Marc Jongen, April 24, 2024, University Policies

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/165, pp. 21235-21237. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Bologna process is, in the essentials, the attempt of an all-European unification, standardization and bureaucratization of higher education, thus the exact opposite of the variety and freedom which you always carry before you like a monstrance. 

Kai Gehring (Greens): You’ve already said that a thousand times! 

            Ria Schröder (FDP): That is nonsense!

In the past 25 years the variety of the European education traditions was ever further leveled. The Humboldt-type university, with the unity of teaching and research, the ideal of humanist education,           

Kai Gehring (Greens): And you learn nothing of that! Humboldt would turn over in his grave at your speech! Who was so very open-minded! An authentic cosmopolite!

was replaced by the guiding form of a tutelary, technocratic knowledge factory [das Leitbild einer verschulten, technokratischen Wissenfabrik], Herr Gehring. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Humboldt was a cosmopolite!

The essence of European higher education is endangered by the Bologna process. – That is written by no less than Julian Nida-Rümeln. And you all, as rotating governing parties up to now, are responsible for that. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): And may you never come into government!

It was desired to achieve comparability of conclusion of studies and a higher mobility between European universities. Neither has been made by Bologna, and the improvements were at most alloted. And at what price? The abolition of the internationally honored German Diploma-Ingenieurs, the Meisters – completely without necessity – instead, the introduction of bachelor and masters courses of study, the modulization of studies, and the fixation on the ECTS [European Transfer and Accumulation System] performance points have trained the students in a tutelary gathering of points. Independent [eigenständige] search for truth is penalized rather than rewarded. The conformity pressure today is enormous in German universities. The “freedom” science year cannot divert from that.   

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Says a Herr Doktor!

And this pressure to conform is thoroughly reinforced in that 80 percent of scholars [Wissenschaftler] in Germany are employed per term. They are dependent on external funds which the universities, since Bologna, need to additionally raise because their basic financing was reduced. 

            Laura Kraft (Greens): Since when did that interest the AfD? 

Kai Gehring (Greens): Yet you always put budget motions which place entire courses of study at zero! Ever the same nonsense!

And who pays, purchases, ladies and gentlemen. For a great part, that is the state with its lead ideologies: Man-made climate change, diversity, gender, etc. 

Ria Schröder (FDP): The only ones who ever again want to limit scholarly freedom are you!

Young scholars who, for example, want to research the natural factors of climate change, or who do not salute the Gessler’s cap of gender dogma, can similarly bend their careers; simply no corresponding research proposals will be presented. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): That appears to be a therapeutic problem!

The result is the policy of a compliant supply system of knowledge, as we needed to bitterly experience in the Corona times, and as was brought to light, at the latest, in the RKI files. Under political pressure, the Robert Koch Institute largely neglected data and facts, and furnished the absurd and harmful Corona preventive measures with the blessings of science. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Such nonsense! That’s just not right! Such rubbish! 

Kai Gehring (Greens): Did China write the speech for you? Does the speech come from Russia Today or from Chinese spies?

This may not remain without consequences. We will in that connection still debate. Our alarm clocks sound 

Kai Gehring (Greens): With your speeches, our alarm clocks sound! China and Russia propaganda!

when in the Federal government’s report there is talk of “common values” which should form the “foundation of cooperation” in the area of European universities, and which now shall be increasingly examined in the universities. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Your doctorate should be examined!

I recall that a young researcher was not allowed to make an address on the biological duality of the sexes at the Berlin Humboldt University because this allegedly contradicted the values of the university. 

Ria Schröder (FDP): What exactly has that to do with Bologna? I still do not understand that! 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Who actually? When and where?

The orientation of values begets attitude [Gesinnung] instead of knowledge, because cannot be what is not allowed to be [weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf]. That is highly dangerous, valued colleagues. 

            Alexander Föhr (CDU/CSU): What now has that to do with the Bologna process? 

Read Professor Nida-Rümelin:

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Do you still speak of Europe? 

“The instrumentalization of academia by state, clerical and business purposes has continually blocked the innovation potential of science.” 

That exactly so applies for supposed values of democracy. The fight against the right in the name of science, which the president of the Berlin Technical University now calls for, while there the lecture halls decay and the level ever further sinks, undermines science as a supra-party resort [überparteiliche Instanz]. 

            Kai Gehring (Greens): That you cite the NZZ [Neue Zürcher Zeitung] is clear! 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Lack of theme!

I come to conclusion. What we need is a reform of the Bologna reform: Away from the tutelage and bureaucracy and EU control; instead, a Humboldt for the 21st Century! 

Many thanks! 

            Holger Mann (SPD): What rubbish!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, April 15, 2024, Abortion

AfD Kompakt, April 15, 2024. 

Federal Family Minister Lisa Paus already made clear, before the formation of this Commission, that her political goal is general impunity for aborted pregnancies. Even from its name, it may be concluded that for this Ampel government it has at no time been about an unbiased “Whether”, but only about the “How” of taking down the hurdles for a termination of pregnancy. Consequently, the thereby constituted working groups were extensively filled with women who themselves in the past either had attracted attention with politically approved positions, or had been active for corresponding associations like “Pro Familia” or the “Deustchen Juristinnenbund”. 

In the Commission report, the focus is one-sidedly shifted from defense of unborn life to the alleged self-determination rights of women. The hereto given jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court is thereby fully disregarded, and a liberalization of abortion law frankly presented as constitutionally imperative [verfassungsrechtlich geboten]. How the resulting defenselessness of unborn children to the end of the 22^nd week of pregnancy is reconcilable with their human dignity guaranteed by the Basic Law, the report nevertheless does not explain. 

The Ampel undertakes the public attempt to annul the defense of unborn life in favor of the right to abortion. The recommendations of its Commission merely serve as a first step of a long-term project to establish abortion as a natural “human right”. This hides the serious danger that the priority [Stellenwert] of human life in social consciousness will be generally degraded. This under all circumstances must be prevented. 

 

[trans: tem]

Harald Weyel, April 25, 2024, EU Opt-outs

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/166, pp. 21282-21283. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It can naturally only be welcomed when, after a forced pause of almost half a century, Mitteleuropa again grows closer together. At the same time, we want to ask ourselves: What actually happened from 2004 to 2024, and why into this Mitteleuropa package, so to say, was also mixed Malta and Cyprus? In regards, Cyprus, it is certainly seen: That is an apple of discord. It is seen that the situation is in no case really pacified by the EU accession, but previously existing problems – fully financed – persist, perhaps even worsen, a solution set back at a far distance. That is also to be expected in regards an expansion by acceptance of additional countries in conflict. 

What has been experienced? In 2005, the EU referenda on the EU Constitution fell through in France and the Netherlands. Thus this inclination to a central state was similarly an addition. The accession countries could not unconditionally have its shelter because they of course had before them the EU of the 80s and 90s, and there was already enough to criticize. 

The constitution referenda failed. Nevertheless, in December 2009 further – in quotes – “improvement” was introduced with the Lisbon Treaty; namely, the assistance obligation of Article 42, paragraph 7, whereby each member has the obligation to do all in its extant power when another member is attacked. That in fact goes beyond the NATO assistance obligation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, in which mention is only made of doing all deemed necessary – thus ideally the provision of confetti for the victory parades which have been, ja, absent at all NATO undertakings in the last decades. 

            Christian Petry (SPD): That is sickening!

The economic and social effects have of course in part previously occurred; that is to say, investment flows by foreign investors, and by tourism and private investments. Primarily to be named is a pull of labor forces to the West, in part permanently. This labor migration is extensively replaced or supplemented by social migration to EU states, of which there is plainly more than at home. This is thus a rather negative development which is pursued or has been established. 

The EU monies which flowed in naturally have visible effects upon the infrastructure. And they were in part better invested than in the countries of the south. Thus, there, one sought to bestow superfluous golf courses and airports. It can be said that the new members invested better than many old members; in part, than many founding countries. I think of Italy. Nevertheless, these EU monies have harmed small business and especially small-scale agriculture, so far as it previously existed. 

And it is of course also to be observed that the thoroughly developed EU disease has spread to each new member country; namely, the politico-administrative complex has been fed – away from the productive economy, be it industry, be it commerce – into a party economy, to an over-dimensioned administration. All diseases of Brussels and the West were imported, have created a new class. That cannot really be seen as progress. 

Now these new member countries, especially those which have not yet accustomed themselves to all these abuses, can make a worthwhile contribution, exactly like the countries intent on acceptance; namely, an opt-out: An opt-out from the EU’s military adventurism; an opt-out from  a climate policy destructive of the environment; 

            Gunther Krichbaum (CDU/CSU): An opt-out from Russia!

an opt-out from a centrally planned agriculture and industrial policy, and a devastating foreign policy which only consists of boycotts and subventions; and an opt-out from a subsidized, treaty-violating, artificial currency. 

I thus come to a conclusion. Only so can the EU be basically, substantially and sensibly reformed. Only so can the uses of the expansion, or a contribution to the expected harms, be overcome. I thank all new and future members for assistance, particularly in regards this matter of a reform project. 

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, April 23, 2024, Pensions and the FDP

AfD Kompakt, April 23, 2024. 

That the reduction-free pension at 63 was an expensive election gift of the SPD to its – it needs be said, former – core voters is clear. Nevertheless, the problem is presently in abeyance, since alone the age limit is already continually pushed higher; for those born after 1964, to 65 years. What is overlooked by the entirety of these calculations: The focus on the fixed age limit is no longer suitable for today’s real life of employees. 

We of the AfD delegation demand more freedom and self-determination in regards pension entry. And to that pertains: 45 contribution years are enough. Who has collected this should also without a reduction be pensioned, which can but need not be at 63. To that extent, there is nothing “to abolish”. Only one thing is certain. No one should need to work longer than to 67 years. 

Concerning pensions, the FDP has never distinguished itself with especially original proposals which go beyond “we all need to work much longer”. To a pension reform belongs a socio-political concept and a solid financing. For both, the FDP has nothing to offer, which is seen in the fully under-financed “equities pension” [Aktienrente]. What the FDP now contributes to the pension at 63 is just more wind. “12 Point Plan”, that sounds snappy, only the question is: What has the FDP actually done in the last three years?

[trans: tem]

Kay Gottschalk, April 12, 2024, Tax Relief

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/164, pp. 21103-21104. 

Right honorable Frau President. Dear colleagues. Dear taxpayers in the gallery. 

            Katharina Beck (SPD): We’re taxpayers , too! 

And before all things: Dear tax kleptomaniacs – it cannot be otherwise said – of the Debts Coalition! 

I want to again help you on the point upon which we speak here today. We are speaking on that the minimum livelihood be made tax free. This besides results from the ability to pay [Leisitungsfähigkeit] principle. Okay, that is difficult for the Greens, – it cannot be quite comprehended there – yet for the SPD meanwhile also. 

I want to help you with the point of what the Constitutional Court said. We have today spoken so much of human dignity. The Constitutional Court actually derives this principle from the human  dignity. I cite with the permission of the president: 

It is accordingly not only not sensible when the state first takes from the citizen as tax a portion of his minimum livelihood, and afterwards returns the money to him in the form of support payments 

– as for example in the form of social assistance, housing money and many other things. It is besides a principle which this Debts Coalition manages for years: To take money away from people so as to refund to them a small portion. No, the Constitutional Court further states that, as a result of such proceedings, people who actually were in the condition to live independently were forced into the position of a supplicant to state offices. That reveals precisely your policy, my dear friends of the Debts Ampel. 

