Bespoke translation by yours truly. Original article [A] by Danisch
Currently they're waging war against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg because Zuckerberg - in the USA, unclear if it's in Europe as well - wants to kick out the "fact checkers" such as Correctiv.
From the ZEIT article:
There's the impression that the story was a systematic lie.
A lie in the tried-and-true sense to prop up a story which is true and checkable (meeting in Potsdam), but by itself inoffensive, by means of untruths and turning it into a scandal.
We know that concept: The Ibiza affair, the Ibiza video. They used the same method to overthrow a government. [Austria in this case]
It seems as if it's particularly fact checkers who are lie and forgery activists. And maybe the goal of making precisely those people fact checkers could be the thought that an experienced professional liar is best suited for recognizing and fighting against statements made by the opposition.
I've had this topic frequently. My impression is that, in the leftist scene, there is this creed that they don't need to stick to any truth, because
Germany and its fact checkers
Currently they're waging war against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg because Zuckerberg - in the USA, unclear if it's in Europe as well - wants to kick out the "fact checkers" such as Correctiv.
Disaster beyond all expectations for Correctiv: Result of the ZEIT counter research on the Potsdam report: Core statements are nothing but hot air:
Now the Correctiv report is definitively demystified. The farce has collapsed.
In a long and deep counter research, the ZEIT looked into the Correctiv article from 10.01.2024 on the Potsdam meeting. They researched together with several journalists and interviewed the #Correctiv "journalists", and questioned the 12 participants of the meeting.
The result of the Zeit research is a punch to the face for @correctiv_org.
The Correctiv research is definitively unmasked:
The ZEIT researched, quote:
"The question is, however, whether the core thesis of the Correctiv text is correct: that the conference guests in Potsdam planned the eviction of millions of people out of Germany."
The research result of ZEIT: All participants of the meeting deny the core claims by Correctiv that, in Potsdam, quote from the Correctiv report, there had been "a master plan for the displacement of German nationals" or a "expatriation idea" in Martin Sellner's lecture, that is, the plan to revoke German citizenship. Quote ZEIT:
"All participants of the meeting with whom the ZEIT spoke to, deny this. 'There has never been any talk of millions of displacements', says Wilhelm Wilderink. 'There was no plan, there was no discussion about it either', says Gerrit Huy."
Well, you might say, that the 12 participants of the meeting deny the claims as presented may be one thing. But what do the Correctiv writers say to the question of what happened there?
@zeitonline documents that Jean Peters, who was at the scene as the main responsible actor for the "research" is a complete failure as a source when asked by ZEIT. He obviously cannot confirm that things that were reported by Correctiv had been said in Potsdam, quote:
"Peters is willing to divulge information, but he has been reacting uncooperatively to simple questions on what happened in Potsdam: 'Really? Is that the question?' Another time, he asked: 'What are we doing here right now?'"
But the ZEIT was persistent and asked if things in Potsdam were about "displacement". Peters on that, quote:
"If you ask Jean Peters, the main researcher behind the article, whether the word 'displacement' [Vertreibung] has ever been made at the meeting, he briefly hesitates. And then says: No. 'But of course that's what they meant.'"
In this, Peters himself confirms that not even the word "Vertreibung" has occurred. The core statements of the report, according to which there was a "master plan for the displacement of German nationals" or an "expatriation idea", are definitely not confirmed by Peters.
And what does the Correctiv head editor Justus von Daniels say to the questions of the ZEIT on what happened there? According to the ZEIT report, he says: Nothing.
You really need to get that through your head: Correctiv was fooling the entire nation for over a year with the misleading and false claim that, in Potsdam, there had been a master plan for the displacement of German citizens and an expatriation idea. Confronted with the statements of the participants that none of that had happened, the main responsible people Jean Peters and Justus von Daniels don't dispute it.
Thus, the biggest media staging of the year 2024 is definitively nothing but thin air.
And even more, the ZEIT states, quote:
"After the publication of the article in January, the entire nation was talking about allegedly planned "mass deportations", several media and institutions used the term even though it was not mentioned in the Correctiv article. And even though Correctiv itself explains that the word was not uttered in Potsdam. In spite of that, apparently there was a lively impression that this was precisely what it was about."
