A Nation of Snitches

Facing a winter of freezing and starvation, the German authorities are planning to deal with the crisis in the predictable manner of failed states everywhere: by cracking down even further on dissent through the use of anonymous snitches.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Pleiteticker.de. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

Bundestag decides to set up anonymous nationwide reporting offices

A new law provides for the nationwide creation of reporting offices in companies with fifty or more employees and authorities. Not only anti-constitutional statements should be reported there, but also statements below the criminal liability threshold.

In order to protect whistleblowers, police officers should now be allowed to denounce anonymously — even if there is no criminal offense in the room.

Companies with fifty or more employees and authorities should set up internal reporting offices. The Federal Ministry of Justice and other federal authorities are also to act as external reporting offices. The draft law on whistleblower protection, which has now been passed by the Bundestag, is intended to protect against reprisals. “Whistleblowers” are intended to protect against disadvantages, for example, being protected against dismissal. The burden of proof does not lie with the aggrieved whistleblower. Reports on anti-constitutional statements by officials should also fall under whistleblower protection. Because officials must show loyalty to the constitution. [This is utter rubbish. If they’d shown loyalty to the constitution, then most old party politicians in Germany would already have been arrested.] Oral statements or digital messages can be reported. This is intended to protect the state apparatus from being infiltrated by “Reich citizens” and other enemies of the constitution. Whistleblower protection should also apply to reports below the criminal liability threshold. The extent to which these reports are followed up on is not clear from the draft law. This means that any police officer can denigrate anonymously — even if it’s not even about a crime.

The law provides that whistleblowers be given the opportunity to remain anonymous. In addition, reporting offices should be obliged to investigate anonymous reports. An intentional or grossly negligent false report will be punished as an administrative offence. [That means a slap on the wrist for those who have destroyed a life.] In addition, the informing person should pay compensation. It is unclear to what extent anonymous reports can be traced back. Reports are to be deleted two years after the end of the procedure.

Afterword from the translator:

Somehow, out of the blue, 1933 came to my mind.

The informers will certainly be happy about this; they are most likely already drooling in anticipation and will most certainly try to outdo each other on how many people’s lives they can “legally” destroy. Let the witch-hunts begin, in the best Germany of Snitches and Liars. I can already see them in my mind’s eye roaming the streets, cafeterias, bars and offices with the malign self-importance of those whose bigotries are backed by the state.

I never thought that I would come to despise the country of my birth, but what I can see, looking in from the outside, is a political “Elite” that sits on a dunghill of HATE.

15 thoughts on “A Nation of Snitches

  1. I love this part: The law provides that whistleblowers be given the opportunity to remain anonymous.

    “Now, fraulein, please insert your full name, here, and sign below to acknowledge your right to anonymity.”

    • Actually that can be turned to make a mockery of the whole wretched business if only the citizens involved were anything but Germans.

      I remember during the lockdowns that the imbecile mayor of NYC tried something similar. The hotline for snitches was inundated with fake anonymous tips to the point of being forced to shut down; the best one I read was someone claiming they had seen the mayor in an alley fellating someone and when he noticed that he had been observed he turned and coofed in his direction…

      I wouldn’t expect Germans to do something similar since it likely would violate some law or regulation.

      • You are correct. Very familiar with that one. Flooding the zone can be effective. New Zealand tired something similar with firearms. It last about two weeks. Hell, I don’t even live there, but took a few minutes to find Aherns address (it’s not hard) and report a Browning M-2 secreted on the premises. I’m guessing wasn’t the only one, so they took down the page.

      • Good information.

        But I suspect, you dont need the name.
        Every voice has its own frequency so you just need a computer listen to short conversations on the phone or use a shotgun mike in the open and voila you have a library of voice examples. Combine that with the data from the smartphone – who was at that day in a certain area of the city – and you will soon have a voice sample of everybody in a country. Including the name, address, etc.

  2. Just remember that ancient axiom:
    “Snitches get stitches and end up in ditches.”

    That is all.
    You have your instructions.

  3. It seems to me that all totalitarian states use anonymous denunciation of individuals as a weapon of oppression.

    All through the Western world such things are apparently becoming commonplace.

  4. I think that the “new Germans” join the institution of denunciation with great enthusiasm.
    In the matter of punishing the “infidels” they are able to surpass the Germans in scrupulousness.

  5. One of Sweden’s most despicable individuals

    Net hate reviewer Tomas Åberg
    attacks Lamotte and Samhällsnytt

    Animal abuser Tomas Åberg, also known as the “net hate reviewer”, has sued a private individual for defamation. This after the person shared articles on Facebook describing Åberg’s animal cruelty. Åberg does not deny that he has tortured animals, but still feels insulted by being reminded of it.

    Nya Tider has previously published articles about Tomas Åberg letting his yaks starve to death in a pen without food or water. When inspectors from the County Administrative Board visited the farm, they found several dead animals, which were spotlessly furless from birds pecking at them as they slowly walked away. Åberg is paid by a government grant to report angry Swedes, mainly pensioners, when they write something outrageous about gang rapes, muggings or other consequences of multiculturalism.

    Citizen journalist Joakim Lamotte and the online magazine Samhällsnytt have also drawn attention to these facts. Åberg considers the information about him to be “grossly offensive”. However, the person he is suing is a private person who shared Lamotte’s and Samhällsnytt’s articles on Facebook, adding some of his own opinions about Åberg.

