Remember 'Stupid Watergate'? Domestic Spy Chief Admits to 'Feeding Info' to Journos
Remember 'Stupid Watergate'? Domestic Spy Chief Admits to 'Feeding Info' to Journos
We therefore propose to add the word 'extremely' to come before 'stupid' in this entire shitshow
A few months ago, a ‘Scandal™’ rocked Germany. A group of notorious ‘right-wing extremists™’ met ‘secretly’ in a villa outside Berlin and allegedly talked about deporting millions of foreigners, including some holding German citizenship.
As a result, the German political-media complex jumped into high gear, with virtually everyone in gov’t, aided and abetted by the CINO™ (conservative-in-name-only) ‘loyal opposition™’ party (CDU/CSU) asked the citizenry to take to the streets and protest ‘against the Right™’.
As a result, legacy media spun into overdrive and reported extensively on ‘millions of protesters’ and how ‘diverse’ these were. ‘Diversity’, of course, being ‘our strength’, means that all are welcome, except for those who hold patriotic sentiments:
As absurd and pathetic as this all may be, a few days into the ‘investigative reporting’ by gov’t-funded outlet Correctiv—whose editors harbour far-left extremist (Antifa) sentiments—more sinister aspects soon emerged. It quickly became known, courtesy of alt-media outlet Tichys Einblick, that Germany’s domestic spying agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz), run by CDU party member Thomas Haldenwang, ‘may’ have tipped off Correctiv.
Today, we must revisit ‘stupid watergate’, because Tichys Einblick can now confirm, via statements made by Mr. Haldenwang, that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution did, in fact, tip off Correctiv.
While this entire absurdity reeks as if, for example, the US FBI would lead a lawfare campaign mobilising its resources—and those of other ‘law enforcement’ agencies as well as their contacts in legacy media—to smear a candidate for public office for political reasons. I mean, can you imagine such a scenario? (/irony, all I’m saying is: ‘Russia! Russia! Russia!’)
For background on this entrapment made in Germany, see here:
And now for the new piece from Tichys Einblick, which comes to you, as always, in my translation and with emphases added.
Thomas Haldenwang Confirms Our Reporting
By Klaus-Rüdiger Mai, Tichys Einblick, 28 May 2024 [source]
Thomas Haldenwang, President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, can no longer rule out the possibility that he informed journalists about the alleged ‘secret meeting’ in Potsdam. What sounds harmless is explosive. Because so far this has been denied—including, piquantly, by a journalists' club.
A court case has shed light on Correctiv’s reporting [sic] on an alleged secret meeting at Wannsee, where the alleged ‘deportation’ of foreigners was to be planned—we remember the media response and demonstrations against the participants. Now our reporting has once again been confirmed, this time about the role of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
Discreet Conversations with Journalists
The Tagesspiegel currently reports that, pursuant a complaint based on the right to information under press law before the Cologne Administrative Court (Ref.: 6 L 565/24), the information provided by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution makes it increasingly likely that it was aware of the meeting in Potsdam in advance and that the President and his staff informed members of the press in a ‘large number of discreet conversations’. The Tagesspiegel further writes:
According to media reports, Haldenwang is said to have stated in confidential talks with journalists almost two weeks after the revelations that the BfV had already been informed about the Potsdam event in advance.
Thichys Einblick is referring to ‘media reports’, because on 25 January we wrote:
In a circle of journalists sympathetic to him, the President of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Thomas Haldenwang (CDU), said that his office was well aware of who, when, and where met even before the supposedly right-wing secret meeting in Potsdam’s ‘Landhaus Adlon’ hotel.
This is interesting because it is still not clear whether Correctiv and Greenpeace received information about the meeting in Potsdam directly or indirectly from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
And further:
After the discussion, left-wing journalists gathered around the president of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, participants reported. They heard that Haldenwang’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution had been very well informed about the group of people invited to the Potsdam hotel since the beginning of November, i.e., before the so-called ‘secret meeting’ with a reading by a controversial author.
Haldenwang’s people [sic] found out who was going there, when, and where: ‘We know them all.’
‘We know them all’
After the article, Roland Tichy received mail from the Deutsche Presseclub [Germany’s main trade association], whose chairman told him:
Although the text mentions that Verfassungsschutz President Haldenwang himself had been invited to a background discussion and that this had taken place in the afternoon, it is reasonable for us to suspect that our club evening may have been meant here and only made unrecognisable for the sake of form. Although you, as our member, did not attend, you bear editorial responsibility for the article.
And the Deutsche Presseclub achieved the unique feat in its history and called for self-censorship: as editor-in-chief of Tichys Einblick, Roland Tichy was asked to ‘depublish’ the article immediately. Tichy rubbed his eyes:
It is astonishing to observe a cartel of silence [orig. Schweigekartell; think the mafia’s omertà] at work. Of course, the enlightened learn a lot from the back rooms of the powerful. But writing about it? Not at all. Remarkable: Nothing was criticised in terms of content. You could draw the conclusion that it was an endorsement of the article.
The joke: the quotes were not from the Deutsche Presseclub meeting, which Tichys Einblick immediately pointed out: after all, there were other meetings, of which the outraged press club members obviously knew nothing.
The Tagesspiegel has now provided confirmation. In January 2024, Thomas Haldenwang took part in at least three press background rounds in Berlin, the Tagesspiegel learned, not from the Deutsche Presseclub, not by Berlin journalists, but in court. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) defensively stated that Thomas Haldenwang was
generally available for background discussions with all media whose interest in dealing with topics related to the activities of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is considered by the Office to be substantiated and which, in its opinion, have a sufficient scope.
Rendered into plain language, this means that Haldenwang is happy to talk to journalists who share his view of things.
No one is surprised that these are employees of [state broadcasters] ARD, Deutschlandradio, rbb, [and corporate legacy media outlets] Der Spiegel, Bild, and Die Zeit. Of course, as one can easily imagine, there are occasional cancellations, probably to journalists ‘whose interest in dealing with topics related to the activities of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution was deemed by the latter to be’ insufficient or possibly not in the right direction.
Der Spiegel as Haldenwang’s In-House Outlet
The Tagesspiegel learned that Der Spiegel met with representatives of the Office thirteen times, Süddeutsche Zeitung eight times, and Die Welt seven times. ‘Whether the AfD monitoring was a topic in the confidential contacts remains an open question’, writes the Tagesspiegel.
There can hardly be any doubt that Haldenwang’s Office and he himself deliberately wanted to influence the public image—including that of the AfD—especially when you look at the media’s coverage of the AfD and Correctiv’s conspiracy plot about the alleged secret meeting. On 26 January 2024, Die Zeit wrote:
With regard to the Potsdam meeting of AfD representatives and other right-wing extremists including members of the CDU last autumn, at which plans for the ‘remigration’ of migrants were forged, Faeser said: ‘This was about racist deportation fantasies, but also about collecting money to spread the inhumane ideologies behind them. Wanting to expel people en masse from Germany because of their ethnic origin is an attack on human dignity and thus on the foundations of German society.’
That is true, except that this was not said by private individuals, but by [Interior Minister] Nancy Faeser, Haldenwang’s boss, who claims that she formulated it. The deletion festival began at Correctiv on 28 January at the latest, when the deputy editor-in-chief of Correctiv, Anette Dowideit, claimed in the ARD ‘Presseclub’:
We didn’t talk about deportation either. That was then used by those who interpreted it.
So ‘those who interpreted it’ were probably the Federal Chancellor and the Federal Minister of the Interior? And the media informed by Haldenwang? But if both the Federal Chancellor and the Federal Minister of the Interior are sticking to Correctiv’s claims and allegations, even though Correctiv had already begun to backpaddle and corrected itself, they [Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Interior Minister Faeser] must have a vested interest in this newspaper hoax.
In Search of the Sources
AfD MP Leif-Erik Holm wanted to know from the German government: did members of the federal government have any sources or information other than the report ‘Secret plan against Germany’ by the journalists’ association Correctiv from 10 January 2024, which prompted them to say that, at a ‘secret conference’ in Potsdam, ‘extremists’ had discussed ‘how they could expel millions of people from our country’ and forged a ‘diabolical pact’ and ‘repulsive resettlement plans’ (Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz, 19 Jan. 2024)? Or that the meeting in Potsdam was about ‘racist deportation fantasies’ (Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser, 26 Jan. 2024), the aim of which was to ‘expel and deport people en masse because of their ethnic origin or political views’ (Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser, 20 Jan. 2024)? And if not, are they sticking to these statements, even though, according to media reports, Correctiv has now stated in an affidavit to the Hamburg Regional Court that the participants of the Potsdam meeting did not discuss any further ‘what possibilities exist to currently expel German citizens with a German passport directly on the basis of racist criteria’?
The answer from the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which is available to Tichys Einblick, provides a glimpse into the abyss. The Federal Ministry of the Interior actually replied:
After careful consideration, the Federal Government has come to the conclusion that an answer to the question cannot be given due to conflicting overriding interests of the state.
The ‘Good of the State’ [Staatswohl] Precludes Information-Sharing
The answer to the question of what knowledge from what sources the federal government is relying on to negligently talk down the business location, stir up fears, sow discord, and undermine the rights of citizens in emergency ordinance laws jeopardises the Good of the State? The truth about why many people took part in the marches [against ‘the Right™’] jeopardises the ‘Good of the State’? But there's more:
The answer as to whether members of the Federal Government had sources or information other than the Correctiv research network's report on the specific event in question can be used to draw conclusions about the Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s level of knowledge and, if applicable, the intelligence service’s methods and working methods.
Do the ‘intelligence service methods and working methods’ include cooperation with activist outlets, such as Correctiv, in the field of journalism? The Federal Ministry of the Interior rules out the possibility of providing information even under an obligation of secrecy, as ‘information in accordance with the secrecy regulations and the associated inspection via the secrecy unit of the German Bundestag’ is also excluded. Even ‘a statement on the state of knowledge of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, even to a limited circle of recipients, does not fulfil the need for protection.’ What does the Federal Ministry of the Interior have to hide?
