Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
The cowardly CDU Minister-President Sven Schulze backs out of the debate with Ulrich Siegmund (AfD)In a functioning democracy, political competition should be decided by arguments—not by evasion, rule changes, and hysterical warnings about the "downfall of Western civilization." The "largest German-language interview podcast" by Ben Berndt (ungeskriptet by Ben) attempted exactly that: to facilitate a factual confrontation between Sven Schulze (CDU) and Ulrich Siegmund (AfD). The result is an indictment of the political establishment. Berndt invited the incumbent Minister-President Sven Schulze to face his challenger Ulrich Siegmund on policy issues. Schulze, a seasoned politician with EU experience, should have been the ideal candidate to critically challenge the AfD's positions. Instead: he declined, citing "scheduling reasons." Three months before the election, the CDU politician supposedly cannot find a single available slot for the largest German-language podcast—while Siegmund will appear. It strongly resembles an attempt to dodge the debate. Rule Changes Driven by PanicEven more embarrassing is the broader context highlighted by Berndt. As soon as the prospect of an AfD-led state government emerges, Berlin's political establishment descends into collective panic. Suddenly, the Bundesrat's procedures are changed: in the future, a single federal state will no longer be allowed to introduce legislative proposals on its own—it will require two states. A rule that stood for decades is rewritten overnight simply because the "wrong" party might come to power. Supposedly, this is necessary "to protect democracy."Such justifications sound like pure mockery. If the other 15 minister-presidents are supposedly doing everything right and only the AfD would lead the country to ruin, then why is there such fear of democratic majorities? The established parties define themselves as democracy itself while portraying their political opponents as an existential threat. That is not a democratic mindset—it is the preservation of power through moral grandstanding. The "Firewall" as a Democratic DeficitThe much-invoked "firewall" against the AfD turns out, upon closer inspection, to be a manifestation of intellectual and political cowardice. Instead of engaging on substance, debates are refused, rules are changed, and talk shows primarily give the floor to people who already belong to the same ideological bubble. Berndt sums it up perfectly: if the AfD is truly considered so dangerous, then its candidates must be confronted—ideally by their direct political competitors. That is precisely what is not happening.Instead, the usual spectacle will unfold afterward: Sven Schulze or other establishment politicians will not have commented on Siegmund's statements in the podcast, yet the media and politicians will accuse Ben Berndt of being "not critical enough." Calls for "context" always seem to arise when one's own candidate avoids an open debate. Democracy Thrives on ConfrontationAnyone who genuinely wants to "save democracy" must be willing to engage in debate. Not behind closed doors among like-minded people, not through backroom rule changes, but publicly, fairly, and on substance. Ben Berndt's podcast provides exactly that forum—uncut and with a large audience. Schulze's refusal suggests that parts of the CDU prefer to stick with a familiar strategy: vilify the AfD rather than challenge it with arguments.That is not a sign of strength but of weakness. A government and a major political party that shy away from a podcast discussion three months before an important state election signal a profound lack of confidence in their own positions. Voters notice this. They see the double standards being applied. Sven Schulze still has one available slot. In the name of the democracy you so loudly claim to defend: attend the interview and face the debate. Or admit honestly that the "firewall" primarily serves to avoid uncomfortable questions. Voters have a keen sense of who hides—and who steps up. Author: AI-Translation - АИИ | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Stasi 2.0: North Rhine-Westphalia Media Authority Forces Podcaster into Censorship – This “Our Democracy” Once Again Reveals Itself as a Dictatorship of OpinionWhile millions of citizens are finally seeking unfiltered conversations, the state apparatus is cracking down with legal provisions and threatening letters. Ben Ungescriptet is bei... zum Artikel |
 | District Administrator: No Right to Survive – Welcome to the New GermanyIn a country that likes to see itself as social, just, and Christian, a CDU district administrator now stands up and openly declares what is usually only whispered behind closed do... zum Artikel |
 | The Middle Finger of District Administrator Götz Ulrich and the Shy RepresentativesIt took a long time. After many months, a letter from the district administrator regarding my objection to the prohibition of video recording of the district committee meeting on 1... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |