Head Of German Spy Agency Advocates For Spying On People’s Speech And Thoughts

Published earlier this month in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the theme of Haldenwang’s argument is the “Freedom of expression is not a license for enemies of the constitution.” This agency is openly looking to become more and more like a secret police, some German critics have posited, as evidenced by quotations by Haldenwang such as monitoring “thought and speech patterns.”

‘At the same time, Haldenwang didn’t rule out that legal expressions of opinion might be targeted in this population surveillance effort, and made attempts to provide justification for such a stance,’ Reclaim The Net noted.

Another German paper, Tichys Einblick, gave their commentary on some of the salient parts of Haldenwang’s article, and they were quite critical of what they said. The paper writes:

---

First: Haldenwang defends his media presence, but he does not seem to be able to do so. He writes verbatim in the pluralis majestatis: “Yes, we are often in the media for specific occasions … in order to enable an informed political debate even below the bans …” This is “part of our legal mandate as an early warning system.” In plain language: Haldenwang wants to spread suspicion. One waits in vain for a word of self-criticism here. For example, that in the ZDF “heute journal” on June 20, 2023, he saw it as his task to “lower the AfD’s poll ratings” and “wake up the population.” Or that he is clearly taking the side of the “last generation” with hundreds of street blockades. Haldenwang said verbatim in a SWR broadcast on November 16, 2022: The “last generation” is not extremist; Although they commit crimes, they do not engage in extremism: Haldenwang therefore sees no reason “at present” to monitor the “Last Generation”.

Secondly, Haldenwang writes: “Freedom of opinion also has limits. The most extreme limits are set by criminal law, for example with regard to punishable propaganda offences or incitement to hatred. However, even below the criminal law limits and without prejudice to their legality, expressions of opinion can be relevant in terms of constitutional protection law.” This sentence is explosive. If the Office for the Protection of the Constitution becomes active “below the criminality limit”, this means nothing less than that all legal recourse and all review of state actions are excluded. Anyone accused of crimes can defend themselves in court, and judicial decisions are in turn bound by law; in most cases there is even a review body. Below the criminality limit, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution operates secretly, i.e. uncontrollably and covertly; Faeser mentioned the freezing of accounts and reporting to the trade supervisory authority as instruments to trigger stricter controls. Calls to employers, schools and authorities are also listed as secret measures. It is an arbitrary area.

Does Haldenwang’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution want to operate outside the law in this area of ​​secret service subversion measures? With his convoluted invention of the “phenomenon area of ​​​​delegitimization of the state relevant to the protection of the constitution”, he already rushed ahead legislatively in May 2021 (i.e. still in Merkel’s time), thereby giving his subsequent boss Faeser a handle to put the good of the state above the good of democracy, the good of the government above the good of the people.

Thirdly, Haldenwang writes: “In post-war history, democracy in our country has rarely been as threatened as it is today. The number of extremists and the potential for extremism have been increasing for years.” Let’s leave aside Haldenwang’s illiteracy in contemporary history and just ask rhetorically: And what about the Cold War, what about the actions of the GDR Stasi in the West? Haldenwang does not want to make his statement more specific or update it anyway. He should only have consulted the police crime statistics (PKS): For the year 2022, the PKS reported on April 21, 2023, 13,542 left-wing extremist and 10,788 right-wing extremist acts of violence (in particular physical assault, homicide, etc.). Haldenwang is also silent about Islamist-motivated extremism, as well as about imported anti-Semitism. Haldenwang has also not said a word publicly about the failure of his “service” during the Tesla attack on March 7, 2024. Or that the “taz” newspaper wrote on March 11: “Of course the attack on Tesla is to be condemned. But there are also positive aspects to be taken from it.” Positive aspects!

Fourthly, Haldenwang writes: “The networking meetings between right-wing extremists and parts of the middle class that became known at the beginning of the year are evidence of processes of de-limitation that the BfV had previously warned about.” Of course, Haldenwang is referring to the “Potsdam secret meeting,” which has long since turned out to be an operetta production by politicians and the media. We do not want to rule out that the BfV had a hand in this production, at least the media one. For Haldenwang, “Potsdam” seems to be a last straw. In any case, Haldenwang knew about it before “Potsdam.”

The trio Faeser, Paus (Green) and Haldenwang claim to want to protect democracy. But the trio does so in a frighteningly aggressive manner. All three undermine Article 5 of the Basic Law (freedom of expression). They push the boundaries of what can be said and they “delegitimise” those who think differently. On February 13, 2024, for example, Faeser invoked the “strong state” and Haldenwang ranted about “thought and language patterns” that “nest themselves in the language.” Snooping into thought patterns? And Paus is running a “democracy promotion law” that is nothing more than a feeding trough for left-wing NGOs and their denunciation offices, equipped with a three-digit million euro sum.

Thank God there are still constitutional lawyers who are paying attention to this and are making this known publicly. Oldenburg constitutional lawyer Volker Boehme-Neßler describes Faeser’s request as “frightening” and even “intrusive”. He sees Faeser on a “mission” to remove everything that stands in the way. He accuses Haldenwang of verbal and mental boundary shifts. For example, when both invent a kind of criminal offense of alleged “disparaging the state”. What is actually meant is criticism of the state’s measures against the corona virus and criticism of the state’s measures to combat climate change.

Augsburg constitutional lawyer Josef Franz Lindner is similarly critical. He considers all the Faeser and Haldenwang terms to be “undefined” and even “vague”. He sees the danger that in the future pointed expressions of opinion could be seen as “delegitimizing” the state. Lindner says emphatically: The state has no interpretive authority in questions of freedom of expression. Lindner posted a comment from a current NJW (Neue Juristische Wochenschrift). There, the well-known criminal defense lawyer Gerhard Strate had written about Faeser/Paus aktuell: “Breaking taboos by two officials … brings beads of sweat to the brow of every supporter of the rule of law.” Lindner posted: “He’s right.”

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

These goobers have become so mad and hungry for more power, they feel the need to mitigate every action and thought; and ultimately that’s what this massive AI network push is all about, to create a ubiquitous surveillance state where every action and every thought is recorded. This is the mark of the beast taken to is truest and fullest conclusion: it’s not just a chip, it’s being plugged into the mainframe, the machine, losing autonomy in the process (Revelation 13:16-18).

SEE: Trivergence: The Trifecta Of Totalitarian Control And AI Enslavement

Klaus Schwab Declares The ‘New Dawn’ Of Transitioning ‘Humankind Into A New Era,’ By Merging Man With Machine

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE