugh!

In that regard, it would nevertheless be so simple. The Americans write, cite: 

            “America [Die Vereinigten Staaten] is, understandably, sentimentally [emotional]                                        attached to the European continent” [*, 26] 

Naturally, since it is ultimately so that descendents of Europeans have settled the American continent. Therefore: Who so acts as to estrange America from Europe, who estranges the growing child from the parents, he lies. America does not estrange itself. Yet America has no  desire for parents who have given up. America has no interest in European and German self-abnegation. Unlike you, the U.S.A. wants no Europe, no Germany, which degenerates into an authoritarian, Islamized Moloch, incapable of alliance. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Such rubbish!

What Washington demands is nothing new. It is something which my party, the AfD, demands for many years in this house. Dear colleagues, finally end the course of civilizational self-abnegation. The U.S. strategy is no affront, the U.S. strategy is a blueprint. We require no priggish church day sayings, 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): Were you ever at a church day, Herr Frohnmaier? 

we require a return to Realpolitik, 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Where actually is your delegation? 

we require a Politik which our border, our sovereignty, 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Not ten people are there! 

and our identity defends without compromise. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Where are the people? 

Ladies and gentlemen – and to the hecklers in this place – I can only simply say again to you: Listen for once! Then perhaps even your Politik finally becomes better. You would thereby render to the citizens in Germany at Christmas a great service; since the citizens in Germany have a nose full of the bad Politik of the old parties. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Weak speech!

 

[trans: tem] 

[*https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf]

Tomasz Froelich, January 20, 2026, Human Rights

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)01-20(2-0515-0000). 

Frau President. 

The EU has understood nothing: Geopolitically irrelevant, economically ever weaker, demographically catastrophic. Yet still self-conscious enough so as to tutor the entire world. You want more money for NGOs? Why? To de-stabilize countries which you you don’t like –  “regime change” inclusive. You explain abortion as a human right. Thus the birth-rates break down. You complain of the global recession of democracy. Yet in Europe elections are annulled, politicians are excluded from these, party bans are pondered. You want to force gender ideology on the whole world. Zero respect for national sovereignty. Zero respect for other cultures. As a patriot, I respect other cultures. I only do not want that they replace mine. That makes for  variety. You only talk about it. You want simplicity [Einfalt]. You want that the whole world dances to your pipe. That is values imperialism. That is neo-colonialism. That is unsympathetic. That is arrogant. That is a reason Europe becomes ever more irrelevant. Shame! We require no  action plan for human rights and democracy. We require an action plan for Realpolitik, for remigration, and for re-industrialization. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tobias Peterka, December 18, 2025, NGO Finance

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/50, pp. 5860-5862. 

Frau President. Dear citizens. 

A ghost haunts Germany – ominous, it is in every mouth, yet is difficult to hold. It is the much cited civil society. Ascribed to this strange tautology are indeed magical powers: It can in an instant save our democracy, and conveniently has the ever exactly correct, thus leftist opinion and agenda. – Let there be an end to this ghost story from the ARD and ZDF! Every awake ten year old meanwhile knows that there is with us a public, state-promoted, opinion guideline 

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): What nonsense!

and is beside the reality which every citizen sees if he does not, like you for example, go through life with eyes closed. For precisely that reason is required this motion [Drucksache 21/3301] for the installation of a formal investigating committee. For precisely that reason, we need to illuminate and without compromise clean out the state and party entanglements with so-called NGOs. The term “non-governmental organization” degenerates in a Germany with open eyes into a joke. There are according to strict socialist logic of course many governmental front organizations, 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes, you know about that!

financially and careerist wired with Greens, SPD and those still more unappetizing. The approach is not complicated: It is simply the old left approach, “Public funds are enough there”, perverted and driven to the extreme. In any case, typically leftist are the lying leaders with Democracy on the banner, wanting to stifle precisely that. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes, you know about “stifle democracy”!                                                            That is your theme!

You attack the party strongest in the polls nationwide with financed snipers because meanwhile you quite precisely know that, by fair means, no more cabbage is to be grown against us. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Financed snipers from Moscow, you take care of yourself!