While the legend of alleged "mass deportations" was spread in all media and gladly parroted by many politicians as a consequence of the Correctiv report, nothing remains here.
The ZEIT reports that Dr. @UlrichVosgerau (CDU) and another participant, represented by @HOECKER_RAe are now filing a lawsuit against the core statement of the Correctiv report. They are challenging, among others, the statements: From the Potsdam meeting came "a 'master plan' for the displacement of German nationals" and in Sellner's lecture there had been an "expatriation idea".
Even cocky is the reaction of head editor Justus von Daniels on current press questions to which he claims, according to the media: "It remains what it is: The conference was about the displacement of millions of people, including 'non-assimilated' citizens."
So, Correctiv keeps on trying to deceive, to disguise, and to conceal. Instead of finally cleaning house with the misrepresentation and apologizing to readers and media for the targeted disinformation, they are doubling down on the attempted disinformation.
Correctiv has caused tremendous damage to the credibility of journalism. Correctiv intentionally misled readers and media. Correctiv have proven that it's not about charitable journalism, but activism in a journalist disguise.
It is now up to the real journalists to work with this media scandal and clean house with the Correctiv legend. And it is up to politics to immediately cease all further financial support to Correctiv from tax money.
— Carsten Brennecke (@RABrennecke) January 8, 2025
A year ago, "Correctiv" wrote about the conference in the "Landhaus Adlon". There, a displacement out of Germany was allegedly planned. The participants are denying that.
— DIE ZEIT (@DIEZEIT) January 8, 2025
In Jan. 2025, one year later, @DIEZEIT wonders what actually happened. The result of the research:
In the entire nation, "apparently a lively impression came into existence" that Potsdam was about "mass deportations". "Different media" reported on that. Phew...
— unbegreiflich (@unbegreiflich82) January 8, 2025
[translations of the two bottom ones in the picture - which are at ZEIT ONLINE: "In a recent secret meeting, AfD functionaries planned mass deportations." + "Members of right-wing extremist groups met in Potsdam to plan mass deportations."]From the ZEIT article:
For the most part, Sellner in his presentation introduces the thoughts from his book Regime Change from the right-wing. The right-wing extremist thinking 101 goes as follows: There is an alleged "population replacement" happening in Germany. As soon as they are allowed to vote, immigrants tend to support those parties that don't limit migration. That is why there needs to be a migration change, there is a ticking time bomb. "Remigration is doable", Sellner says in the video at Rumble and mentions three examples from other states, such as the deportation of one million Mexicans from the USA in the 1950s. Now, first, public opinion needs to be changed and the term "remigration" needs to be normalized by means of constant repetition.
It is, in fact, a plan that Sellner outlines in his presentation, however, quite an abstract plan. He does not make concrete suggestions for the displacement of people from Germany - even though it is discernably his goal for many people to leave the country.
After the presentation in Potsdam, there is a short discussion which, in retrospect, cannot be reconstructed completely. The participants of the meeting said that they made neither a recording nor protocol. The Correctiv reporters, on the other hand, made no claims on their sources, and neither on whether they have a recording.
Still, it can be said that, apparently, in this discussion after Sellner's presentation, both statements were made that later caused the mass protests. When being asked, Sellner allegedly named three target groups of remigration: Asylum seekers, foreigners with a permission to stay - and 'non-assimilated citizens', Correctiv quotes him. The latter are the biggest problem according to him. The real estate entrepreneur Silke Schröder asked, how that is to be done in practical terms. As soon as a person has got a "corresponding" passport, a remigration is "impossible".
Here, the round is at the core of the later outrage - at the question, whether and how one can exfiltrate Germans and non-German citizens from the country.
Sellner can't recall the exact wording of the discussion, he says today. Silke Schröder does not want to comment and quickly ends a phone call on the subject. One of the participants, the jurist Ulrich Vosgerau, had written down his recollections in a affidavit declared under oath. Sellner discernably assumed that German citizens cannot be deprived of their passport, so they cannot and shall not be displaced. Sellner, instead, called for decisively prosecuting crimes by Islamists or clan criminals in Germany so that those people change their behavior or [leave Germany].
[...]
And the master plan that the meeting in Potsdam was allegedly about? The master plan was simply "the influencing of public opinion", says Hardwig, "that is, getting topics that are important to us into the public consciousness". Remigration was "in no way the focus of the event". "After Sellner, all further presentations dealt with other topics."
