Alt-News Outlet NIUS Questions Correctiv's Exposé of 'Wannsee Meeting 2.0'

Plausible allegations incl. illegal recordings, privacy infringement, and some more criminal charges that may await the intrepid state-and-oligarch-funded 'journos'

Reference is made to the alleged ‘secret plan’ by the gov’t-and-oligarch funded ‘news outlet’ Correctiv we discussed last week.

The End of 'the Nazi Bludgeon': German Media Announces 'Nationwide Right-Wing Association' Forming and Leaves out Crucial Facts

Alt-news outlet NIUS has published another piece on this fabricated outrage, which I translated below; as always, I added some emphases and bottom lines.

---

‘Secret Plan Against Germany’: How the State-Funded Outlet Correctiv Fabricated a Wannsee Conference 2.0

By Björn Harms and Jan A. Karon, NIUS, 14 Jan. 2024 [source]

It is a revelation that is causing a nationwide stir and has been dominating the headlines for days: The research portal Correctiv reported on Wednesday [10 Jan. 2024] about a meeting that took place in November in a Potsdam villa, at which ‘high-ranking politicians’ from the AfD and CDU, entrepreneurs, and right-wing activists met are said to have met to work on a ‘secret plan against Germany’.

This plan allegedly envisages removing millions of foreigners, but also Germans with a migration background, from the country. ‘AfD politicians are apparently discussing an expulsion plan’, was the headline of [state broadcaster] ARD Tagesschau [nightly news]. Der Spiegel even wrote about a ‘deportation summit’. ‘What is being designed there this weekend is an attack on people’s existence. And it is nothing less than an attack on the constitution of the Federal Republic’, claim the Correctiv journalists. How do they come up with this? ‘Sources provide evidence of the participants’ statements to Correctiv’, it says nebulously in the text.

But What is Behind these Allegations?

Research by NIUS suggests that there was neither a secret plan nor was the event about the expulsion of millions of Germans with migrantion background. In addition, on 25 Nov. 2023, there were no high-ranking politicians at the Landhotel Adlon in Potsdam who could have implemented a secret plan of any kind. At numerous points, the story told by Correctiv does not match the accounts of those present with whom NIUS spoke to reconstruct what actually happened.

Prepared Rooms for Private Meetings

Gernot Mörig, 69 years old, a retired Düsseldorf dentist, and the entrepreneur Hans-Christian Limmer, founder of the bakery chain ‘Backwerk’ had invited to the meeting. Mörig has a dubious past and was active in the right-wing extremist association Heimattreue Deutsche Jugend (HDJ) in the 1970s. The first personal invitation to the participants, which NIUS has seen, speaks of a ‘private meeting’ of an ‘exclusive network’ that is intended to enable a ‘constructive, confidential exchange of ideas’.

The guest list included a wide variety of people. Those from the AfD were present: Gerrit Huy, member of the Bundestag, Ulrich Siegmund, member of the state parliament from Saxony-Anhalt, and Roland Hartwig, initially a manager at Bayer, later an AfD member of the Bundestag, and now an advisor to AfD party chair Alice Weidel. The group was also joined by the real estate entrepreneur and journalist Silke Schröder, the constitutional lawyer Ulrich Vosgerau, two members of the Werteunion [a new conservative faction], and the head of the Identitarian Movement Austria, Martin Sellner, whose lecture, according to Correctiv, was to be the main event on 25 Nov. According to information from NIUS, 20 to 25 people were present, including no nationally known or influential elected officials from the AfD or CDU.

Correctiv learned about the meeting early on and apparently prepared for the occasion. Three hidden cameras are said to have been used at the entrance, and a photographer with a telephoto lens is said to have taken photos of the participants from a rented raft on the adjacent lake. At the same time, a hotel guest was infiltrated who, according to participants at the meeting, secretly made audio and video recordings of the event. He arrived on 23 Nov. under the name Walter Redelfs and checked out again on 25 Nov.

Participants tell NIUS that this person [W. Redelfs] visited the open meeting room several times and was repeatedly turned away. He is also said to have been seen wearing headphones. When asked by NIUS, Correctiv denied having recorded the event, for example, with a directional microphone.

The State has Been Contributing to Finance Correctiv for Years

Correctiv explains their approach as follows: ‘We rented a room through an online portal that the hoteliers apparently forgot to block. This meant that one of our reporters was able to openly enter the house and spend the night with the other guests as the only external participant.’ This is demonstrably false, explains hotel owner Wilhelm Wilderink in an interview with NIUS. According to him, there were other external guests in the villa, where parts of the series ‘Babylon Berlin’ were also filmed. There were no special security measures at the house. All of this torpedoes the thesis of a secret plan.

But who is actually the research portal that claims the right to photograph and presumably listen to private meetings with hidden cameras? Is Correctiv really as independent as it is made out to be?

In fact, Correctiv journalists have been benefiting massively from tax money for years. For example, the portal received funding from the Federal Government's Culture and Media Commissioner, Claudia Roth (Greens). In 2022, this funded ten mostly left-wing journalistic projects with around 2.3m euros. ‘Tax money for journalists who toe the line’, was the headline in the NZZ. The office of the State Minister for Culture and Media left unanswered an enquiry as to whether there were any concerns about a state-funded media company spying on private meetings.

In 2023, the research outlet Correctiv received, among other things, 61,000 euros from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs. Almost 362,000 euros in tax money flowed from the State Chancellery of North Rhine-Westphalia in 2022. The foundations of US billionaires George Soros and Pierre Omidyar, both known for their donations to left-wing clubs and organizations, have also paid a total of over 2.5 million euros since 2016.

The question then arises as to whether government-funded media activists are allowed to use surveillance methods to spy on political activities. Paparazzi photos of celebrities—we know that. But sophisticated observations of people based on their views, carried out by organisations that are also financed by tax money—that is new and seemed unthinkable until recently. Correctiv proudly documents what is reminiscent of the methods of a political secret service.

How close the relationship is between the government and Correctiv can also be seen in the statements made by the deputy editor-in-chief, Anette Dowideit: ‘Dear Chancellor Scholz, thank you for the mention and it’s good that you are commenting on our research’, she wrote on X (formerly Twitter), when Scholz spoke out against ‘fanatics with assimilation fantasies’ with reference to the Correctiv article. She later shared a call for a demonstration against the AfD on Friday evening.

Was Remigration the Focus of the Meeting?

The goal of the meeting, according to Correctiv, was ‘nothing less than the expulsion of millions of people from Germany’. The focus of the day was the concept of remigration. ‘Basically, the thought games on this day all boil down to one thing: people should be able to be pushed out of Germany if they supposedly have the wrong skin colour or origin.’ The framing of the article suggests that sinister circles are meeting here in secret to discuss the deportation of millions of foreigners.

Correctiv itself drew parallels to the National Socialists’ Madagascar plan [which was o.k. for the Branch Covidians as long as it affected the ‘unvaccinated’]—and literally even brought the event closer to the Wannsee Conference. ‘Less than eight kilometres away from the hotel is the house of the Wannsee Conference, where the Nazis coordinated the systematic extermination of Jews’, the authors whispered.

Context and Specifics Were Left Out

NIUS's research shows that the meeting was a private group that met for the first time in this format on 25 Nov., but it did not come together to talk exclusively about deportations. The topic of remigration cannot be found on the agenda presented to NIUS. Instead, several lectures were announced.

Various participants with whom NIUS was able to speak explain that numerous topics were presented and debated at the meeting, which lasted several hours. The agenda includes lectures on questions of ‘coordination of alternative influencers’, the problem of postal voting [huhum], local politics in Saxony-Anhalt, and even left-wing extremism. One participant speaks of a ‘networking meeting with keynote speeches’. Martin Sellner gave one of these lectures. The title had nothing to do with migration, but was: ‘A systematic overall strategy (master plan).’ The presentation slides that were shown that day are available to NIUS. Remigration was an important sub-point within this lecture.

According to one participant, the discussion about remigration lasted about 45 minutes during this lecture. Others report ‘a more casual 20, maybe 30 minutes’. The meeting began at 9 a.m. and ended around 5 p.m. before ending the day with dinner. It is difficult to reconstruct exactly how long the topic was discussed that day. But what everyone present denies: that the meeting was about this overriding theme.

When asked by NIUS why the article left out the overall context of the day, Correctiv said: ‘According to our research, your conversation partners do not remember correctly or have told you the untruth.’ [this is a non-falsifiable statement] Reference is made again to the invitation letter.