You thereby undermine the most basic rules of democracy; and that, we can no longer accept. Here you can cry as you want; you thereby only confirm it. 

The famous Federal program “Democracy live!”, for example, received in the last years over 600 million euros. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): “Democracy Live!” is a problem for you! You want                            “Democracy die!”

It will be so passed on according to practice to thousands of project functions of which the government, according to its own statement, has not the least data. There is often simply some price tag; since Antifa phrases and pedigrees were besides always more important in regards the top jobs. Listen! – “Frau Klingbeil” co-directs the Initiative D21, and “Herr Göring-Eckardt” United4Rescue. Naturally all selflessly for the cause, it is understood. 

            Dirk Wiese (SPD): You member Wenzel Schmidt made 450 euros. Do you say                                         something on that? You want to exclude him, I hear.

By countless NGOs melded to ministries and incited against the opposition are citizens vilified, doing the very thing you accuse us of, namely dividing to your heart’s content – and before all before the Bundestag election. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): How is it actually with your intra-delegation democracy?             May Herr Lucassen at all still come? Or has he received from you a ban from the                hall?

To the dear Union which here is silently suspect. You at the time had correctly recognized this. 500 questions were fired broadside at Scholz and Habeck. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): 551!

Yet what then happened? Scarcely had the powder smoke blown away, and one sailed with the SPD into the coalition harbor and once again fraternally divvied up the tax money. Bravo! That, I name betrayal of truthfulness and a willingness to explain – actually, ur-conservative values.           

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Your speech is an insult to every true conservative!

The voters meanwhile precisely know: It is still found at the CDU/CSU at most with a microscope. At least vote for our motion now! Unless of course you want the hanky-panky to continue, which in the end – this, you precisely know – will be directed against you. Still, it is perhaps not too late. 

Because the same was again intended, we wanted to prevent droll democracy workshops and youth formation – which for the AfD ultimately have something against an authentic, free democracy. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): Yet you too want public funds!

We ever again vehemently demand a Bürger society without GEZ broadcasting, leftist spying, or fear in the workplaces; further, direct democracy and the direct election of high state officials. Your mudslinging at this impeccable stance meanwhile falls back on you. The citizens are not so blind and immature as you would gladly have them. I am thus really excited – from you, the Linke, I know it – by what next from the Union here will be led into the field. 

What is, for example, with an authentic condition of democracy, the recognition of the Basic Law by means of diverse Antifa projects? Does that perhaps come sometime, or would that still be too much spotlight on networks shy of the light, which reach deep into hardened anti-semitism?           

            Helge Limburg (Greens): “Light-shy networks”, “anti-semitism”. All precisely                                        your themes! 

            Katrin Fey (Linke): Anti-semitism comes from the right!

Or perhaps again comes punctually at the State legislative elections anti-right advertising via the Federal websites, as 14 days before the Bundestag election at the Federal Family Ministry? 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): How many of your communications politicians are actually             active in terrorist associations? Tell us that for once! How many of your members                were investigated on account of accepting foreign money? How many of the AfD’s                Bundestag offices have actually been already searched?

May perhaps the BUND, promoted with millions, be called upon, besides climate propaganda, to protest against everything right of center? 

For you, is it okay that HateAid and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation agitate against everything conservative, 

            Katrin Fey (Linke): That’s not right! You’re not conservative!

and still laugh yourselves sick that BlackRock Man Merz, with bended knee, empowers you with the purse? Apparently, the answer is “ja”. 

Since: Where is the moratorium, the draining of the swamp by means of a guidelines competence? It will not come, since then the therein ailing SPD would immediately be at the battlements. When already the wicked right citizens push old auntie in the direction of single digits, 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): That is beloved democracy! And you want to exterminate it!

then the preparation still needs be a bit further cultivated out of sozi-green student teachers and violent Antifas. Clearly, that might run under an orderly retreat. And, here and there, you could still do it, 

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): We are not like you, Herr Peterka! We are not like you!

as it was at peak woke, thus total air supremacy of the leftist dementia, like before Corona. Yet you know quite precisely: This time is past, and will with luck never come again. 

Thus: Let us wind up this swamp! Since in one thing even your troops are right: From history, one must learn. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Your speaking time is exceeded, and therefore your                                           speech is to end.

