The following video shows a speech given before the recent election by Dr. Alexander Gauland, one of the leaders of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany). Dr. Gauland decries the Islamization of Germany, and emphasizes his party’s core principle that any foreigners admitted to Germany must assimilate to the language, culture, values, and laws of their adopted country.
Many thanks to Oz-Rita for the translation and the subtitling:
Perhaps someone familiar with German law can answer this. In the last year I’ve read several articles about Germans being prosecuted (and convicted) for posting anti-Islam comments on Facebook.
How does this speaker manage to do a long-form anti Islam talk and not end up in the cross-hairs of Johnny Law. (Or Hans Gesetz, as they may say?)
From what I observe here, Gauland is careful to quote Muslims on Islam and let that speak for itself.
If you watch closely: he quotes Khomeini. Then presents just the facts of a current legal case and cites a professor’s opinion on it. He makes a reference to Houellebecq, cites Erdogan, and, finally, a scientific survey.
He asks if this can be compatible with the German constitution.
Saying he doesn’t want any of this surely is hate speech in politically correct ears, but it is classic “freedom of opinion”, even in Germany.
Any lawyer would be hard pressed to sue him.
The Stürzenberger case is new, insofar as Stürzenberger was sort of using this strategy too. Personally, I would put my bets on the next higher court repealing the verdict against him.
Sorry Egri. I disagree with you totally.
Gauland clearly states his own opinion and his own conclusions Islam is incompatible with Germany. No qualifications, and he’s not stepping carefully to only quote others. He’s making his own opinions crystal clear.
From this, I conclude even the German government and the police bureaucracy is hesitant to take the final step of prosecuting speech made explicitly in a political campaign. It would highlight Germany indisputably and clearly as a totalitarian state. I don’t think they’re ready for that yet, particularly with a Trump presidency. It might have been different if Hillary had gotten elected, and NATO regarded as more-or-less the enforcement arm of the EU and the globalist bankers, financiers, and bureaucrats.
Indeed, he states his opinion and conclusions, but he isn’t ranting, he is building a case, using proof to substantiate.
Hamed Abdel-Samad concluded that Islam was “fascist”, and people tried, but failed, to take him to court over that. It is difficult to sue someone for a well thought out argument.
Thanks for posting videos such as these. It’s encouraging to see/hear common sense voices coming out of some quarters in Europe. AfD’s presence in the Bundestag is very much for the good.
The other day Robert Spencer joked that the present times will be known, in future history books, as the Age of Absurdity. [This of course presumes the present Age of Absurdity does in fact come to an end. That’s not necessarily assured; Heaven forbid, but maybe this present age will be known as the Initial Stage of the Age of Absurdity.]
I, too, am heartened that a voice of common sense such as Gauland’s is coming out of a German parliamentarian. I was also heartened when his co-leader of the AfD, Alice Weidel, a lesbian in a partnership with children, said in response to narky questions from a journalist about her position on same-sex marriage, given her own personal arrangements, (I paraphrase): “To be talking about same-sex marriage when Germany is under invasion from Islam is irrelevant” She can sort the chaff from the grain.
As for the Age of Absurdity: by the early 1980’s I felt very keenly that I was already living in it. So I really, truly, hope that future historians will, with a solid basis, regard the second decade of the 21st century as the final decade of the Age of Absurdity.
And in spite of all the in-your-face evidence, the AfD only got… 14 per cent.
Now there’s a statistic to make you feel depressed.
I think it finalized to 12.6 not 14 percent.
Also, I don’t have the exact breakout, but something like half of all the AFD voters are from the former East German region. The modern “Western” Germans are very much against the AFD platform as a whole. So, maybe only 6 percent of the West Germans that you and I would be hanging out with, would have voted for the AFD. Any Germans here, feel free to correct me if I’m in error.
This is a good speech by Gauland though! I like it.
Did you already factor in that there are only 16 million people in the former East German states though, and 66 million in the West?
You can look at the individual states to get a nuanced picture.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/bundestagswahl/alle-zahlen-zur-wahl-so-hat-mein-wahlkreis-gewaehlt-15194715.html
I’ve seen interactive maps, but unfortunately I don’t remember where!
