Martin Hess, February 17, 2022, Interior Minister Faeser

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/17, pp. 1239-1240.

Right honorable Frau President. Esteemed colleagues.

The Interior Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, and thereby the service chief of the Bund’s security authorities, is for all that apparently a friend of the Antifa. This is intolerable, especially for those officers who defend our state and our society in the street, and for that are attacked with bottles, stones and incendiaries by precisely those Antifa.

Beyond that, this minister also sets fully false priorities in the Interior policy because she herself apparently adheres to an extreme leftist influenced worldview. And therefore we need to clearly state one thing: The Federal Interior Minister is a security risk for Germany.

In regards the evaluation of demonstrations, she manifests an intolerable double morality: Protest friendly to the government is in order, yet protest critical of the government is defamed as extreme right. In regards the Fridays for Future gatherings, the Minister herself runs along and even makes advertising for it on Twitter, even though the initiators openly cooperate with leftist extremists. Yet when throughout the country hundreds of thousands of citizens peacefully protest against the government’s overdone Corona preventive measures, this Interior Minister calls upon the citizens’ representatives to renounce the right to demonstrate. To that I can quite clearly say only one thing: The right to demonstrate applies in democracies and especially for critics of the Government and we will let no one take that from us.

Also in regards the combating of extremism, we experience a massive miscalculation by the Interior Minister. The Minister declares rightist extremism to be the greatest danger and dedicates the highest priority to combating it. In the Interior Committee yesterday she even asserted in all seriousness that this was verified by the numbers, and in that regard is exactly the opposite correct.

According to Europol statistics, in Europe between 2015 and 2020 there were 26 rightist terrorist attacks with ten deaths; yet in the same time frame, Islamist terrorists perpetrated 107 attacks with 382 deaths. Of those posing a danger in Germany, we have 73 rightist extremists, yet 554 Islamists. And last year up to October, the Federal attorney-general introduced 210 investigative proceedings related to Islamist terror, yet only five investigations against rightist extremism.The Rizin bomb attack in Cologne alone would have been able to produce 13,500 fatalities and again as many wounded if it had not been prevented by our security authorities. These numbers therefore clearly confirm: Islamist terror is the greatest security danger in our country and to it we need to dedicate our top priority.

Here yesterday were the names of the victims in Hanau many times read aloud. The names of the victims of the Islamist terror attack at the Breitscheidplatz were not mentioned a single time in the Bundestag. Their names are: Anna and Georgiy Bagratuni, Sebastian Berlin, Nadia Cizmar, Dalia Elyakim, Christoph Herrlich, Fabrizia Di Lorenzo, Klaus Jacob, Angelika Klösters, Dorit Krebs, Lukasz Urban and Peter Völker. And I say one thing to you in all clarity: All victims of this barbaric Islamist terror have deserved our remembrance.

An Interior Minister who stubbornly refuses to name Islamist terror as the greatest security danger for Germany, she wants not to improve the security situation but to enforce her left-green ideology.

This also verifies Nancy Faeser’s proximity to leftist extremism, of which there can be no doubt. A few months prior to her appointment, she published a contribution in the “antifa” magazine. In this same edition, brutal leftist violence was justified as self-defense, our security authorities were defamed as accomplices of rightist extremists. Not even now is she prepared to distance herself from the “antifa” magazine; beyond that, she still in 2016 also let herself be photographed with Anitfa members. Who so openly demonstrates her nearness to leftist extremism cannot and ought not lead the Federal Interior Ministry.

The Interior Minister flatters the enemies of the police from the Antifa and denies authorization of the peaceful protest of critical citizens. She wants to censure or even shut down the platforms of the free exchange of opinion and she announces a coalition of the willing for yet more asylum immigration to Europe, even though her own security authorities massively warn of that. With all of it, she deliberately and consciously disdains the fundamental rights of freedom and the vital security interests of our country’s citizens.

Germany requires no Antifa minister, but an Interior Minister for whom the citizens’ freedom and security enjoy the top priority. And therefore the Interior Minister should vacate her chair as quickly as possible. A left-green-red ideologist

            Vice-president Petra Pau: Herr Hess.

is out of place in the house of the Federal Interior Ministry.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Christian Wirth, February 16, 2022, Hanau

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/16, p. 1073.

Herr President. Valued colleagues.

In this country, there is allowed no place for any kind of extremism – this should actually be a consensus in this house. Two years have already gone by since Hanau’s act of blood to which ten persons fell victim before the perpetrator killed himself, a day which will be in the memory of as good as every citizen and in which all Germany was shocked and stood in mourning with the survivors of the victims.  

The perpetrator’s sick worldview was displayed in some videos on his YouTube channel and in his manifesto which he published on his internet site. The evidently psychologically deeply disturbed perpetrator expressed abstruse conspiracy theories besides racist ideas. He was since his birth under observation by a secret service which can read his thoughts and remotely control other people. It also maintains underground military bases in the U.S.A. in which children were tortured and the devil worshipped. It even plans, by means of a time warp, to fly into the past so as to destroy the Earth before life can develop on it. – So much so as to give only one small look into his mad imaginations.

It is truly absurd to want to make a connection with the Alternative für Deutschland to this world of ideas, yet nothing can be absurd enough for the political rivals so as not to make political cheap change from this horrific act. As an example, I want to cite the colleague Konstantin Kuhle who, ja, gladly raised the moral forefinger,

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): What did I assert?

who on Twitter wrote verbatim:

The Hanau perpetrator’s pamphlet reads like a speech of Gottfried Curio (AfD) in the German Bundestag.

            Bernd Baumann (AfD): Phooey!

No comment.