Let’s tackle it so that a self-service in our country can never again occurs. 

Many thanks.

 

 

[trans: tem]

Gottfried Curio, December 3, 2025, Naturalization Fraud

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/46, pp. 5362-5363. 

Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Last year there were nearly 300,000 naturalizations, almost a doubling from two years ago. Wherein this massive rise? For decades, the naturalization prerequisites were ever further weakened, ultimately under the Ampel again watered down. For the already questionable claim, the waiting period was degraded from eight to five years and thus almost halved, multiple citizenship as a rule accepted. From the idea of a once exacting integration, this government has completely removed itself. 

Background: Leftist parties attempt to rehabilitate their polling percentages by means of the import of naturalization sozial cases. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): O mein Gott!

For the costs incurred, the taxpayer is allowed to pay. Policy of the finest, hostile to natives! The Union has retained the mentioned new regulation. German interests are all the same. The main point, to become the Chancellor party. For that, one bravely gobbles every toad tossed to him by the reds. Cynical power-opportunism is at the end stage, ladies and gentlemen. 

For many of the illegally immigrated advantage grabbers, however, even the remaining minimal requirements are still too much work. They resort to naked fraud. Authorities are meantime so overburdened that blatant falsifications are winked through. We hear of massively falsified  course certifications 

            Johannes Rechner (SPD): No, for once, an example! Say one example!

in regards naturalization tests and language verifications. And in the social media runs the lively commerce with examination questions and solutions of naturalization tests. 

Inquiries yield that the phenomenon has been known for years. Police and foreign authorities proceed on a very high Dunkelziffer – cite – “of fraudulently attained naturalizations”. The talk is of a – cite – “loss of control”. 

Typical case: The attested language level – not at all present; of the content of the filed commitments – not the least idea. The vice-chairman of the police union therefore demands a moratorium for naturalization as well as a comprehensive examination of certificates of the last two years.

Our motion [Drucksache 21/3024] accordingly demands: A pause of naturalization and grant of residency titles until a fraud-secure procedure is developed, prevention of the application of falsified certificates and the sale of examination questions quite openly in the social media, as well as a new examination of all residency agreements and naturalizations issued since January 2024. For allotted authorization documents is required, to the maximum, the return from control loss to a control by the state of law. 

A merely personal statement for testing of adherence to the constitution is fully insufficient, and formulas of acknowledgement are rather imputed lip service, even when they are understood purely verbally. Only a systematic research by the naturalization authorities of the applicant’s social media activities can prevent the naturalization of extremists. Yet the Union racks its brains over how quickly after the fraud may one again be tested. In that regard, it is still not about the few who were caught, but about stopping this possibility of fraud. 

Yet this government quite obviously has no interest in an orderly situation in regards naturalization. We see an absence of control in the language level – only the adherence to the constitution shall be verbally ensured –, a lack of will to develop a fraud-secure procedure, and a complete absence of a backed-up examination. All of this shows just one thing: In the Union is there once again fear in the face of the coalition partners who would not be ready to stop the abuses. German interests are also there sacrificed to the peace of the coalition. 

Ladies and gentlemen, nip it in the bud! 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): That is however a quite nice, hefty historical                                                       comparison you bring in here!

Let us certainly not first begin by leaving as is an allotted authorization document in the hands of people who have only obtained this by means of deception prior to its issuance, which inflicts harm on our country. Otherwise, one day we will have a government which comes to power by means of deception prior to the elections and, in the briefest time, definitively ruins the country. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, December 18, 2025, European Democracy Shield

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)12-17(3-0212-0000). 

Herr President. 

Let us openly say it: The so-called European Democracy Shield does not protect the democracy, but the rulers from the will of the people. It is an instrument for the suppression of the opposition and thus for the prevention of the democracy. George Orwell himself cannot better think up the name. From disinformation and foreign influence you want to protect the people? In truth, the citizens shall be kept away from free information, so that they only receive a hearing of the official narrative and the propaganda of the EU. We remember Twitter before the acquisition by Elon Musk – an apparat of woke censorship and propaganda. Thus now the open war against Musk – because he made X into a platform of free speech, he will be covered with 120 million in fines and threats. Yet in Germany also will quite ordinary and innocent citizens be rung out of bed in the morning by the police because they expressed a wrong opinion in social media. 

