Interview with Nicole Hoechst.
The term gender was created in 1975. The main ideologist of the gender mainstream is the American feminist Judith Butler. Her main thesis about the gender mainstream is: "There are no men and women at all."
In her opinion, biological sex is a purely cultural construct and is not determined by nature. Whether someone is a man or a woman, therefore, depends on their free choice.
Although gender theory has not yet passed scientific testing, “gender mainstreaming” is the stated goal of both the European Union and the German federal government.
It was approved by the German government in 1999 through a Cabinet Resolution as a guiding principle. However, the overwhelming majority of citizens do not know at all what “gender mainstreaming” means. Consequently, such decisions are made by a few people bypassing the public and are declared binding without any scientific evidence.
Despite numerous criticisms from various scientists and the general public, gender theory has become widespread and is being taught and promoted in kindergartens and schools. This development of events was to be noted by Mrs. Nicole Hoechst. Born in 1970 in Homburg, she studied pedagogy in the 1990s. As a teacher and mother of four children, she could see from her own experience that gender theory and the associated early sexualization are gaining importance in kindergartens and schools. She herself experienced how deeply this confuses children. Since 2017, by the way, she has been a member of the education committee of the German Bundestag.
In an interview on April 13, 2019, you can hear Ms Hoechst's assessment of the current situation.
Interview with Mrs. Hoechst:
Promotional video:
Host: Ms. Hoechst, it's good that you and I can conduct this interview. You have been working in the German Bundestag on behalf of the AfD (Alternative for Germany) since 2017. Could you tell us a little about your career?
Ms. Hoechst: Yes, of course, with pleasure. You know, I never thought in my life that I could ever become a politician. I had a penchant for a degree of education. I wanted to become a teacher, I wanted to work with children, because I just incredibly grieve to see this light of knowledge and enlightenment in children's eyes when new windows of knowledge are opened for them. And so I became a teacher many, many years ago. Then I switched to adult education, had four children and discovered, on the one hand, that family politics was no good - and this concerns me very closely. I must also point out that education policy is beautifully described by Josef Kraus in his book How to Bust an Educated Nation. Now, that's exactly the way it is. I could write that too. And it was then my two engines when I saidthat something was going to happen here now. And since 2015, everything became clear: "So now let's go!"
Host: Yes, very nice. You worked in the teachers' council for some time. And now you are a member of the education committee of the German Bundestag. How strongly does gender ideology influence these bodies at the present time?
Ms. Hoechst: Well, it's not just the education committee. So gender ideology is paid from many sources of the federal budget, it is also hidden in many positions. And now, just yesterday, I made a speech in the Bundestag on the proposal of the German federal party, which said: decisions on new legislation should be based more on the principle of innovation, we must complement the precautionary principle with the principle of innovation. And in doing so, I discovered for the first time how many guidelines exist for decision-makers here in Germany conducting regulatory impact assessments of the law. Even there, gender mainstreaming plays a role. We have a foundation, for which I have run several times for the Board of Trustees as a candidate for the Magnus Hirschfeld Foundation. This is one of the funds that is incredibly generously funded from the federal budget and, as I have already discovered, is also one of the key centers for the redistribution of money, which in any case should be covered more closely. Taking a gender perspective even in legislative proposals to fill parliaments on a parity basis, we consider it complete nonsense. This is contrary to our constitution. You can't do that. And we from AfD also say that we do not need these quotas. So we don't need women who were included in the quota system. We have enough women in society who have an inner drive and who say that I want to participate, I can do something, I know something, I think I can serve society in this way. Yes, that would be completely counterproductive. Gender mainstreaming is incredibly expensive. If we, for example,used this money to provide pensioners with additional funds, we would have already won one point.
Host: Okay, yes. Thank. At one of the events, you quoted from the various educational plans that exist in the different federal states. What awaits us and our children in the future?