The question before us today is: Would it have been possible to prevent the act in Hanau and which lessons herefrom may we draw for the future? By a more exact inspection of the chronology is disclosed an entire series of cases of substantial failures on the part of officials. Already in the year 2002, an initial recognition of psychic disturbance was attained when the perpetrator made a report to the Oberfranken police praesidium on the basis that he was listened to by means of the wall socket in his dwelling. The office doctor thereupon presented a psychosis from schizophrenic conditions with paranoid content and recommended the immediate initiation of psychiatric care. He was released from the hospital without treatment on the same evening. In 2004, he made an additional paranoid report. There followed further investigations on account of diverse infractions; for example, on account of an attack on a watchman at the Bayreuth University and on account of drug smuggling. Despite all of this, he in the year 2013 received a weapons possession card which, after further investigations on account of negligent incendiarism and renewed drug smuggling, was not withdrawn.

            Bernd Baumann (AfD): Unbelievable!

Chief officials themselves first acquired knowledge of the perpetrators mental state when, shortly before his act in November 2019, a crime report was filed at the Federal attorney’s office against an unknown secret service organization, the content of which is in large part identical with the abstruse manifesto of which I previously made mention. That this case presumably would have been able to be prevented with psychiatric treatment rather than with extremism prevention naturally should not mean that extremism prevention would not be urgently indicated.

From the statistics of the Federal Criminal Office for politically motivated criminality may be gathered alarming numbers which should concern us all. From the area of “politically motivated criminality”, I want to name representative numbers for offenses of bodily injury and homicide from the year 2020: 1,092 offenses from the right and 1,526 from the left.

            Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): And now?

In comparison with the previous year, we note an increase of 10.75 percent for rightist acts of violence and a full 45.06 percent for leftist acts of violence. That our new Interior Minister Faeser has published an article in the “antifa” magazine of the leftist extremist VVN-BdA allows to hope of nothing good related to the combating of leftist extremism.

In any case is to be named the alarming potential of persons in the area of Islamism/Islamist terrorism in the 2020 report of the Constitution Defense. The relevant security circuits of the common analysis and strategy center for illegal migration – for short: GASIM – now fear a rapid increase in the numbers of those posing a danger on the basis of the Ampel coalition’s immigration policy, namely that of Ministers Faeser and Baerbock. Yet this is still to be spoken of.

In conclusion, it remains for all of us, hopefully, that we in the future succeed in preventing such horrific acts as those in Hanau. Our thoughts are with the victims and the survivors.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Alexander Gauland, February 17, 2022, Russia and Ukraine

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/17, p. 1120.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Let us for once imagine we are writing of the year 2040, and Canada for economic reasons had completed an approach to China and was prepared to conclude a military convention and place at the disposal of the Chinese fleet a base in Newfoundland. Were the U.S.A. still a great power, it would call upon the Monroe Doctrine and make clear that a foreign  power on the American continent was irreconcilable with the security interests of the U.S.A. China would likely point out to the U.S.A. that Canada was sovereign and free to determine the choice of its military alliances and that China harbors only peaceful intentions. This argument would certainly hardly make much of an impression in America. Since it is one thing to have a theoretical right according to international law and it is another, in an order of states as it is now and will remain, to assert with prudence one’s place.

Even if this appears unjust to us: Malta and China are not at all now the same in importance and power. It is thus more necessary for Malta than for China to arrange is foreign relations to be as flexible as possible. To that also plainly pertains not to unnecessarily provoke powerful neighbors.

For Russia, the Ukraine is no any-country-you-like, but part of a common past rooted in a common identity. And geopolitically, Odessa in foreign or indeed enemy hands is for Russia tolerable only with difficulty; it is the irreplaceable door for commerce with the Mediterranean area.

Here, it is not about values or ideology or form of government but about interests. It is about geopolitics. Unfortunately, we Germans forget this. It would therefore be prudent to find solutions which are admissible by the great power Russia and are acceptable to the Ukraine. A NATO membership is no benefit to this country, yet there truly is one in a perpetually guaranteed status of neutrality, as there is in distinctive ways for Finland and Austria.

In foreign policy, a lesser can often be a more, and a secured existence between the fronts healthier than an endless conflict. Yes, the Ukraine has the right to freely choose its alliances. Yet how it customarily makes use of this in regards its neighbor may decide between success and failure for its still young statehood. Therefore, the West should avoid everything which makes of this crisis an instrument for a cheap triumph over Russia, and urgently advise against the Ukraine becoming a geopolitical part of the West [Drucksache 20/703].

In the long term, a European order of peace is to be realized only with Russia, and never against its interests. The motion of the CDU/CSU we will therefore naturally reject. In regards the motion of the Linke, we will abstain, since it contains correct elements.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Nicolaus Fest, February 15, 2022, Human Rights and Foreign Policy

AfD Kompakt, February 15, 2022.

The European Union appears to be concerned when it is a matter of implementing human rights in any corner of the planet. This is made known when the “Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World” is read year by year. One thing thereby becomes clear: The more the EU concerns itself over the human rights of elsewhere, the more forcefully will these be perverted in its member states. The Corona pandemic has made this clear: Basic rights become privileges have led to the formation of a two-class society. Data protection, the relevance of which EU Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell emphasized in last year’s report, is subsumed to the restrictive Corona preventive measures, which has led to stronger digital controls, ever further sharpened.

It is wrong to elevate human rights to a standard for one’s own foreign policy. Foreign policy should primarily be led by interests and not values. Yet on the other hand when managed by the EU, it should guarantee that basic rights are implemented in its member states, instead of morally instructing the rest of the world with woke ideologies.

 

[trans: tem]