Without doubt, the East is more AfD friendly. But there are more communist there too!
The 10% for the FDP are a good sign, in my opinion, they are a classic liberal party, EU-critical and for limiting migration (I’m not saying they will pursue any of that, in fact I am almost certain they won’t – I’m just saying it is a good sign that 10% of the voters wanted that).
The fact that the CSU, another immigration critical party, completely destroyed the SPD in Bavaria, was encouraging too.
A fact though that gets totally overlooked, but which worries me, is the strong result of the Greens, and Die Linke. Both gained slightly.
Thanks! When I heard Lindner of the FDP though recently on a talk show, I thought he said they were a oro- European, i.e. Pro EU party. But I had a hard time fuguring out ehy the FDP did so well, it’s not like there would have been tons more of self-employed persons of late, so I figured they saw it as an AFD lite or they liked Lindner’s looks. People do vote for appearance and he genersl, he is articulate and has good manners during talk show round tables. But like you, I sense he will cave a lot to the liberals in the coalition.
AfD Lite is a great term! I also think that was why people voted for them.
I was indeed over-simplifying when I said EU-critical. They are critical of the ‘transfer union’, the handling of the Euro currency.
I suspect their late stance against the abuse of the asylum system – Lindner demanded in a ‘Bild’ interview that all Syrians should be sent back, shortly before the election – was merely vote catching.
They do demand, like the AfD, an investigation committee against Merkel though.
Even if this might never happen, I think the media will be forced to discuss it, which might wake up one citizen or another. Currently, I think, too many people aren’t even aware to what extent law was (and is) breached.
“AfD Lite is a great term”
No, that’s an offense to the AfD!
FDP, the Libdems, have been here since 1949 AFAIK and often played the role of deciding who would become chancellor, with whom they allied (Only three parties in the Bundestag). Getting into government was more important than to keep to principles.
“No, that’s an offense to the AfD!”
I meant it in a condescending way (towards FDP) 🙂
I’m not German, but too much is made of the notion that the former DDR is where the AfD gets its big numbers. The subtext is that the Ossies are all backward rubes suffering from the legacy of Communism. While the Wessies are sophisticates who naturally reject the “coarse populism” of the AfD. That’s the MSM narrative.
The AfD made a surprisingly strong showing in the affluent, south-western, State of Baden-Wurttemberg with 12.2% of the vote. That is, 0.4% less than the AfD gained in the nation-wide vote. Because the Free Democrats and the Greens both beat the AfD by a fraction of a percentage point, in relation to B-W the media makes much of the AfD getting 5th place in that state, but shifts the focus away from the percentage; how close it was to getting 3rd place. The people in major cities of B-W, such as Stuttgart, have experienced the negative impacts of a large resident Muslim population and they don’t like it. The people of B-W outside the major cities don’t have to live with Muslim no-go zones, so are less familiar with the adverse impacts and therefore continue voting for traditional parties.
I’m going to post my ongoing idea: that East Germany is more resistant to Islamization and EU totalitarianism not because they are already familiar with totalitarian government, but because the totalitarian government they lived under (like most) was so inefficient and corrupt, there was actually a Darwinian selection. Only the stronger people survived.
In the plush, fat, prosperous welfare states of West Germany and Western Europe, almost unlimited money was spent saving even the most damaged people, so they could live and breed. The beneficiary populations seem to lack even the most basic instincts for survival.
Which reason, by the way, is why I think an encounter between the North Korean military and the US military is not going to go as well as our military bureaucracy seems to think. The US actually carries out most of its operations with elite troops, who can match or outmatch almost any force in the world, but the regular military, with its complement of affirmative action, gender equality, and transgenderism, will be another matter entirely.
“was actually a Darwinian selection. Only the stronger people survived.”
Not the least evidence for this; there was no exceptional mortality in the DDR.
The main reason is the Re-education program of Germany by the western allies in their zones, while the Soviets did not care of such subtlilities; lower standard of living is another reason though. To phrase it other way: people in the DDR where not trained to respect the “Auschwitz club”.
you are right, Gretel! In my city, AfD just scored around 6%, but 10% and more in the culturally enriched parts of the town.
Please excuse typos my iphone is tiny tiny.