Tobias Peterka, June 27, 2025, Democracy and NGO Finance

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/15, pp. 1376-1377. 

Frau President. Dear citizens. Dear authentic democrats. 

“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those                                            other forms that have been tried from time to time” 

This citation has been ascribed to Winston Churchill. Many think it is nothing other than a complacent saying as is heard at a champagne reception. Thereby is conveyed that even democracy can deviate considerably from its ideals and basic values. There are plenty of examples of that for us. 

Yet the present theme should be the circumstance which perhaps presents the most beneficial effect of an authentic democracy: The existence of a non-state corporate aspect. Free of a taking, an evaluation and – to a known degree – an influencing by the state, we can either move entirely in privacy or, even in this much vaunted civil society, gather together in groups, and that is no small thing. Historically, this free space was actually only guaranteed involuntarily and from a lack of control possibilities – as good as never from insight. 

National and international socialists ultimately quite bluntly announced the fight against civil life in the name of progress; that, we have happily left behind us. Without the private, and without an authentic civil society, there is no freedom. This ideal we of the AfD will defend against anyone who seeks to undermine it. 

Of course, not everything is political, to refer in fact to an approved salon saying. Yet in consequence of this old motto of the 68ers, we unfortunately are managing not only indoctrination in the most intimate areas of life, but also a zombiefied, pseudo civil society. In a steadily expanding mass, associations, foundations and special alliances have arm-thick roots in party structures, will be provided by these with money, and act almost like organs themselves. 

In every legislature were hundreds of millions in euros conveyed to the so-called NGOs, and thereby is this term stood on its head. There must be an end to it. No free state may itself finance its own heralds or pseudo-critics. For while the political bubble of the established parties – oh, horror! – in regards to profit-oriented business rightly uses the term “lobbyism”, NGOs – counter to their actual definition – are, in regards to us, looked upon as well-meaning actors, basically standing above things. And why that at all? Quite simple: Thus is achieved that one’s own front organizations are camouflaged as civil society, in any case to arrive at doors opened quite wide, be it by influence or the vile Mammon. Thus is overdue what our draft law [Drucksache 21/577] wants to expand here in section 23 of the Federal Budget Order: “Donations to front organizations from political parties are forbidden.” A state which only with special debts chases after decisive things like infrastructure or a sozial budget may not also still in this way squander the taxpayers’ money. 

Before you now affectedly cry out: Yes, the definition of the term “front” as “actors in a struggle of political opinion” certainly applies. Or will you now in innocent tones assert: Since when is  the AWO [workers welfare organization] not neutral? Since when is the BUND [Union for Environment and Nature Protection of Germany] not about our general welfare? – The AWO is of course a front organization of the SPD, exactly so as BUND and Greenpeace do groundwork for the Greens. Pro Asyl, Attac, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, those are only the big fish which will here be fed. By the known program “Demokratie leben”, will all possible little unions be promoted against those who think for themselves. Besides the workshop for the male phantom clitoris will be offered the workshop against the AfD. 

One may also feel in such a way secure and protected from leftist parties after – Attention, important! – the violence protection consultant Tuuli Reiss at the Bundesverband Trans proclaimed on social networks: Murder, to irresponsible rich men, is not only ethically representable but indeed ordered. Fantasies of torture follow. Sympathetic little person! Here is clear, on the top floor all is in the best order. 

At the association “Fulda stellt sich quer” was managed a personnel union with the contracting authorities. A project promoter of the alliance against hostility to Islam and Moslems feared that we – cite – were degenerating into a Jewish state. These – with permission – shadowy, evil-smelling culture media of general irresponsibility, in regards freely available state funds, need finally to be drained. It is the perfect living space for the common leftist and the green sozial engineers, and its allied NGOs. Do not be so innocent. It might be that a wide, three-figure number of the 630 members here either come directly from this living space or are based on it. With claw and fang you go at those who for once want light be shed on this circumstance. Thus was the Union scourged with the malicious rage of those caught in the act with its known inquiry catalogue with 550 questions on the left-green promotion swamp. Welcome to the club! One thereby clearly hangs on the coalition’s strings, and outside barking from the Bavarian State Chancellery will clearly make nothing known in that regard. 

You all here want not to be named a political cartel. Then simply stop acting exactly so! A first step: Willingly accompany this draft law; we are in the first reading. You may also keep your front, but without subscription to state funds. Base your demands openly as a party. Do not hide behind actors who in truth are flesh of your own flesh. 

It is clear to me that one pious wish will remain. Yet as you know, the authentic civil Bürger society runs away from you in droves. Earlier, it was parade troops in a transport of sozial victory; meanwhile, it is of course only those zombie NGOs which tomorrow stand to your call to the multi-colored flag. Many thanks to all who therein cooperated, and the rest we will figure out. 