[...]
However, the question is whether the core thesis of the Correctiv text is correct: that the conference guests in Potsdam planned the displacement of millions of people from Germany.
All participants of the meeting that the ZEIT spoke to deny that. "There has never been any talk of millions of displacements", says Wilhelm Wilderink. "There was no plan, there was no discussion about it either", says Gerrit Huy.
And what does Correctiv say? A visit in the editing room, beginning of November in Berlin. Next to head editor Justus von Daniels, the reporter Jean Peters also came to the meeting. Back then, he researched at the scene in Potsdam, rented a room in the country house during the conference under a fake name. From there, he observed and photographed. The landlord Wilhelm Wilderink says, Peters (who did not disclose that he was a reporter) had been in the empty conference room ahead of the event and been asked to leave. Then, for a time, he "stubbornly kept eavesdropping in front of the door".
[...]
To prove that a plan was made in Potsdam, he says: A "master plan" by Martin Sellner has been announced. It was about ideas on the question: What's going to happen when we are in power? For implementing these ideas, funds have been raised. And the invitation also spoke of a "comprehensive strategy".
Of course, "plan" is a vague phrasing. That someone gets a term into the talk, namely remigration, and launches a debate, maybe that can be called a plan. On the other hand: If it was about planning, why, on that day, according to the statement of several participants, did nobody write a protocol? Why, according to participants, were no follow-up meetings agreed upon, why were no binding tasks assigned? Organizer Mörig did suggest to create an expert panel "which is to discuss the topic of consequent repatriation of foreigners who are illegally present in Germany according to ethical, legal, and logistical standpoints", as his lawyer writes. But almost with disappointment, Möhrig says today: Even this "spontaneous idea" had no follow-up.
[...]
The past week, however, he changed his strategy. Vosgerau and Möhrig now filed two lawsuits against Correctiv and the five authors of the article at the Hamburg state court. They especially want to criminalize the claim that "a master plan for the displacement of German citizens" had been made in Potsdam. It upsets them that Correctiv is doubling down on this statement to this day, and many other journalists parroted them.
Earlier, Vosgerau already successfully sued other media, such as heute-journal or an online article by the Tagesschau. The latter reported that, in Potsdam, there had been discussions about displacing millions of people with a migration background from Germany, including non-assimilated German nationals. They have been legally mandated to cease making that claim.
For several of the participants, but also for Correctiv, the reporting had many consequences. [Correctiv] experienced the biggest success in its 11-year history, the text has been viewed four million times. Correctiv is partially financed by donations (the ZEIT-adjacent foundation "ZEIT Foundation Bucerius" is one of its donors) - and the number of regular supporters increased by 50%, says head editor Justus von Daniels. But also the personal animosity has been massive, especially against Jean Peters. Following a counsel by a security firm, he was unable to go back to his apartment for three months, he says.
Peters had been insulted as a left-wing activist, including because of his past as a performance artist. Dressed up as a clown, he threw a pie into the face of AfD politician Beatrix von Storch in 2016. His homepage said for years: "I develop actions and I make up stories with which I intervene in political and economic life." A self-description that is now becoming a boomerang. It was stupid not to update that statement in time, Peters says today.
[emphasis at the end added by Danisch]There's the impression that the story was a systematic lie.
A lie in the tried-and-true sense to prop up a story which is true and checkable (meeting in Potsdam), but by itself inoffensive, by means of untruths and turning it into a scandal.
We know that concept: The Ibiza affair, the Ibiza video. They used the same method to overthrow a government. [Austria in this case]
It seems as if it's particularly fact checkers who are lie and forgery activists. And maybe the goal of making precisely those people fact checkers could be the thought that an experienced professional liar is best suited for recognizing and fighting against statements made by the opposition.
I've had this topic frequently. My impression is that, in the leftist scene, there is this creed that they don't need to stick to any truth, because
- according to the verbal declaration and discourse theory, there is no such thing as truth or rightness, but only the question of which "discourse" is more powerful, what speech comes out on top,
- they are convinced that, after the final left-wing victory, there will be a general amnesty for all their fighters and an abolition of the laws they broke, and, once they have won, how they won will no longer play a role.
