Michael Kaufmann, June 13, 2024, The Communication of Science

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/175, pp. 22653-22654. 

Frau President. Honored colleagues. 

Science is when a phenomenon is unclear and contested. Everything else is textbook-learning. The result of a scientific study applies until it is disproved by the next study. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Right!

It is beyond question that this characteristic of science as a conflict of differing positions and interests is much too little communicated. Much more are supposedly scientific facts used as clubs so as to defend political decisions. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Clearly!

Who thus proceeds, he not only abuses science but also damages its authority [Ansehen]. And yet no man can live in a modern society without taking into consideration scientific knowledge in regards his own decisions. A communication of science which puts the people in the position for that requires two prerequisites: First, the mature, enlightened and sufficiently educated citizen and second, a non-valuating, non-selective conveyance, open to result, of all scientific standpoints. Neither are posited to a requisite extent. The education level finds itself in free fall. Before we speak on a successful communication of science, the rapid downfall of the education system needs to be reversed. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Ja!

Yet much more questionable is that we nevertheless experience a selective communication in regards to many themes like Corona, climate, yes, even in regards biological facts, which more strongly reflects the present government’s agenda than the factual scientific debate. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): It is precisely so!

Who clearly contradicts will be delegitimized and thrown out of the public discussion. 

Inquire for once in that regard of the Netzwerk Wissenschaftsfreiheit which you have deliberately kept out of all debates on the themes of the communication of science. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Yes! Indeed why?

Let us take the Corona crisis as an example. This you bring up as a fine example of a communication of science. Yet the opposite is the case, which we most lately knew from the RKI [Robert Koch Institute] protocols. Who then warned, which was also discussed by the RKI interns, that namely school closings, the isolation of people or continual wearing of masks, are followed by serious harms, was defamed as a Corona denier. That was no communication of science, that was a dictatorial suppression of a scientific discourse. 

            Rupert Stüwe (SPD): Whom do you now reproach for living in a dictatorship?

Yet where possible, is exactly that wanted; exactly that is wanted. Karl Lauterbach, in any case, pleads for that in his book, Bevor es zu spät [Before it it too late], 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Gott!

in case of an emergency, to place at the rear democracy, 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear! Hear!

and establish a dictatorship of science. That is not only scientifically blank nonsense, 

            Bruno Hönel (Greens): That is a calumny!

it would be a violation of the constitution. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Defend the constitution! Stop the Greens!

You demand in your motion a plethora of instruments and formats for the communication of science. To what end? We have the public broadcasting, so esteemed by you. Therefore, commit yourself to that is fulfilled in your education mission, instead of fighting the opposition. 

With Scicomm, you recruit a new instrument to protect scientists from hostilities. There, I have good news for you. This instrument already exists; it’s called police and justice. Contradiction supports the threshold of culpability, whereas any grown man may persevere – just so in science, where dispute and discourse are the norm. 

Thanks. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): A very good speech!

 

 

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, June 26, 2024, EU and NATO

German Bundestag, June 26, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/177, pp. 22860-22861. 

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

We need security and cooperation on the continent of Europe. To create and maintain peace –  that will be the duty of the coming years and decades. For that, cooperative structures and alliances are required which delineate and represent the interests of the members. It is precisely these interests which are changing. 

It is the national interests which the peoples formulate vis-à-vis their state and inter-state actors. The maintenance and observance of these interests are the foundation for a successful and trustworthy cooperation at bilateral and multilateral levels. Only when the citizens are called upon, and feel themselves attended to, will they accept the institutions and the actors behind them. That is the reason for the slap, Herr Scholz, which you received at the European election; for that is precisely your problem. 

We are thus well into the midst of themes of today’s debate on the European Union and the North Atlantic pact. Both institutions should cooperate and guarantee security, freedom and prosperity in Europe. For both institutions in the time of their formation, there were counter-proposals on the other side, thus in the East. These presented a counter-proposal, but also a counterweight. 

In the time of the Cold War was placed right in the middle mutual deterrence – and by means of nuclear weapons. Today we need to re-evaluate whether these measures of force still present a promising and, before all, a negotiable [vermittelbar] strategy for pacification of conflicts. I think that is at least questionable. 