Many thanks. 

[trans: tem]

Tobias Peterka, December 15, 2023, EU Digital Services Act

AfD Kompakt, December 15, 2023. 

The AfD delegation in the German Bundestag is worried about the attempt of the EU Commission to still further restrict freedom of opinion and information in the social networks. Each citizen has the right to freely express and spread his opinion and, unhindered, to inform himself from generally accessible sources. This right is also part of the EU basic rights charter. The EU Commission’s attempt to intimidate the managers of the platform “X” (formerly Twitter) by means of unsubstantiated assertions and threats does not breathe of the free and constitutional spirit of this lofty obligation. The Commission therein aims to move the platform, in anticipated obedience [vorauseilendem Gehorsam], to the deletion of user contributions which fall under the freedom of opinion. The EU “Digital Services Act” unfortunately makes possible such interventions in the freedom of opinion protected by the basic rights. Who restricts the freedom of opinion and information nevertheless endangers the foundation of democracy. 

We demand of the Federal government to comprehensively commit itself at the European level to the abolition of the EU “Digital Services Act”. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tobias Peterka, April 21, 2023, Data Mining

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/98, pp. 11855-11856.

Frau President. Right honorable colleagues.

Data are the essential currency of the digital age. This platitude is meanwhile – we have heard it – even overtaken by the Linke. In regards today’s data track which oneself each time again lays down and by means of which one is coordinated with others, the term “resource” instead of “currency” is actually more correct and therefrom also derives this term of data mining.

Is this discipline now a curse or a blessing, good for the individual or only for the powerful, for  the economy or for the state, for the well founded or only for the dull witted? Generally, it is scarcely to be thus answered. And thus also data mining in a medical connection is first dealt with predominantly in the named comprehensive report. Certainly it applies to emphasizing the enormous potential uses and for that reason the theme is initially very well suited for an exemplary assay.

Legally, we are not in completely unknown territory. Informational self-determination, creators’ rights, performance protective rights or rights of ownership, also in businesses, ultimately have bundled data as raw material for a theme. Therein also can now already be set out without problem an additional level of rights. Here in the future needs to be more precisely defined how dependence of this raw material on the further processing level is to be legally defined. Unusual in any case is the circumstance of non-consumption. Once used primary data certainly does not vanish just because secondary data is derived from it.

I want to again make clear both endpoints of the fundamentally scarcely comprehensible evaluation chain. Initially there is a concrete information, on occasion in direct reference to an individual, or traceable, and quite at the end there is a recommended action or acknowledgment on the basis of an inquiry from a many times processed global data product. In between, any refining stage is imaginable, the designation “data mining” itself thus actually still much too  briefly grasped.  

For long is neglected that private businesses here tend to completely hurry away from state actors, at least when over-bearing autocrats in the health area repeatedly present a special case. As with every technological upheaval, both failures of over-regulation on one side and wild growth on the other are in any case to be avoided. When however I look at the Corona policy of first the Merkel government and now that of the Ampel, this bad tutelage, the future in regards health data becomes for me one of angst and alarm; that, I need really say.

At least the avoidance of personal back reference [Rückbezug] is, yes, hopefully self-evident. Transparency and anonymity are also important, although only relevant rather early in the refining process. The avoidance of monopolization also becomes important at every level. For that, actually drawing up a public law body would at least be presentable, as long as this itself then did not again act as a bottleneck. Derived data products in the health area however then need, again please, to be accessible to private law ownership.

Data mining needs to be retrospectively, objectively subject to scrutiny, quite precisely. An ideological forward control, as you so gladly always do it, is on the contrary to be strictly rejected. Statistical data can indeed be based on incomplete realities. Data sets are nonetheless never therein guilty, rather the respective realities.   

Finish-refined data sets [Fertigraffinierte Datensätze] are thereby in regards to a more precise consideration a purely ethical, absolutely sterile product which would also open up enormous opportunities beyond political trench warfare. Whether you acknowledge that and really want it, I however do not believe.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Tobias Peterka, November 10, 2022, Ukraine War Tribunal

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 60/66, pp. 7679-7680.

Frau President. Right honorable colleagues.

The motion put forward by the CDU ascribes to nothing less that the enforcement of justice and cites nothing less than a judgement of the Nuremberg process. This determined, courageous leap, here well attempted, however clearly falls short, and even immediately in the second paragraph of the text which meekly yields on what is here proposed.  

