Marc Jongen, November 30, 2022, Ukrainian History

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/72, pp. 8421-8422.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The Holodomor – Ukrainian for “mass murder by starvation” – is one of the 20^th Century’s greatest crimes against humanity. Lenin in 1922 had already announced it: We will even use terror, including economic terror. – Which Stalin then executed in incomprehensible brutality. The forcibly collectivized Kulaks, those independent farmers hated by the Communists, were in 1932-33 throughout the Soviet Union obligated to unfulfillable deliveries. He who did not submit, armed commandos took away from him the entire harvest and all food stores. The Ukraine, as the granary of Europe, was especially hard hit because there Stalin wanted to eliminate national consciousness. The country was blockaded, rail traffic was no longer allowed. Up to four million people were given up to certain death by starvation.  

When we today remember these monstrous crimes, then there needs be primarily one lesson: The socialist ideology with its hatred of individuality and freedom, with its levelling terror and its madness of being able to create a new man, is to be rejected and fought wherever in new guise it raises its hideous head. That pertains to the national socialist variant, yet also plainly pertains to the international variant which hides behind fine sounding words like “justice” and “progress”.  

The AfD delegation briefed on the Holodomor here in the German Bundestag already three years ago. At that time, scarcely anyone was interested. In regards to crimes in communist spheres of power, our left-leaning political establishment has for decades preferred to look away. Certainly the remembrance of the crimes of the SED does not come forward fittingly; the monument is still not built. The leader engaged for the Hohenschönhaus memorial was elegantly gotten rid of, etc.

Why now is remembrance of the Holodomor so important to these same political forces? We fear, for crooked reasons. In your speeches here and in other announcements occur a strong parallelization and identification [Ineinssetzung] of the historical event with the present war of Russia against the Ukraine. The Heidelberg historian Tanya Penter speaks in Spiegel quite correctly of an “unfortunate interweaving of separate historical contexts” in your motion [Drucksache 20/4681] and the genocide researcher Kristin Platt warned in Deutschlandfunk Kultur: One must deal very carefully with the term genocide or Völkermord; for certainly in a war it will be frequently used strategically and also as propaganda. Besides, Vladimir Putin has cited the Ukraine for the Völkermord of Russians in the eastern provinces. We here in the West should not mirror the immoderation of such accusations, ladies and gentlemen.

Yet German politics as usual is intoxicated to exaltation in its moralizing superiority. Foreign Minister Baerbock now even speaks in regards Russia’s conduct of the war, which so far according to UN statistics has claimed around 6,500 civilian victims, of a break with civilization. – An expression which otherwise has been reserved for the Holocaust. Frau Baerbock – wherever she is today – certainly demonstrates a wise statesmanship in a crisis not in maximum rhetorical escalation but with measure and circumspection [Maß und Umsicht] in regards the peace which she should keep in view. She is strikingly lacking in both.

In conclusion, I want to correct one error of yours: The Ukrainians who now with weapons in hand and perhaps with the memory of the Holodomor in heart defend their homeland do not do it for the values of the international rainbow, for diversity, tolerance and equalization. They do it for the sovereignty of their country, for the preservation of their people and of their culture. They therein have our solidarity. The Holodomor is to be remembered,

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Herr colleague, your speaking time is                        at an end.

but the instrumentalization of history which you are pushing, we reject.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): For you, nothing is too harmful!

Many thanks.

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): For you, nothing is too harmful! Respect –                                    not a chance!

 

[trans: tem]

 

Marc Bernhard, December 1, 2022, Home Ownership

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/73, pp. 8602-8603.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

In Germany, 75 percent of renters dream of their own four walls. Yet only the fewest have succeeded in also realizing this dream; since, according to the ECB, the Germans are the poorest in the euro zone. Thus, the assets of an average Greek family are double as high as that of a German family, in Spain and Italy even four times as high as with us. And in regards the pension level, Germany with just 48 percent is far behind. Spain, for example, has 83 percent, Austria 89 percent and Italy even 91 percent.

We have the world’s highest energy prices, and we have with just 45 percent the lowest rate of home ownership in the EU. Here in Berlin it is even just 15 percent, while in France 64 percent, in Italy 72 percent, in Greece 76 percent, in Czechia 80 percent and in Slovakia even 92 percent live within their own four walls. The European cut thus lies over 70 percent. We thus have not only the highest energy prices, the smallest household assets with the lowest pension level, but also the lowest home ownership rate in the EU.

Now the inflation also devours the rest of the citizens savings. It is therefore now certainly much more important to bring as many people as possible within their own four walls. Since this is the best inflation protection, the best safeguard for elders, and provides in crises like today’s stability and security to people. And therefore we want to make Germany from a land of renters into a land of homeowners.

Yet then why is Germany at all the taillight in the EU’s home ownership rate? The German Bundesbank states in a study that for one thing it lies, in international comparison, in the much too high real property sales taxes [Grunderwerbsteuer]; and for another, that the mortgage interest, unlike as in many other countries, cannot be deducted even for the self-use dwelling. Yet that was once in Germany otherwise, as in the administration of Helmut Kohl, – it is already quite a while – the costs for one’s own home could be deducted from taxes. That then made home ownership possible, despite astronomical rates well over 10 percent.  

We demand in our motion [Drucksache 20/3204] that the real property sales tax be lowered to 3.5 percent throughout Germany, and before all, that the purchase of one’s own first home must be completely free of taxes. That would of course finally eliminate the social injustice that large capital companies pay practically no real property sales tax, while the normal citizen always needs to pay for everything.

In addition, the prices for home ownership need again to become affordable. For that, the construction guidelines and the cost-driving climate guidelines are to be reduced, the contract procedures accelerated and the rural area finally again made more attractive. Since while in the urban centers 2 million affordable dwellings are lacking, 1.7 million dwellings in rural areas stand empty.  

Let us finally do it like our European neighbors and as the German Bundesbank recommends: With one’s own four walls, we attain for the people inflation protection, an old age safeguard, stability and security. Let us finally make Germany from a country of renters into a country of owners! 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Bernd Baumann, December 2, 2022, Immigration and Residence

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/74, pp. 8745-8747.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The government today puts forward two draft laws and has a third ready in cabinet.With these, it wants to make immigration to Germany even easier, it shall become even simpler to receive a German passport. In current polling, two-thirds of the people reject that. Respect that! Stop this policy!

            Kassem Taher Saleh (Greens): No!

Hundreds of thousands of migrants ought already to have left Germany because they have an obligation to depart. Their asylum grounds have been ultimately rejected because they were often only feigned. The Ampel now does not want to deport them all; it now wants to ultimately keep all in the country. From illegal shall become legal – what a mockery of the state of law!

Worse still: Tens of thousands of officials needed to work for years on the asylum procedures. Magistrates, state attorneys, police thereby spent millions of work hours and now comes the left-green government and says: All of that simply no more interests us. All asylum seekers remain here. What disdain for the state’s servants, ladies and gentlemen!

The government’s new cabinet draft goes still further: Foreigners no more need to have lived in Germany for eight years until winning a German passport; in the future, five years suffices, in many cases even three. Why so short a time period? Because the Syrians of 2015 can also quickly become German – almost one million –

            Filiz Polat (Greens): Who now already have been naturalized!

in addition to hundreds of thousands of Afghans, Iraqis, Moroccans, Somalis, Senegalese. All shall become German – the total sell-out!

That is nevertheless not allowed to be, ladies and gentlemen.

To make German citizenship even more tasty for the migrants, they are allowed to retain the old passport. Dual citizenship becomes the norm. Even for the illiterates, there are new rules for quick naturalization. Even Oriental marriage relations with countless wives are no more reason for prevention.

            Helge Lindh (SPD): Man, man, man!