Yet let us come to the sobering numbers. Here, even the CDU has slumbered; the press here assembled has slumbered. The scandal of the Bürgergeld [citizens’ wage] increase on Januuary 1 of 12.1 percent, namely from 502 euros to 563 euros, occurred already on 1 January 2023. You of course then increased the basic allowance by merely 5.4 percent, while with the Bürgergeld introduction you just raised the old social assistance contribution from 449 euros to 502 euros; that is 11.8 percent. Reckoned as a basis percentage, you increased the Bürgergeld in not 15 months by around 25 percent. 

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): That is falsified. That’s not right!                                 That is wrong!

And in regards the basic allowance, you have not managed an increase of 12 percent. That reveals you for what you are. To that I say: Phooey, that’s shameful, what you are doing! 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Na, na, na! Slow down!

 For nights, so to say, I checked that with the calculator and it certainly wasn’t difficult. You now hopefully have noted what we here demand – and Herr Lindner now partially, quite timidly – is only a drop on the hot stone. 

So as to support the same with facts, dear taxpayers up there: 

            (The speaker holds up a diagram)

From one euro – this is from the Taxpayers Union – remains 47.5 euros cents. 

            Vice-president Aydan Özoğuz: Herr member, in that regard, we have…

Print this!

             (The microphone is disconnected) 

            Herr member, I am speaking with you. 

            (Member Kay Gottschalk (AfD) continues to speak) 

            Herr member, is it then so difficult to pause for a second? 

But of course! 

I am simply attempting to bring to your attention that we here have an understanding to display no drawings and pictures. 

This is no picture. This is a graphic. 

            It was a graphic. Yet please refrain therefrom. 

Good. I do so in the future. Thank you for the reference. My party since 2019 has here brought in multiple motions and draft laws and therein demanded increasing the basic allowance, or to introduce the tax schedule on wheels [Tarif auf Rädern] which is even in some of the elections programs of parties which have been present here. You have refused all of this with threadbare reasonings and prefer to increase the Bürgergeld in the last 13 months by 25 percent. 

Your learning curve – it can, I believe, be stated – actually approaches asymptomatically the zero line. I hope that the voters at the next elections will correspondingly prepare a bill and make the X by the party which is really committed to the people who are working. 

On our motion [Drucksache 20/10975] is the program name: “Observe the Wage Difference Rule [Lohnabstandsgebot] – Relieve Wage-earners and Mittelstand”, and the basic allowance in fact clearly increase – I believe I’ve made clear why it must be – to 14,000 euros. It needs be said: Herr Lindner has a bad conscience, you not. He undertook a small project and wanted tax relief in the future for foreign employees in the first three years. At least he recognized: For real skilled labor, how I would define it, Germany is quite unattractive. Yet this also applies for the home employees, ladies and gentlemen of the FDP. Perhaps be honest for once! 

Herr Fuerst supports the whole, in which is stated in his study – I cite with permission of the President: "Who works full-time not always has more therefrom”, especially the people who earn between 4,000 euros and 5,500 euros and live in large cities; since then basic supplements and other supplements come to nothing. He calculated: When a labor force under this government changes from part-time to full-time, then it has 32 euros more. 

You thus see: Only one party here in the German Bundestag is really committed for the people. We stand for that working people do not meanwhile become supplicants of a socialist state, ladies and gentlemen. 

I am grateful for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Jörg Urban, April 17, 2024, Inflated Government in Saxony

AfD Kompakt, April 17, 2024. 

Already in the present legislative period, CDU, Greens and SPD have created thousands of new positions, often so as to take care of their own party personnel with lucrative posts. A renewed growth of the ministries we decisively reject. The bureaucracy is not allowed to be ever again inflated. We instead need to deconstruct it.

 

A shrinking population and the digitalization need to have as a consequence a leaner administration. We are of the opinion that the number of ministries also is to be reduced. The Kultus and Science ministries, for example, could be combined.

 

According to the government’s positions development report, alone the State Chancellery of Minister-president Kretschmer has created 296 new positions within the last five years. Similarly highly inflated under the regime of the Greens were the Justice and Environment ministries. There must finally be an end to this self-service mentality.

 

 

[trans: tem]