Ms. Hoechst: Now I am again using the militant term "early sexualization". If we cite it in a political context, then you can always hear that this does not exist. And this term does not exist either. This is again one of those arrogant strategies that try to take over the place of phrases and define what works and what doesn't. We are talking about early sexualization, when education in schools or kindergartens goes far beyond the set goal. This means that children receive answers to questions they have never asked, and this awakens unnatural interest of any kind. Regardless of age, there are different areas of curiosity, depending on the stage of development, when they ask where the babies come from or how the baby gets into the mother's belly, etc. Children are curious, they discover their own world,and then ask appropriate questions. But if you want to teach young children in kindergarten the benefits of anal sex or tell them about it, then I think this is early sexualization. Nobody asked about it. Yes it is - no two year olds ask about anal sex. So sorry. It's just unnatural and has nothing to do with enlightenment. The so-called educators always argue this way: "Yes, but then it is easier to resist, or it is better to formulate in words what happened to the child." On the contrary, we share the belief that children with whom something happened may well open up and find enough words to describe where someone hurt them. So it is not necessary to obsessively explain to all two-year-old children what it is. In short, I find it worse than any bomb. But if you want to teach young children in kindergarten the benefits of anal sex or tell them about it, then I think this is early sexualization. Nobody asked about it. Yes it is - no two year olds ask about anal sex. So sorry. It's just unnatural and has nothing to do with enlightenment. The so-called educators always argue this way: "Yes, but then it is easier to resist, or it is better to formulate in words what happened to the child." On the contrary, we share the belief that children with whom something happened may well open up and find enough words to describe where someone hurt them. So it is not necessary to obsessively explain to all two-year-old children what it is. In short, I find it worse than any bomb. But if you want to teach young children in kindergarten the benefits of anal sex or tell them about it, then I think this is early sexualization. Nobody asked about it. Yes it is - no two year olds ask about anal sex. So sorry. It's just unnatural and has nothing to do with enlightenment. The so-called educators always argue this way: "Yes, but then it is easier to resist, or it is better to formulate in words what happened to the child." On the contrary, we share the belief that children with whom something happened may well open up and find enough words to describe where someone hurt them. So it is not necessary to obsessively explain to all two-year-old children what it is. In short, I find it worse than any bomb.
Host: Yes, if everything is normal in the family at home, then you can do without it.
Ms. Hoechst: Yes, well, I don't know. All my children approached me, and at different ages, and I was asked these questions. I easily explained to them why my eldest son's godfather had come with a man. Yes, you can say to young children, “Yes, because he loves a man. It happens. That's all they want to know. They don't want to know what they are doing. Not really.
Host: Yes, you just touched on this. You have four children. In one of your lectures, you talked about a confusing case. I guess it was then about your youngest. What happened there?
Ms. Hoechst: So our middle one left kindergarten quite early that time, then he was, I think, three or even two years old. Anyway, he was new to kindergarten, and there was a homosexual couple in his group who raised a child together. Perhaps someone even asked, in any case, of course I investigated it and asked: “What prompted you to do this?”, Since the following story happened. The kid came home completely scared and said: "Mom, I can be a girl." And it was a question for him, threatening his existence. This shocked him to the depths of his soul, because until then he always said: "I am a boy, and I will be like my dad or my older brother." So for him, certain realities were completely clear and clear. And this "I can be a girl too - I can choose this for myself," destroyed his complete worldview. I tried to save the situation a little lapidarily and said: "Boy, look in your pants, if you have" pussy "there - do you have it?" "Yes!" “Then you're a boy. Congratulations!" And it really worked, until last summer when he wanted to cut his hair and said, "Mom, now we can cut our hair, because I know I'm a boy." And I'm still outraged by this, that is, I still resent them there in kindergarten. They did many wonderful things and did a lot of things right, but I still resent the shock. For four years he was burdened with the choice of being a boy or a girl. This shouldn't be! Anyone who has small children, whom they have ever taken with them to the toy department, saying, "Kid, you can choose your own toy!" Knows that they will be parked there for the rest of the day. Children between the ages of two and three face the greatest difficulties when choosing one or another subject, all the more something so important! Yes, … in short, hell!
Host: What do you think are these people who promote such an ideology, but in fact turn these babies, one might say, into more or less sexual objects?
Ms. Hoechst: It's not that simple. So, it works the same way as the development of curricula in cooperation with various unions, which are financed to varying degrees from public funds, from taxpayers' funds. They say and pretend they want to educate. That they speak out against discrimination against minorities and against discrimination against homosexual or transgender people. So far, I can follow this too.