What nevertheless still remains for us, and what we should much more vigorously use, are the possibilities of diplomacy. Exchange, understanding and the willingness of individuals to understand, as well as opposed interests, will decide on war and peace. He who stops negotiating has already lost. For months, we of the AfD delegation seek to recruit for diplomacy and negotiations. Why do you not, as Chancellor and as Federal government, actively push this forward, Herr Scholz? Even today in your speech was there little of this to be heard. 

As a result, valued colleagues, both institutions – the EU and NATO – in their present form need to ask themselves the warranted question of their right to exist [Daseinberechtigung]. For quite a while, this question could be suppressed. The current security and economic policy problems in Europe however demand a discussion of precisely this problematic. 

The war still continuing in the Ukraine shows how urgently Europe needs a military alliance – no question – which represents, before all, our interests. In this difficult time becomes clear who with foresight formulates and represents our interests. A NATO in its present form can unfortunately no longer do this. Yet we are part of this alliance. Why does not the Federal government use this present status to pursue German interests? Why do not the partners help us  to bring about a clarification of the terror attack on our critical energy infrastructure? That would be the first demand that should be directed to authentic partners and friends – as we name them. That would besides, Herr Scholz, increase the credibility of which you always speak. Instead, the Ampel promotes the arming of Europe. In that regard, not a word on the NATO headquarters for the Ukraine in the middle of Germany, neither from Herr Scholz nor from you, Herr Merz. Thus is asked: To whom in that regard did you give the acknowledgement [Bekenntnis]? Exactly: To those who still have not withdrawn their nuclear weapons from Germany. You thereby fasten us still more to the maintenance of their military outposts. Better use the EU Council presidency of Viktor Orbán, and invite all warring parties to peace negotiations in Germany. That would be a sign of sovereignty. 

And in this connection: We need a Bundeswehr which can defend our country. You have bullied from the Bundestag a special fund – that is, special debts – in the sum of 100 billion euros. Much was promised, but nothing much has been realized. Quite the opposite: You prefer to demand the delivery of weapons in a war zone. Yet German weapons may serve the self-defense, not the support of foreign wars. 

The citizens were once made to believe that our freedom can be defended in the Hindu Kush. With which results? Destruction, suffering and a flow of migration which primarily endangered Germany’s domestic security. In that regard, you were often guilty of resolute action. The goal needs to be the immediate stop of uncontrolled immigration. Secure borders and consistent refusals are thereby indispensable. Simply look at the criminal statistics. There you see which problems we have with immigrants direct from Afghanistan. And we need no trivialization of the facts, as Federal Interior Minister Frau Faeser does almost weekly. The consistent deportation of culpable persons must be a consensus even so as for the rejected asylum applicants, ladies and gentlemen. 

The basic prerequisite for that is maintaining diplomatic relations with these countries; whether or not you wanted to recognize the governments is quite another matter. Yet so long as you apportion governments into first, second and additional classes, you will thereby run into scant success. As a result, you will again be disembarked, or left standing in the airplane. That is meanwhile the disastrous picture of Germany in the world which you leave behind. We are meanwhile simply ridiculed in foreign countries. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): On account of you!

Those are the present facts of your foreign policy. 

Year after year, you manage a sell-out of German interests. Your short-sighted policy disarranges growing bilateral relations and even divides the European Union without which you could not implement your policy in Germany; keyword: “Heating law”, or also the so-called climate policy. 

With the EU’s assistance, NATO’s security interests shall be implemented through the backdoor in the Ukraine and in Moldavia. I ever again say it: The European Union is not the extended arm of NATO, and is never allowed to become it. With all understanding for the individual interests, an escalation of the conflict and a prolongation of the war cannot be excluded. That applies to avoiding it. 

All of these are your duties. We would support you in that regard. You have the responsibility for Germany and its citizens. Finally do justice to this! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Malte Kaufmann, June 26, 2024, Eco-socialism

AfD Kompakt, June 26, 2024. 