The Invitations Seem Dubious

But the matter of invitations is not that easy to keep track of, because there are at least three, some of which have spelling errors and are designed in an amateurish way. In the first letter, the ‘Düsseldorf Forum’ invites people to the Landhaus Adlon in Potsdam on 25 Nov. ‘We are firmly convinced that together we can still bring about positive change in our country’, says the letter from September. Specific lectures are not yet listed here. There is talk of a minimum donation of 5,000 euros. A ‘neutral account will be announced’ on site.

Numerous participants, including Silke Schröder, claim that they only received this first, completely vague letter. ‘For example, I didn’t know at all that Martin Sellner would be giving a lecture’, says AfD politician Gerrit Huy. But she would have come to the meeting even if she had known about Sellner's presence.

Correctiv also refers to a second letter from October in which Martin Sellner, but also Alexander von Bismarck, is identified by name. This letter also expressly refers to the ‘necessary discretion’. Correctiv's cooperation partner, the Greenpeace investigative team, also published a third document outlining thematic focuses.

The topic of remigration is nowhere to be found, but instead the organisers promise: Sellner will present an overall concept in the sense of a master plan. Constitutional lawyer Ulrich Vosgerau claims to have known that Sellner was there. That didn't deter him either. Why should it be, he says in an interview with NIUS, after all, in a free country you can listen to lectures from whomever you want and, if necessary, you can object if you don't like what was said or seem unconstitutional.

Expulsion and Deportation Plans?

The Austrian Martin Sellner, who is considered the head of the Identitarian Movement, which the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in Germany under President Thomas Haldenwang (CDU) classifies as right-wing extremist, is said to have discussed remigration in his presentation and distinguished between three groups: asylum seekers, foreigners with the right to remain—and ‘unassimilated citizens’. The 35-year-old is said to have tied the right to remain to the criterion of assimilation, participants report. The plan to expel the latter, i.e., naturalised German citizens, is currently causing outrage. Numerous media spoke of ‘millions of expulsions’ and ‘mass deportations’, often with the addition of ‘ethnic criteria’.

In the lecture itself, as participants reported, Sellner did not go into Nazi analogies at all, but rather mentioned role models for a possible remigration concept, such as the island state of Fiji, which is exerting pressure to emigrate against the Indian population settled under British colonial rule, or Pakistan, which recently announced plans to deport 1.7 million Afghans. When asked why these specific examples were not taken up in the Correctiv reporting, it was said: ‘We have neither incorrectly nor incompletely contextualized Martin Sellner’s lecture.’

When, Exactly, do Considerations About Remigration Become a ‘Secret Plan’?

According to information from NIUS, the word expulsion [orig. Vertreibung] was not mentioned in the lecture—a word that is currently making the rounds in the reporting. Sellner did not advocate the mass expulsion of German citizens, as can be read in Correctiv, but rather advocated pushing non-integrated people with dual citizenship to assimilate or revoking people's German citizenship, for example, if they committed serious crimes.

Similar suggestions have been formulated in recent months by SPD Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (in the case of clan criminals) or CSU regional leader Alexander Dobrindt and CDU politician Alexander Throm (in the case of anti-Semitic demonstrations). Faeser even called for the deportation of clan members who had not committed a crime. It was only at the end of October that Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) spoke out in Der Spiegel in favour of ‘deportations on a large scale’.

Constitutional lawyer Ulrich Vosgerau is surprised: ‘In the fall, Nancy Faeser was even more of a right-wing radical than Martin Sellner and didn't have to be listened to because she wrote it in official government statements. And now somehow a radical turnaround, any thought about how to deal with millions of illegal immigrants since 2015, who, according to the new study by Raffelhüschen, will bring nothing to the social and pension system but will cost a lot, is suddenly considered planning of “expulsions”.’

Patrick Bahners writes about this in the FAZ: ‘In fact, the points in Sellner's concept that Correctiv presents is in many places only one or two steps beyond the migration policy simulations of the Ampel coalition and the [conservative opposition] Union parties. A ‘model state’ in Africa—that is initially just the more consistent version of the project to stabilise Libya or the Rwanda plans of Rishi Sunak and Jens Spahn. Pressure to assimilate are no taboo for Linnemann-CDU and Giffey-SPD.’