Good. Yes, we also do not want to discriminate against these people - get away from this. But this path is wrong. So, this is such a wonderful example where you can see that a good intention does not mean that things will turn out for the better. I find it completely wrong to embarrass all children and burden them with a burden as if they are forced to choose just because there are several people - and a generous estimate, which has probably increased in recent years, speaks of 10% of the population - who generally face the question: "Do I love homosexuals now?", "What's wrong with me?" or "Am I living in the right body?" But again here too: my contact with transgender people always shows me very clearly that this philosophy behind this strange kind of enlightenment is simply wrong. Because transgender people swear that they cannot choose who they are,but that they feel that they are in the wrong body and that there is no balance that should be there. And this continues until they simply gain this feeling of integration with the optical image of themselves, until they can be themselves. They don't want to be anything either. Therefore, if they are a woman and feel transgender, then they want to be a man. So it's impossible for a man and a woman to get out of this binary number. And it is transgender people who quite rightly say: “We are harnessed in front of such an outlandish clunker, where, according to this philosophy, at this time, there are supposedly 68+ sexes, from which they can choose who they are. Here we do not want to be a sled horse in a cart or a bird of paradise. In this sense, it does not concern us at all, as they imagine it. " It just isn't right. And here we come to the second point, why this story is a delusion. And I can prove this because we - in my opinion even before the Christmas holidays - decided in the Bundestag, and the Federal Constitutional Court also confirmed that it is now possible to register in a birth certificate under a "different" gender. How many people have done it so far? It can be counted on two hands, because it is wrong. This philosophy is simply misleading. And all politics fixated on the minority is wrong. What is Democracy? - Democracy means “rule of the people.” How should it be?that it is now possible to register on a birth certificate under a “different” gender. How many people have done it so far? It can be counted on two hands, because it is wrong. This philosophy is simply misleading. And all politics fixated on the minority is wrong. What is Democracy? - Democracy means “rule of the people.” How should it be?that it is now possible to register on a birth certificate under a “different” gender. How many people have done it so far? It can be counted on two hands, because it is wrong. This philosophy is simply misleading. And all politics fixated on the minority is wrong. What is Democracy? - Democracy means “rule of the people.” How should it be?
- The majority decides. And for many years this minority has been pulling us through the ring by the nose ring. In my opinion, this should not be the case.
Host: What, in your opinion, is the purpose of gender ideology or its creators?
Ms. Hoechst: It's very difficult. Now I will put on my aluminum hat and trace the various points at different levels. One of the stories is based on a Saarlandic proverb: "And then I will cloud you to the point that you no longer know who you are: a man or a woman." That is, this performance, no longer knowing who we are, man or woman, is the worst thing that ever happens! And this is very shocking, as can be seen in the example of my little son. He who constantly looks at himself and is busy testing himself, trying to determine who he really is, does not deal with modern problems in politics, economics, etc., but he is controlled in a very insidious way, through the consumption of sex and love. And this is the idea of controllability that is now coming up in other theories, which I'll just give here. I do not rate this here, but this is the thesis,which should be traced.
Sigmund Freud already knew that people who are sexualized early are plastic because they only have sex on their minds.
It also often leads to those who are sexually traumatized in early childhood to become a sociopath or psychopath themselves. This can be seen in clinical forensics. So we ourselves are breeding our own sociopaths or psychopaths with the help of current politics - if it goes completely absurd - and in no case will we achieve better enlightenment.
No, of course, other things are in the foreground for me, since they converge with other currents that I simultaneously see. So there is an idea that you can constantly optimize people. Why and for whom to optimize? I'm just talking about politics and economics here. This also applies to the desire to increasingly equate women and men, to completely separate women from their biology. Women can swallow pills so that there is no more bleeding, that is, there is no need to observe menstrual cycles. Women are not forced to have children. You don't even need more natural conception. In vitro fertilization (in vitro) can be used. And now a plastic bag has entered production, in which the lamb embryo has grown to maturity. Inventors and physicians say it works well for prenatal medicine for children. it
it is likely - but of course not yet known - perhaps even less risky for premature babies, etc. In this way, in the long run, we can completely separate women from their biology, and children no longer need to be born as we were taught, but can arise in vitro and develop in plastic bags. The ties are so completely severed. By the way, speaking of connections, this is a completely different matter. If we look at this now, then women, who are optimized and equated to men, are completely at the disposal of the economy and industry with their entire lives. And here in my ears sounds like this: "Women for production" - Hmm, so who said that? I again hear these loud steps, especially of a loud form of socialism, which simply says: "Men and women should pay taxes on an equal footing and should be available."
