Alexander Gauland, June 16, 2023, European Defense Architecture

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/110, p. 13436.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

From Germany should never again a war proceed: This is the lesson of our history. With the power politics as seen in Yugoslavia and in the German weapons deliveries to the Ukraine, this objective was and is nevertheless irreconcilable.

Over eastern Germany presently take place the largest NATO air maneuvers since 1945, a calculated affront and an edifying example. Defense against air attacks on Rostock is practiced  only a few minutes flight distant from the Baltic Sea where the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines could have been prevented. Instead of that, many here applauded.

This leads us directly to the security architecture of our country and of Europe. We are tightly bound as a part of the NATO American interests policy, many times a little too tightly. Since 1990, over 250 military operations have been conducted with U.S. participation. From others is it gathered to designate this as “war”.

The migration flows from the Near East and North Africa are proximately connected with the U.S. interventions. Failures in Afghanistan, in Iraq and Libya, as well as the financing of color revolutions in Russia’s vicinity, make the U.S.A. a not always unproblematic partner.

For us it is in any case time to reconsider alternatives in Europe, not unconditionally in the EU but in a Europe of sovereign nations as we imagine it, as our party has imagined it: Initially in parallel to NATO, later, if possible, as a sovereign defense architecture which comes to its own decisions, yet – and this is the problem – also can and must carry through.

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Just like before 1945! It certainly worked out                            super!

The Minsk agreement certainly was good: It could have been and needed to be carried through,

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): That should have been said to Putin!

even if the U.S.A.’s diverging geopolitical interests, as surely in regards the eastern expansion of NATO, do not unconditionally agree with an all-European security interest.

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): You now become not even mediocre, Herr Gauland!

Ladies and gentlemen, a contribution to the security of Germany is first for once the definition of German interests to be secured in each instance. A rules-based, values-driven foreign policy is plainly too little for that, plainly an ideologically-driven phrase, like so much of what you put out as policy.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Karsten Hilse, June 15, 2023, Green Dictatorship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/109, p. 13187.

Valued Praesidium. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen.

Again and again, destructive draft laws are put forward by the Ampel – driven by the green climate sects – and against every reason rushed through under disregard of all rules of this sovereign house, the main thing being it serves the climate ideology of the green communists.

It is a law which affects all households, all firms, all landlords, all renters, all homeowners, all local governments – thus practically everyone. According to the will of the greens of all the parties, by 2045 they shall be forced to heat climate neutral. In conformity with the experiences of the Corona dictatorship, every citizen is to be impressed under a climate yoke. Forsa chief Güllner is led to this statement, cite:

"Earlier SPD voters have the impression that their party bows down before a green dictatorship."

In concrete terms:

"When a small, elite minority…enforces its values by means of instructions and bans upon the society of a great majority of those thinking otherwise, that can indeed be evaluated as a dictatorship."

He is right.

This compulsion, these bans of course affect all of us. Correspondingly great are the outcry, the resistance and the comprehensible rage.

The perpetrators [Macher] naturally notice this rage. And despite that, they bring in this law today, talking drivel from their pompous “guard rails” for the pamphlet named the “Building Energy Law”, that Germany by 2045 should be climate neutral. The asserted consensus is however a flat lie. According to a Spiegel poll from March 30, 2023, climate neutrality is meanwhile left behind by half of Germany. 80 percent of people in the country reject your so-called heating hammer. And against this 80 percent, you make your destructive policy.

Yet what is really bad is that the other old parties extend a hand to you for that. From the special democrats and the green communists is meanwhile expected nothing other. That however the coward democrats play along with that is actually tragic.

Despite the mini-changes, for which the coward democrats celebrate themselves, it is and remains a destructive law, annihilating prosperity and workplaces, as is otherwise possible only in a war. Many people meanwhile designate your policy as a “war against one’s own people”. Anyone who participates in this war will someday need to be held responsible before the people.

The only party which stands against this collective suicide is the AfD. Consequently, our approval numbers are rising. That is good for Germany. Bad for Germany is that with each day this government further manages its work of destruction

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Enough now with the shamelessness!

the heaps of rubble which we as a future governing party will have to clear away will become ever greater. We will do it, rely on it. I am besides of the opinion: He who votes Green, votes for war.

Many thanks.

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Shamelessness!

            Jan Korte (Linke): Thorough Nazi speech!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gottfried Curio, June 9, 2023, EU Immigration Regulations

AfD Kompakt, June 9, 2023.

The regulations will not solve the problems. If now some countries in fact buy their way out of a new “reception obligation”, in the end a considerable portion might again remain attached to Germany. And with the keyword “distribution” [Verteilung], the Merkel-ish subversion of Dublin III will now be set: The secure knowledge that from southern Europe one cannot further migrate under a declaration of an ostensible need to flee would thereby have led to a considerable relief, particularly in this country. In the end: Who comes from a secure country actually need simply not be tested; in other cases, the principle of secure states is ultimately reduced to an absurdity.

Even in the specifics, the regulations are highly ineffective: To be able to continue – under pressure of the Federal government – to simply pass through unaccompanied minors, without a stop at the external border with fast track procedures, even so entire families from Syria. And the problem that 80 percent of those coming to Germany could previously pass through the EU unregistered is not addressed: They indeed should be registered – yet this “should” is again plainly only a pure declaration of intentions and in the negotiations was not in the least operationally secured. Just so, again under pressure of the Ampel, was hindered a “Rwanda solution”, as aimed at in Great Britain. And why countries should at all participate in a distribution, why they should otherwise at all pay money, is not really established. One then may also not be surprised by a rejection.

In sum: For the main flow from countries where there is now already some acknowledgements, that is perhaps Syria and Afghanistan and various interior African countries, nothing really changes; thus here also, no relief in sight. And even in regards the planned rejections, the actual return is, as before, completely unclear. Without a return, even according to the new regulations, an appeal to the EU will then again soon be possible, with then a new asylum application. Even after a distribution within the EU, naturally will happily continue further secondary migration to Germany, as long as in this country the will and the structures are not created for an effective rejection and deportation mechanism. And important relief measures, as demanded by the AfD, plainly now simply do not arrive: Neither an alignment of the national refugee and/or social benefits, nor a conversion to primarily benefits in kind. Instead, false principles are perpetuated, such as one can be a refugee by a trespass in the EU, even if one already has come through ten secure third countries. An opportunity to perceptibly confront [begegnen] the dramatic overburdening in Germany was given away. The decisive problems were certainly not approached, primarily because, for that, any political will is lacking in Germany.  

 

[trans: tem]