The mood in the German economy is long since desolate. The situation becomes further critical. The energy costs are much too high, the bureaucracy insanity is no longer to be endured. Who does not flee to a foreign country, needs in Germany to either struggle for survival or close the business. The overall conditions are no longer suitable; they were for years consistently run down.   

I do not believe that a call to reason by Economy Minister Habeck could in any way suffice and put in motion a turnaround. He has much too far set out on his wrong way and thereby fantasizes of beautiful numbers far from reality. In the view of the AfD delegation, Germany urgently needs to forsake the path of the destructive eco-socialist transformation, and for that requires a capable Economy Minister. The free market economy alone creates the correct overall conditions for business, secures workplaces and increases prosperity. Habeck’s eco-socialism destroys them – we will rebuild them. 

 

[trans: tem]

Gottfried Curio, June 13, 2024, The Politics of Deportation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/175, pp. 22574-22575. 

Right honorable President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

After an asylum applicant, rejected for ten years, wanted to murder a critic of Islam and thereby killed an intervening police officer, those responsible follow one after another in the casting of smokescreens. For the longest time, the Afghan was not removed from the country by the parties of the Merkel Groko. Guilty of his illegal lingering were Union and SPD, then also Greens and FDP. 

The Chancellor, who since his grandiose announcement of deportations in grand style, which never came, is especially practiced in long distance smokescreens, again got underway such a  deception maneuver just before the EU elections: The most serious criminals and those posing a danger were to be deported to Afghanistan. Naturally just hot air, not having consulted with the Green coalition partners who want to give up no illegal migrants. 

The result: Sweden and Turkey do deportations, the Ampel does not want to. And not only that in regards the erstwhile offender of Mannheim simply nothing would be brought – no, the inconsequence was already pre-programmed. Since then if a person can be deported to Afghanistan, then naturally this can and must be done with all rejected asylum applicants. Yet to express this was too daring even for Scholz, the sham bomb disposal expert. Apparently, it will saved for the week before the Bundestag election, ladies and gentlemen. 

If one indeed wants to deceive, then needs be more skillfully intonated what the Union brings us. Which says in a motion, in any case in the latest motion, that they presented just a return of the culpable to Afghanistan. Only, what is to be done? Elections are already at hand. It therefore quite suddenly occurs to you, after endlessly many murders, rapes and knife attacks: Perhaps something real must be demanded. – And since the AfD, after an entire series of state falsehood propaganda, grows and grows and grows, 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): Na, ja! Since January, rather shrinking, shrinking,                             shrinking!

what does the Union say? Quite clear: We need to copy still more from the AfD! 

Ladies and gentlemen, quite suddenly the Union notices: Even those from Syria who have been rejected nevertheless need to be deported. That is done neither with red nor green but only with the AfD. 

Quite suddenly they notice: Border controls, which deserve the name – in a word: including refusals – would perhaps even be a good thing. Quite suddenly they notice: The citizenship law is not allowed to be further watered down. All of this is done neither with red nor green, only with the AfD. 

Julian Pahlke (Greens), turned to the CDU/CSU: Na, where remains the Union’s distancing to that? No one reports!

Therefore is fully clear the result in regards the theme of deportations: The SPD wants to fake it, the Greens want to entirely prevent it. Only the AfD will actually enforce it. Thus what does a Union want, which explicitly does not want to form a coalition with those demanding an enforcement but prefers the parties of fakers and preventers? Does this Union want to enforce or fake or prevent? I think the answer is clear and the citizens also know this! Only the original stands for actually enforced deportations. Only with the AfD will the security situation again become tolerable for our citizens. Only with the AfD finally comes the so urgently required migration change. 

 

[trans: tem]

Frank Rinck, June 6, 2024, Farming

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/172, pp. 22279-22280. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. Dear fellow citizens. 

Today it is once again about further complicating the German fertilizer law for our farmers, and introducing yet more bureaucracy – 

            Sylvia Lehmann (SPD): Nein!

but one thing after the other. To begin with, it must be stated – and this we may not forget – that the problems deliberated here were first generally produced by the old parties. A faulty and very questionable nitrate monitoring network provided that just these nitrate values, upon which we here proceed, have come to an end in Brussels. 