However, Frau Geese, you today have let the mask fall, and quite openly said what it is about for you and your red-green friends – right-conservative parties should be kept away from power. And in Roumania we could, ja, observe what that enjoins. There, at Brussels’s bidding, the presidential election was annulled, the independent canididate Georgescu excluded, on account of alleged Russian influence. A coup d’état under cover of the protection of democracy. And this template you now want to make the rule throughout Europe. Please no longer mouth the name of  democracy. You are anti-democrats. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rüdiger Lucassen, December 5, 2025, Service in the Bundeswehr

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/48, pp. 5614-5615. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The coalition’s defense service modernization law is discussed for weeks in the context of the general conscription [Wehrpflicht] as a kind of preliminary stage thereof; yet it is not. The core of the law only foresees that the attraction of voluntary service in the Bundeswehr shall be increased – and that, now for the umpteenth time. With the defense service modernization law, the Federal government does what it always does when it does not want to get at the root of the problem: It pours on more money. That is Merkel Politik, and it comes to its end. 

Yet in regards the defense service modernization law it is not only about money; it is about something fundamental. The Defense Ministry in the future pays to each new recruit 2,700 euros gross – a lot of of money for one leaving school. For the Federal government, attraction means money. To it, something else does not come to mind. Yet soldiers who come on account of the pay have no strong basis for the service. That does not suffice. 

The antithesis is the soldier who serves out of conviction. It is the German soldier who knows what he fights for, who bears within the inner bond [der das innere Band in sich trägt] – the born defender of his country, the German common destiny [Schicksalsgemeinscahft]. Theodor Körner, Lützow, Roon, Moltke, Hindenburg, Jünger, Rommel, Stauffenberg, Heusinger, Hartmann, Topp, Förtsch, Kammhuber – there are hundreds of thousands of names of German soldiers who carry this bond and pass it on. And, ladies and gentlemen, the Bundeswehr consists of these soldiers. In no other institution of Germany is the consciousness of one’ own, for what is worth protecting, for our country, so present as in the Bundeswehr. The soldiers who serve in it are the daughters and sons of our people. To them, they perform their oath. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Yet without völkischen language!

And they are thereby not soldiers of this government, but Germany’s soldiers. 

The Bundeswehr thus stands in a 200 year tradition, a tradition of the true, the dutiful, and of the bond to Germany, regardless under which government. Lützow’s riflemen did not fight for the king, but for the freedom of the Germans. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): That is abysmal! Really!

The Heeresgruppe Kurland fought not for the wretched regime in the bunker. Its soldiers withstood the Red Army so as to save 1.5 million East Prussians. And the soldiers of the NVA [National People’s Army, East Germany], a German conscript army, 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Where have you landed, actually?

placed themselves in a decisive moment of their history in the service of this German tradition. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Please do not speak of the Bundeswehr! 

            Christian Görko (Linke): You have no idea!

             Siemtje Möller (SPD): Good diversionary maneuver! That shows you have no                                           position on the conscription!

As namely the SED planned to fight the 1989 freedom movement with military means, the soldiers of the NVA refused the mission order. German soldiers do not shoot Germans. The German bond blocked the mission order. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Thüringen chairman of my own party gave a speech on conscription on Wednesday in the Erfurt Landtag. In this speech, he came to the conclusion that Germany is no longer worth fighting for. What would the men and women of the Wars of Liberation have said to that? They would never have followed that diagnosis. Dear countrymen in Thüringen and everywhere: The fight for Germany’s salvation is the basis for the founding of the AfD. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): How low have you sunk?

Where shall I at all begin? Our culture, our children – Goethe, Schiller, Eichendorff, Wagner – Potsdam, Dresden, Munich, the Rheingau, the Swabian Alb, the Alps, our forests and lakes, the German food, 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Na, there, you’ve finally positioned yourself!

the North Sea, the greatness, the tragedy, the ever again arising can do. 

We are the West and, for that, it always pays to fight. 