How Correctiv and Greenpeace became aware of this private meeting remains a complete mystery. Not only Correctiv but also Greenpeace activists, who are not actually involved in these matters, staged ‘investigative journalism’ with ‘hidden cameras’. The question emerges as to who has the technology to be able to listen in on the private meeting, as Correctiv claims to rely at least on verbatim transcripts (but contradicts itself), on the basis of which the ‘staged reading’ by the ‘Berliner Ensemble’ is said to have been created. At the end of January, Thomas Haldenwang boasted to selected journalists about the participants of the meeting: ‘We know them all.’ Tichys Einblick asked the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, among other things: Did the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution have knowledge in advance of the meeting taking place?’ At the time, we received the following reply: ‘We ask for your understanding that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution does not comment on such matters as a matter of principle.’ But Thomas Haldenwang had commented on this to selected journalists, as Tichys Einblick wrote at the time, which is now confirmed once again by the Tagesspiegel.
Did Haldenwang's federal office also inform Greenpeace and Correctiv in this case as something of an extended arm of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, so to speak, or at least ‘arouse their curiosity’?
Who is the Office Spying On? And Why?
Legally, the private meeting in Potsdam had no relevance for reasons of constitutional protection. It was only interesting because of the media exploitation. This calculation worked out in a manipulative way. When asked by Tichys Einblick, Greenpeace claimed that the environmental NGO had obtained knowledge of the meeting through invitation letters that had been leaked to them. However, Greenpeace did not want to give Tichys Einblick any insight into the ‘mysterious’ invitations to the ground-breaking ‘Potsdam secret meeting’. Correctiv claimed that they had been informed by insiders from the circle of private individuals, which is also where the verbatim transcripts came from.
Tichys Einblick had one last question for the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution: The Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote in an article on 19 February 2024: ‘Also because, in addition to the informants [orig. V-Leute], there are several hundred full-time employees of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution who pose as right-wing extremists on social networks with fake accounts.’ Is the Süddeutsche statement true?
The answer from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is telling: ‘The Office does not comment publicly on matters relating to any intelligence activity. This does not constitute a statement as to whether the cited facts are correct or not. The Office reports on such matters in particular to the Federal Government and the relevant committees of the German Bundestag, which meet in secret.’ If the statement is not true, why does the Federal Office not deny this statement?
If the statement by the Süddeutsche Zeitung is true, the disturbing question arises as to whether the Office for the Protection of the Constitution itself produces the evidence that the Office needs to intervene in political competition and democratic decision-making? Do Thomas Haldenwang and employees of the Federal Office hold talks with selected representatives of the press in order to circulate certain material on the basis of a political agenda?
Bottom Lines
And there we have it, for everyone to see. The domestic intel units are meeting with the gov’t and select Bundestag committees ‘in secret’. The public—technically, the sovereign—does not need to know.
Moreover, the charade of the protests ‘against the Right™’ is revealed to be: an entrapment, perhaps ordered by the gov’t or the intel community dreamed it up itself, which the former used to whip tens of thousands of people into an anti-right frenzy. There is no chance that the gov’t, with support in polls declining massively at the time the farmers protested with massive popular support.
Now, why would legacy media play the government’s game? Well, because they are bought and paid for shills (Paul Craig Roberts calls them ‘presstitutes’).
This is all nothing new under the sun. The contempt for us by those who govern our countries is palpable.
The WHO-declared, so-called ‘Covid Pandemic™’ broke the post-WW2 consensus and dragged into the open the power structures in place since 1945.
The same power structures criticised by ‘dissidents’, such as Noam Chomsky, for decades. It is, of course, no coincidence, I’d argue, that the same Noam Chomsky showed his true colours when he called for ‘the unvaccinated’ to be ‘removed’ from society at-large:
As Frank Zappa once memorably stated:
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
This is the moment, this is the time.
Covid showed, clearly, that ‘the illusion of freedom’ is being ‘taken down’ before our eyes. Those who protested back then were demeaned as ‘appendices’ (Sarah Bosetti), ‘grandma killers’, or worse.
Whatever is happening ‘after’ Covid is but the aftershocks. We’re in a brave new world, and the problem are, of course, those who continue to abide by the ‘old rules’. Our adversaries have long moved on.
Act accordingly.
“After careful consideration, the Federal Government has come to the conclusion that an answer to the question cannot be given due to conflicting overriding interests of the state”
Please forgive my USA centered comment, but this reminds me of the responses that our Attorney General, FBI director, and other federal officials give about EVERYTHING when testifying before Congressional oversight committees.
They basically thumb their noses and say that they don’t have to provide any information…… to Congressional oversight committees that are supposed to be overseeing THEM.
They are waging a multidimensional war against the people. One aspect of this war is to prevent people from noticing there is a war. This is happening across the West which means there is a coordinating center. COVID made that clearly visible to anyone who can still process the truth. Unfortunately those seem to be a dwindling minority.