When asked whether Correctiv could understand that other media are now talking about ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘expulsions’, the online portal said: ‘It is easy to understand that, based on the research, these associations are apparent to readers who feel threatened by right-wing populists.’

The extent to which the considerations about ‘remigration’ represent a ‘secret plan’ is another matter: AfD politicians talk about it quite openly and use the vocabulary regularly. In Martin Sellner's Telegram channel you will find 353 entries if you search for the term. The right-wing activist has been propagating the term for years. A book by him entitled ‘Remigration: A proposal’ has been announced.

Participants Claim to have been Misquoted

Elsewhere, participants in the event also accused Correctiv of deliberately distorting the facts. At the meeting on 25 Nov, Vosgerau also gave a lecture: about the problem of postal voting. According to Correctiv, Vosgerau stated that ‘young voters of Turkish origin cannot form independent opinions.’

In fact, his lecture was about a concrete case study that was intended to illustrate the hurdles of postal voting, as Vosgerau explained to NIUS. The only question he was concerned with was whether a girl of Turkish origin who filled out a postal ballot in the presence of several brothers and family could actually make an independent decision. This goes against the electoral principles of a secret and free election. According to the 50-year-old, this has nothing to do with resentment or the inability to educate oneself politically [in fact, it’s a valid point, isn’t it?]

Consequences, Distancing, and Economic Damage

For Vosgerau, the reporting could also have personal consequences: The University of Cologne, where the 50-year-old taught until 2018, distanced itself in a statement. They want to check whether Vosgerau's requirements for Privatdozent [someone holding a Habilitation] status are still met [in case you’re asking yourself, the German word for ‘witch-hunt’ is Hexenjagd].

The German Language Association (VDS), for which participant Silke Schröder volunteers, also distanced herself from her. ‘The VDS does not support actions that are not compatible with the Basic Law and rejects discrimination of any form’, says a statement that, according to information from NIUS, was published within a few hours without consulting Schröder [note that it is insinuated here that, by merely attending the meeting, Ms. Schröder broke the constitution]. According to information from NIUS, the association is considering expelling Schröder from the board, which will be discussed next Friday [18 Jan. 2024].

The burger chain ‘Hans im Glück’ and the restaurant chain ‘Pottsalat’ have meanwhile distanced themselves from their shareholder Hans-Christian Limmer, one of the two congress organisers. In order to prevent damage to the company, he offered to immediately give up his partnership status. ‘We are surprised and dismayed by the public allegations that one of our co-owners invited people to an event at which right-wing radicals are said to have called for the remigration of millions of people, including German nationals’ [allegations that are, at the very least, questionable], writes the company ‘Hans Im Glück’. Limmer wasn't even present at the November meeting, so he can't know what was actually discussed. He also asserts that he played no role in the organisation and planning.

According to information from NIUS, the CDU is currently examining party expulsion proceedings against Simone Baum and Michaela Schneider. Both women from the conservative Werteunion were present on the day of the lecture in question. The AfD, on the other hand, emphasised the ‘private character’ of the meeting. A statement from the party said that ‘AfD members present did not appear on behalf of the party’. The program of the Alternative for Germany ‘deals with the concept of remigration in a transparent and constitutional manner: neither in the 2021 federal election program nor in the 2024 European election program are there any indications that could in any way question our self-image as a “Basic Law Party”.’

No On-Site Loyalty Tests

NIUS also spoke to Wilhelm Wilkering, owner of the Landhaus Adlon since 2011, where the meeting took place. The hotel-owner is also an assessor on the board of the CDU Potsdam and found himself in the line of fire by association. Spontaneous demonstrations immediately took place in front of the 5,100 square meter property. The situation represents a great psychological burden, especially for his family, he tells NIUS. Wilkering has made the country house available for events for years. Around 80 to 100 events take place there every year, including weddings, private celebrations, but also political events. In principle, anyone can book the premises through a rental company, he explains, including the AfD. Whoever attends the events in detail is beyond his knowledge, because of course they do not carry out loyalty tests on site.

What Role do the Calls for a Ban of the AfD Play?

When asked to what extent Correctiv's reporting on the private meeting justifies the devastating consequences for guests and hotel owners, the outlet responds: ‘You are essentially asking whether we would like to apologise to the participants for the possible economic harm they could suffer because business partners no longer want to work with them after they took part in a secret meeting that discussed options for expelling millions of German citizens from Germany who were guilty of nothing—except for agreeing to some people's nationalist views According to them, they are not “assimilated” enough.’ The answer is: no.