Yes, families are another issue. And so, now the family as the nucleus of society
there are many attacks. With or without an aluminum hat, we see that parents have to work more and more: both men and women, both because of the high tax burden, and because of the high tax burden, housing, electricity, etc., - because of everything where our governments have collected debts. And the state is gaining more and more power over cribs. Such a family, in itself as a union, where there is a close connection, is canceled. And this essentially refers to the generation of 68: my parents, who, thanks to this great mobility in Germany, were partially not even able to take care of their parents, as was the custom before. In short, large families were destroyed and destroyed first. My parents, unfortunately, live a little further away, and I am always glad when I see them, and they are always glad,when they see me and the children. But this is no longer like living together. The mainstream has already succeeded in this. And now they separate parents from children, young from old people, and men from women. We have a divorce rate. How many? Almost half of all marriages are divorced.
This is also a step. Relationships consume, and most often the reason for divorce is financial difficulties, which leads to many quarrels. It's all about the money.
And this is one of those things for which I say “yes”, politics should be responsible there too. We are not obligated to raise electricity prices as we do. We are not obliged to create the possibility of housing for the whole world, but for ourselves to make it absolutely expensive or even impossible for us … etc …..
Yes, and the next insidious attack on the family, which should come true this year, it is “children's rights in the constitution”. It sounds great at first. Nobody can object. But this means that children in the future have their own right. Where now parents can still say: "I do not want my child to have early sex here," then children have a right to this. And the already large number of access to families for the removal of children under guardianship, in my forecast, will continue to grow. The family, as such, will be powerless, powerless, gutted.. And - yes. "Love love….". If we have early sex and bring everything to the line of consumption, love will definitely die. Children no longer learn to live coherently and love each other. That is, we will not only destroy the family of the present time, but also future partnerships, future families, because then we will have only emotional zombies that are not used to,that relationship and love also means we are just going through tough times. So I think it's all very, very, very dubious.
Host: What do you think? How can we protect ourselves, our families, from such influences? What can we ourselves do to prevent what you said from happening?
Ms. Hoechst: The main symbol is really talking to each other in the family. Feel each other, be open. This begins with what I think is almost punishable, that children at the age of two or three already have their own TV in their room. Of course, this is very convenient. The TV also takes care of the children. But he does not sacrifice either love or feelings. Even very young children, at the age of my seven-year-old son, already have their own. It soothes children for hours. They have no questions. But they are cut off from human communication, from human warmth and human love. They do not have the opportunity for the simplest communication. This thing, of course, answers. Yes, but this is something completely different. She does not take them in her arms, and she does not console.
This is really what I can give everyone as parting words: take care of each other, be people. And also make sure that in your relationship - no matter in what relationship - your phone is not on the table all the time and you constantly open yourself up to the whole world. Moreover, your world should be the core - your family, where you love each other, where you are safe, where you can be yourself, where you don't always have to be in a glossy style. Where can you say: "I feel bad today."
You know this when you ask: "How are you?" Nobody will tell you: "I feel bad!" But at home I can say: "I feel bad, leave me alone." I cannot do this outside the house.
So this security, it is being lost more and more. And people who are no longer confident in the safety of their cage, who no longer have a strong connection, it is much easier for them to sing songs from the state - which happens under the "individualization" that is so good … No, no! Fully individualized people are cut off from all connections and become incredibly easy prey to manipulate. After all, Mrs. Merkel is the queen of prodding. And what I have seen personally quite often is how she treats the populace: just like the media give a push, encouraging people to think in a certain direction.
It doesn't work at home, when we discuss it with each other, when we say at home, “I experienced this at school” and “I experienced this at university,” and so on. and so on, and we mutually reflect this to each other, and we have one common position. But it may be that we do not have one opinion. This also happens. And this is our position: we quarreled, and now we cannot come to terms with each other. But we are strong because we have assured each other in terms of our own position. If I no longer have it, then I am no longer in power..
Host: Yes, thank you very much. I think this is exactly what we all need. Strength, community. Thanks a lot for the interview.
Ms. Hoechst: My pleasure.
Host: Thank you very much for your time. We wish you all the best and strength for your work.
Ms. Hoechst: Yes, thank you very much for your support.
Host: Thank you.