 

[trans: tem]

Björn Höcke, December 3, 2025, Conscription

Thüringer Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 8/29, pp. 53-54. 

Right honorable Frau President, right honorable colleagues. 

Colleagues, like Boris Pistorius, for Germany, Fabien Mandon, the French chief of the general staff, for France, wants the war efficiency [Kriegstüchtigkeit]. He demands – I cite: The country needs to be ready to lose its children. 

Right honorable colleague members, please now in your thoughts take your son or grandchild in arms, feel his heartbeat and think of all the happy moments with him. And now please imagine how he with arms and legs torn away lies in a minefield and slowly bleeds to death. Imagine how a hollow charge has pierced the wall of his panzer and all lives in the interior are extinguished by a gigantic welding beam [Schweißstrahl]. Imagine how he as a prisoner of war is tortured. First, his ears are cut off, then his genitals, finally his eyes are put out. After hours, the torturer ends his agony in that he pours benzine over him and ignites. Thus, right honorable colleague members, die in a war young men of 18, 19, 20 years, who have established no families, who to some extent have still not lead their lives.   

Right honorable colleague members, it is here about the revival of the conscription [Wehrpflicht] in a quite concrete situation – a situation which is stamped by a war in the Ukraine and a showtime bellicosity of German politicians throughout the cartel parties. The people out there feel it is plainly not about their own way of life, since that assumes love of one’s own, that assumes patriotism. Yet the politicians of the CDU and Linke disdain this patriotism. And precisely that is the decisive point in the present discussion of the conscription. 

The revival of the conscription here and today cannot be well founded by the old parties. Therefore, young people and their parents intuitively and rightly reject the war efficiency project. The young people note that when an obligation to fulfill an ostensible securing of their future is exacted from them, at the same time the ruling Politik destroys this future piece by piece. What shall the young man, who knows no patriotism and no tradition, defend with a Bundeswehr? 

Yes, what shall he defend? Drag queen displays in kindergartens, the de-industrialization, the plundering of the social security system, the festival of lights secured with concrete walls, which earlier were called Christmas markets, the mass immigration which makes him feel foreign in his own land, the Schuldstolz? 

Right honorable colleague members, I want in closing to emphasize: Before one, single young man should under compulsion again enlist in uniform, this state needs to finally again become a state for the Germans – for the Germans. Freely directed and oriented toward German interests and clear in an understanding of the people. Before young people in this country are again taken by the Politik into the obligation, the Politik must first finally again enter into the obligation to its own people. 

I thank you for your attention.   

 

[trans: tem]

Jochen Haug, November 27, 2025, The Arbitrator of Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/44, pp. 5087-5088. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

When we today speak on the Interior Ministry’s budget, then we should take a step back and ask ourselves a fundamental question: What is the duty of this Ministry? What is the duty of the Federal Interior Ministry in a free society? 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Yes, when you don’t know that!

Preservation of security, freedom and order, that is the core duty. For that, the Ministry is responsible. 

Yet today the Ministry presents us with figures which show: This state ever more loses itself in ideological side shows. Millions flow into projects for social cohesion, to the financing of church conferences, to political foundations, to migration counseling and expensive integration programs. All of this has one thing in common: It does not belong to the core duties of an  Interior Ministry. 

An example: Over one billion euros for integration courses. My colleague Marcus Bühl has just addressed it. While the Federal Interior Ministry in regards protection of the borders, its original responsibility, fails completely, the consequences of these failures shall be overcome with integration courses. That integration courses prevent parallel societies, the overloading of the sozial state and the escalation of violence is of course an illusion. The entire approach is false. Who comes into the country illegally does not need to be integrated, but returned back. And who legally comes into the country permanently and may remain, he himself primarily needs to take care for his integration. In classic immigration countries like the U.S.A. and Canada, that was always self-evident.   

We as the AfD delegation want to save one billion euros in the Interior Ministry estimate. And despite that, we strengthen police, border protection and catastrophe protection. We simply go through the whole: We eliminate ideological expenditures which no one needs. We end the false incentives of the immigration and integration policy. We place the security of our citizens above the socio-political experiments. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Bravo!

Ladies and gentlemen, this budget is also a mirror image of the situation in our country. There meanwhile prevails in the States an understanding that this is made an ideologized full-service provider. This has nothing in common with a free polity [Staatswesen]. The principle of the people’s sovereignty guarantees the decision making [Willensbildung] from below to above. The state has to preserve strict neutrality and is not to interfere in the democratic discourse. Today, the opposite is practiced. We have to deal with an opinion-forming and an opinion-suppressing state. 

            Leon Eckert (Green): Your colleague wanted to storm the Bundestag!

Thus for years the Constitution Defense [Verfassungsschutz] sees as its principal duty a fight against the opposition and citizens critical of the government 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): Nein, against extremism!

and here even invents a power of observation category of its own: Delegitimization of the state. Here obviously prevails a gross misunderstanding. Therefore, be it again expressly explained: The Constitution Defense is not the arbitrator of democracy. 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Its protector!

That is the people. 

And still one thing be said: It is intolerable in a democracy when critical comments lead to house searches. Lately in October it affected the famous media expert Professor Norbert Bolz because he had ironically replied to a tweet in the taz – a renewed attack against freedom of opinion, in the middle of Germany. For democracy, that is fatal. It requires critical citizens with civil courage, not intimidated vassals. 

Ladies and gentlemen, over 200 hundred years ago Theodor Körner demanded: “For freedom, a way!” [Der Freiheit eine Gasse!]. That is also today again necessary. We need a state which protects its citizens, yet does not patronize. For that, the AfD stands. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Malte Kaufmann, November 13, 2025, China Commission

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/40, pp. 4617-4618. 

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

China has long since become an enormously important trade partner of Germany, and – interestingly! – according to the present numbers from October, the trade volumes have even overtaken those of the U.S.A. It thus could be said: The most important trade partner as per volume. Therefore: A withdrawal from the China market would in every consideration be disastrous. We require durable and friendly relations with China. 

On the other side, we are not allowed as a sovereign trading nation to give ourselves over to dependencies on any country in the world. Key technologies, critical raw materials and strategically important production sites are not allowed to fall into the hand of foreign and plainly also Chinese firms which in turn pursue their national interests, and not unconditionally ours. 

Beyond that, we need to clearly demand in regards the relations with China a principle – and which is also named in our motion – : The principle of reciprocity, thus the Wechselseitigkeit. Treaties, cooperation and investments may only ensue when Germany in equal measure receives access to markets, technologies and investment opportunities. Without this consonance arises the real danger that German businesses will be disadvantaged while Chinese investors in turn act with privilege in domestic markets. 

Especially critical is the protection of our industry and our key technologies. We consider just high-tech areas like robotics, semi-conductors or machinery manufacturing facilities. The sale of such businesses, or even also the uncontrolled participation in these sectors, involves risks which in fact need to be thoroughly illuminated. 

And, Herr Lenz, you are right. Some of what we have demanded in the AfD motion is now translated by the setting up of this commission which shall work in precisely this area and make proposals to us. We require clear instruments so as to protect the German economy from the acquisition of businesses of especial significance when these acquisitions are not in the national  interest. It is therefore exceptionally important to identify existing dependencies and examine specific measures before serious and irreparable harm ensues. 

What shall the commission do? The central duties of the commission consist in that for once the value-creation chains will be analyzed, especially in regards security-relevant technologies and critical raw materials. Weak points shall be recognized. In addition, investments of Chinese businesses in Germany shall be examined, especially in critical infrastructure, and there shall follow a reconciliation [Abgleich] with the reciprocity principle. There then shall also be a reappraisal of trade opportunities. 

We thereby need to orient ourselves to successful strategies of other industrial nations – that, we plainly had in the last debates; Frau Detzer, it was interesting, what you reported from Japan; that was also unknown to me; there, one can, I think, acquire some things – all of which, without blocking a further successful cooperation with China. Since that country is an important trading partner. 

We are missing – this is the single critical point which I today want to address – a bit of connection to parliament. We would have found it good if a representative of the delegations was on the commission, who can cooperate there. 

Be that as it may: We of the AfD want that it goes well for our businesses and their workers. We therefore require durable, long-term relations with our trade partners, and with China. We vote in favor of setting-up the commission. 

Many hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]