            Karl Bär (Greens): That’s not in the monitoring! 

Unfortunately, this is made a theme only by us, and unfortunately none of you appear to see a need for a correction. 

Ladies and gentlemen, everything which was passed here in the last years in regards agriculture policy generally needs to be on the test stand. And do not worry: Once we of the AfD govern, we will correct all of your failures. That is a promise upon which the farmers in the future can rely. 

Basically, it can be said that the good,  professional practices of our farmers and their economic interests do not allow that more fertilizer comes into the field than the crops require. It all of course costs money and resources. And, ladies and gentlemen, no farmer squanders his money or resources; they want to work economically. If you would for once pass some time with real professionals – and I mean practicing farmers – 

            Sylvia Lehmann (SPD): We do that!

and not with whichever demagogue from your associations, you would know that. Yet what have you here today to decide? It’s about the introduction of a nationwide monitoring of active ingredients for fertilizer supply.  

Till Steffen (Greens): Don’t fall asleep up there! Man, man man!

Besides in our view, we could in fact say, in so far as it would be connected, that demonstrably clean water agricultural operations in red areas would finally be freed of senseless fertilizer duties. Under-fertilization is besides an exhaustion of the soil, and that is actually also a form of expropriation of the affected farmers. Nevertheless, of that there is in your draft law no word to be found. Your motion indeed sets this as a goal; yet it’s spongy there, that then this should be first clarified with the EU. 

Ladies and gentlemen, that is unacceptable. If the active ingredients monitoring does not here include distinct goals, then it is to be rejected; especially since, for the first in line operations, the monitoring means new bureaucracy burdens and documentation obligations. 

With that, we come then to the next point, the planned expansion of the material flow balance in §11 of the fertilizer law; you now call it “nutrient balancing”. Ladies and gentlemen, the material flow balance shall in the future be obligatory for all arable farms and bio-has facilities. Why is that actually? That is neither asserted in EU law, nor is it purposeful when at the same time shall come the active ingredients monitoring. 

The experts at the hearing – this, the colleague Staubinger already said – have distinctly indicated that this is not sensible and brings with it no recognizable uses at all. The material flow balance is therefore, and in view of your robust promises of deconstruction of bureaucracy at the farmers’ protests, to be eliminated in its entirety. 

Now on that we have plainly heard that this besides costs all otherwise than much money. Ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly not as if your draft law costs no money: A quarter of a million euros will each be assessed in the BLE [Federal Institute for Agriculture and Food] – for that, three new positions will created; thus then come three new green ideologues who will make it still more difficult for the farmers – and a half million euros for the Julius Kühn Institute. 

Karl Bär (Greens): These people shall certify EU fertilizer products with CE labels. Yet that is fully unrealistic!

I can well imagine what happens with this money: Still more green ideologues will then be employed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, you of the Ampel remain true to yourselves with your destruction of our German agriculture. The draft law put forward is just one additional vexation for the German agriculture. And we therefore reject it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Nicole Höchst, June 20, 2024, Boys in Schools

AfD Kompakt, June 20, 2024. 

Boys appear in nearly all statistics worse than girls. And the number of boys without a graduation certificate is clearly higher than that for girls. Thus in the year 2020, 62 percent of students without a high school completion certificate were boys. 

A specific and expanded support of boys in the schools is required, and it is not allowed to be placed in the narrative of the eternally oppressed little females. We of the AfD Bundestag delegation have already many times referred to this in our initiatives; for example, the inquiry “Possible Disadvantage of Boys in the German Education System” (Drucksache 20/7105). And from the answer of the Federal government to this minor inquiry, it was evident that, up to that point in time, there was no research on the school problems of boys. 

We of the AfD Bundestag delegation therefore demand that there needs to be research adapted to the school problems of boys, since in the named PISA study, especially in written expression, girls clearly achieved better results than boys. 

From the occupational education reports and from the PISA results, we know who these boys are. The left-green course settings compel the situation and disadvantage boys, especially boys with a migration background. This school policy steals the future of the boys in our country. 

The AfD Bundestag delegation demands an end to this policy and the beginning of research into the school problems of boys – and right now! 

 

[trans: tem]