Several participants in the meeting told NIUS that they had the impression that Correctiv was about ‘destroying economic livelihoods and providing ammunition for an AfD ban process.’

In fact, the debate about a possible ban of the AfD is gaining new momentum. Already on Wednesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung asked: ‘Can the AfD be banned?’ Die Zeit went further: ‘Isn’t it time to ban the AfD?’ The [state broadcaster ARD’s] Tagesschau headline on Friday read: ‘After meetings with right-wing extremists: arguments in favour of an AfD ban?’ Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck (Greens) also said in an interview with RTL that You have to ‘look very carefully at individual statements, individual people, individual outlines, and then of course collect evidence that is hard enough.’

The Berliner Tagesspiegel, ‘in addition to a party ban’, further suggested to deprive basic civil liberties of ‘individual AfD officials’. This would be ‘a legal novelty, but by no means hopeless’.

The Production Moves to the Next Level

In view of the reporting on the ‘secret plan against Germany’, legal questions also arise. It's not just the look in the style of the ‘Jason Bourne’ trilogy that is reminiscent of a spy thriller—the spying and infiltration of the meeting also sometimes seems like secret service operations. One participant speaks of ‘Stasi methods’.

When asked whether Walter Redelf, that fake guest, was a real person, Correctiv confirmed that a reporter checked in under a false name. On the Internet you can find at least one man with the same last name: Manfred Redelfs, a journalist and private lecturer with connections to Greenpeace [which, as mentioned above, is one of Correctiv’s partners]. According to Correctiv, there is no family relationship. The guest's address stored with the online booking provider is Bergmannstrasse 26 in Berlin-Kreuzberg, where the Felix Austria restaurant is located—probably a nod to the Austrian identity leader Martin Sellner [this is all too stupid, but I shall add: in many European countries, registration of hotel guests is mandatory; what that Correctiv journo did is he broke the law by providing fake details].

If audio recordings of the event exist—attributed quotes from the hour-long gathering surprised some participants—legal consequences could follow. According to information from NIUS, many participants reserve the right to file criminal charges [against Correctiv] and take action under press law.

The AfD member of the Bundestag Gerrit Huy, who was also involved in the meeting, has already filed a criminal complaint for three criminal offenses: violating the confidentiality of the word, violating the most personal sphere of life and violating the right to one's own image.

The Potsdam public prosecutor's office is currently examining whether there is initial suspicion of a crime. Only then can investigations be initiated. ‘As part of this review, the Potsdam public prosecutor’s office is currently evaluating the aforementioned press reporting’, a spokesman told NIUS.

There is currently no end in sight to the spy thriller from the villa in Potsdam. The research into the ‘secret plan’ will be brought to the stage in the Berliner Ensemble in just a few days, on 17 Jan. Then, as some would say tongue-in-cheek say, the drama is taken to the next level.

Caption: ‘In a few days [tomorrow], Correctiv’s exposé [sic] will be staged [sic].’

---

Bottom Lines

This is too stupid not to mention; there’s so much wrong here, that it boggles the mind.

Leaving aside the questionable ethical and, yes, possible criminal law implications, this ‘reporting’ is about smearing political opponents with guilt by association and denying those smeared the opportunity to respond. Put differently, it’s a public show trial.

This is the proverbial canary in the coal mine, for if this issue stands, nothing is off the table.

‘Remigration’ has been discussed, as mentioned above, in no uncertain terms by members of the current gov’t, incl. Chancellor Scholz and Interior Minister Faeser.

If it is mentioned by ‘right-wingers’, though, it’s all wrong (dear US-based readers: does this remind you of something that starts with a ‘w’ and ends with ‘all’?).

AfD chair Alice Weidel reportedly fired her advisor Mr. Hartwig, legacy media ‘reported’ today.

We also note, in passing, that the same people (Correctiv) who quite possibly illegally recorded the meeting and took photographs of some or all the participants seek to expand surveillance of the citizenry.

Brave New World is a weak analogy; 1984 is a bit closer. Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil’ should be mentioned here, too.

Also, lest I forget, when did the actors at the Berliner Ensemble ‘know’ about the exposé?

Sigh.