Yes, put forward is a Russian war of sudden aggression according to articles 1 and 3 of the corresponding definition of the United Nations. No one disputes that and no one wants to sugar-coat that. Yet the so-called security of world peace will now be assigned, according to article 24 of the UN Charter, to the helplessly outdated construct of the Security Council in which Russia possesses a right of veto. We all the more cannot proceed at the much too late established International Criminal Court; since there, China and Russia have, by definition with the U.S.A. as three similar veto powers, withdrawn themselves from trouble. The U.S.A. would even be prepared to liberate its own citizens from the Hague by means of a commando mission.

Thence now this apparent solution of a dilemma by a special tribunal: What of its apparent value shall exactly, legally lead to where? The tribunal for Yugoslavia was at the time validated by the Security Council and thereby found itself entirely within the executive power [Vollzug] of the UN Charter. That will plainly not work here, since Russia is against it. Thus a court beneath the actual level of the UN, sustained by a pair of intermediary powers? Certain actions can be internationally represented if that is wanted, yet to completely ignore fundamental, real factors – that seldom leads to success and always damages one’s own credibility.

Clearly, this special tribunal would initially not directly and substantially affect us as do the economic sanctions. Yet wherefore then have we in the West lauded and spread with gusto the principle of world law? Would it not be much more honest to deliberate the elaboration of war crimes in the Ukraine directly before national courts? Naturally in regards to both warring parties. The cooperation problem then would not be pettier and, all the same, not all perpetrators would be in custody.

One thing however is definitely presumptuous: To believe we could, by means of a tribunal decision, direct the president of an atomic power. The only two instances of who would be in a position to direct Putin are the Russian oligarchs and the Russian people. Whether these consider doing that is however their decision alone.

The presently proposed special tribunal would be a nice-looking covering

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

without effective content, the proverbial Potemkin village. We should not erect that. We should preferably leave that to others.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

  

 

Tobias Peterka, March 5, 2021, Consumer Loans

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/215, p. 27182.

Generally in the first instance, we are sceptical in regards guidelines from Brussels. This is meanwhile simply a matter of experience. That these as a requirement are less decisive than are the EU’s decrees, yields for us in Germany mighty little; since by means of the so-called gold-plating, that is, the excess fulfillment of requirements, we as a rule happily restrict ourselves to above what is due.

In regards the previous implementation of the consumer credit guidelines presently here in focus, the legislature however wants, exceptionally for once, to save itself, and perhaps even the consumer, a little work. Information concerning consumer loans can of course in reality assume a volume which in the best case will be filed away by the borrower, yet is scarcely read through. The so-called cascade reproof in the law should really save text and paper. It is, according to a decision of March of last year of the EuGH [European Court of Justice], inadmissible.

The clarity of the information in my opinion also speaks to that. Not every citizen gladly reads in the evening over a glass of wine or a cup of coffee prohibition boxes in the legal formulation conveyed by the EU. Here, the first judgment’s implementation, so far as the the EuGH  is authoritative for us, is clearly to be agreed to.

The tradition of model [mustergültigen] information surrounding consumer law, and thus this appendix with models, is to be expressly welcomed; a possible European legal cancellation is to be rejected.

The questions of state liability or a new basis for restitution according to the ZPO [code of civil procedure] will certainly not be taken up here by the Federal government. Yet this is always fungible: Every kowtow before the EuGH which is not made, is good exercise for strengthening the backbone.

            Stefan Schmidt (Greens): Hui!

Furthermore, as is known, a judgment from 2019 should be implemented to explicitly extend to special costs not dependent on term within §501 of the BGB [civil code] – to the benefit of consumers, at least in regards to previous repayment. Clearly, the banks and the savings banks are shooting at this regulation. They want a limitation to the so-called costs directly connected to the issue of the loans.

I also find it at least interesting that the Ministry has certainly not packed up all comments on this on its home page. There, of course, banks and savings banks bring up the example that a borrower’s building insurance must be repaid by one-third as a contractual obligation of the bank; thus, around the corner if occasion arises, proportionally. Admittedly, this would be questionable. The insurance coverage is on an entirely different level of performance and has already furnished an objective use to the borrower.

Otherwise, one formulation of §501 would have been, in my opinion, more clear; the Federal government in regards the factual circumstance for a revocation instruction, has retreated…Yet consistency is perhaps too much to ask for in the simultaneous implementation of two equivalent judgments.

For all that, a differentiated development of the law in connection with a new §501 of the BGB can then certainly be relied upon. German courts of course can clearly do that better than the EuGH. Absolutely illogical costs, the quasi-contract, and thus combined contracts, would be feigned – as in the aforementioned example – and ought then be refused by means of case law [Rechtsprechung]. Clarity as a service performance: This is apparently necessary.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]