All of the laws aim in the same direction: All may come, all may remain, to become German. What a flagrant invitation to the entire world! No other country does it so, ladies and gentlemen.

Why do you do it thus? Skilled labor comes, you have said. In that regard, all the numbers prove the contrary: Almost 70 percent of Syrians live on Hartz IV, and seven years after their arrival; for Somalis, Afghans or Ghanians it is similarly dramatic.  

Thus: Why do you do this? “Humanitarian grounds”, you have said. We need to help those seeking shelter. For the Ukrainians, that is right; here, women and children flee. Yet most of the migrants of the last years come from the Orient and Africa, predominantly young men.

            Clara Bünger (Linke): Fake news!

Even EU commissioner Johansson now concedes: The great majority require no shelter; they come for economic reasons, like for example Faisal S., who lately said in the press: “I came in ten days from Damascus to Dresden for 6,500 dollars”, – verbatim, he further says: “Everyone now wants Germany, if he can raise the money” – for the traffickers. Such people come to Germany.

            Petra Sitte (Linke): Fake news!

There are all too often no humanitarian grounds. In the mass come neither skilled labor nor those in need of shelter. Yet the Ampel government opens further the sluices, against the will of the Germans: 80 percent demand better border defense. Agree to that! Respect that!

There remains the pestering question: Why do you do that? Even as a member of the Hamburg parliament I had wondered, as a Green member spoke thereon, that in a few years the Germans will be in the minority in their own country.

            Christina Baum (AfD): Yet that is what they want!

And they add, verbatim: That is good so.

Frau Göring-Eckardt, for many years Green delegation chairman here in the Bundestag, said during he 2015 refugee stream – I cite: “Our country will change, and indeed drastically. I am glad of it.”

            Bruno Hömel (Greens): Yet it is so! All changes!

And the chief of the Grünen Jugend spoke of a – I cite: “disgusting white majority society” which she no more wants.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): The misanthropy definitely comes from you                                    and not from us!

Alone since 2014, over eight million foreigners came to Germany. The Linke and Greens rejoice; here, for them, a great project will be implemented for which they long: A transformation into a quite different republic which threatens to dissolve all that we name “our homeland”, ladies and gentlemen.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Rubbish!           

           Clara Bünger (Linke): Conspiracy theory!

This transformation is more radical than most citizens can imagine and from it, if it continues, there is no more a return. It is the ideology of an anonymous, diverse world society, a leftist utopia, a health concept of which the motto runs: “No borders” – keine Grenzen mehr – , “no nation” – keine nation mehr, primarily no German one – “one world” mit mehr Diversity, that is, diverse.

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): You cite John Lennon!

All in all mingled, limitlessly colorful, mixed, all achieved by open borders, migration and accompanying quotas, compulsory quotas. We do not want this great transformation [Umgestaltung], this leftist chimera. We do not want it and it ought not to be in Germany, ladies and gentlemen.

This left-green experiment of a rainbow world society also proceeds with speech bans, with cancel culture against all critics, meanwhile with allies in all social organizations: In churches and schools, in print media and public broadcasting, in parties and parliaments and now even in sport. The German national team has been ruined by hours-long discussions concerning a rainbow on the upper arm. We do not want that the German nation is also ruined, ladies and gentlemen.

Two-thirds of all people in Germany say they no more trust to openly state their opinion. University professors cry out because they can no more freely do research. Actors and writers are openly pressured, they should show an attitude in the sense of an ideology. And over all waves the rainbow flag.

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): You have forgotten the Einhorn!

Which plainly does not stand for the state of law, which does not stand for freedom and human rights. It is the leftist symbol of a diverse, colorful, compulsory society. The colors of the leftist rainbow do not stand for the freedom struggled for in German history; for that stand black, red gold. Those are the colors of freedom and democracy. Those are our colors, ladies and gentlemen.

            Bruno Hömel (Greens): For whom do you speak? You do not speak                                        for the Germans!

            Thorsten Frei (CDU/CSU): Yet neither you!

 

[trans: tem]