    Since the private person has not responded to the allegations, Judge Karl Nyström has ordered a so-called default judgment, which is normal when the other party does not appear. The court usually goes along with the plaintiff. In this case, the judge ordered the private individual to pay SEK 15 000 in damages to Åberg, plus SEK 1 900 in court costs. The decision can be appealed until 29 April.

    Mr Åberg claims that Mr Lamotte has subjected him to gross defamation because he has been described as “extremely reprehensible”. However, he admits in his application that he was “banned from keeping animals” in 2012, but he says Lamotte had no “duty to speak out about this” and it was not “justifiable to point this out”. Mr Åberg therefore feels he has been misunderstood and labelled a criminal, as well as being painted as a mythomaniac, an animal abuser and corrupt, and says that people get “outraged when they find out that someone has harmed an animal”.

    In the case of the sharing of the online newspaper Samhällsnytt’s post, Åberg considers the slander to be of a normal degree. According to the lawsuit, the newspaper pasted his head next to a dead animal in a photo collage and wrote the word “animal abuser” next to it.

    When Nya Tider did a review of Tomas Åberg, it was in view of the fact that he made himself a public figure as the “Netizen Reviewer” where he reported private individuals who wrote things he did not like on social media to the police. Aftonbladet, among others, did glowing articles about him, but when Nya Tider revealed that he is an animal abuser, they quietly removed him as a candidate for the Hero of the Year award that the magazine gives out.

    This is how it looked when Samhällsnytt wrote about animal abuser Tomas Åberg. Screenshot: Samhällsnytt
    This is what it looked like when Samhällsnytt wrote about animal abuser Tomas Åberg. Screen shot: Samhällsnytt
    Article continues
    If you are a subscriber, you can log in to continue reading.

    Not a subscriber? Subscribe here.

    Unfortunately, we can’t offer all the material for free on the website, only samples like this. As a subscriber you not only get access to the whole site and our weekly magazine, you also make a valuable contribution to alternative press in Sweden, standing up to politically correct system media.

    – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — –

    Court: unlawful to call Åberg a “traitor”, “turncoat”, “gold-digger”, “informer” or “enemy of the people”

    Published 18 October 2020 ki Fria Tider

    A 63-year-old man in Djursholm is the latest to be convicted of singling out animal abuser and Night Hate Reviewer Tomas Åberg as an animal abuser. According to Attunda District Court, it is also punishable to call Åberg such things as “renegade” and “snitch”.

    The Netizen and Lamotte
    The next victim of the Net Hate Reviewer: 71-year-old woman in hospital
    63-year-old man ordered to pay SEK 10,000 to Åberg
    Another pensioner must pay Tomas Åberg 10,000 SEK
    Tomas Åberg sues 61-year-old woman for SEK 20,000
    67-year-old woman convicted of portraying Tomas Åberg as an animal abuser – judge: “There is no general right to tell the truth”
    View all

    The judge in the case: Mathias Wastesson.
    The man wrote in a post on Facebook that Tomas Åberg is a “convicted animal abuser” and “traitor”. Furthermore, he described the 45-year-old “Net Hate Reviewer” as a “renegade”, “snitch”, “bully” and “enemy of the people”.

    “All these statements are derogatory and constitute defamation in the criminal sense”, writes Attunda District Court judge Mathias Wastesson and sentences the 63-year-old to pay SEK 5,000 in damages to Åberg.
    The 63-year-old objected that Tomas Åberg is a public figure who runs a tax-funded and high-profile association and that Åberg has been praised in the media, including being nominated for “Hero of the Year” by Aftonbladet. However, the district court argues that Åberg is not “a public figure who should have to tolerate such statements”.
    Tomas Åberg claimed in court that he had not been nominated for “Hero of the Year” (Aftonbladet’s campaign, which Åberg was part of but then mysteriously disappeared from, is in fact called “Swedish Heroes”). He also stated that the newspapers that had written about his animal cruelty “belong to right-wing alternative media that is not established or serious, which is why the information in the newspapers cannot be used as a basis for the allegations”, according to the ruling.
    The 63-year-old man must also pay Åberg’s legal costs of SEK 2,067. Åberg had requested SEK 3,067 in compensation, but according to the district court, Åberg has not shown that he had spent SEK 1,000 on legal advice as he has claimed.
    “Furthermore, it has emerged that he has pursued several lawsuits of a similar nature, which is why the cost was not reasonably necessary to pursue his claim,” the judgment states.
    Tomas Åberg has previously sued a number of other people who shared a post written by journalist Joakim Lamotte. In the post, Lamotte correctly pointed out that Åberg has been banned from keeping animals because of animal cruelty.
    Last month, a 67-year-old woman in Eskilstuna was convicted for sharing the post. The fact that the information was true did not matter, Eskilstuna district court concluded at the time.
    “So there is no general right to tell the truth,” explained Judge Samuel Hägg.

    Tomas Åberg has also sued Joakim Lamotte himself for defamation. That case is still ongoing.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Next victim of the Net Hate Scanner: 71-year-old woman in hospital
    Jun 5, 20210180

    Published 4 June 2021 at 17.50

    Domestic. The “Netizen Reviewer” Tomas Åberg is demanding money from a 71-year-old woman who is being treated in hospital because she shared a post about him on Facebook. It draws the attention of freelance journalist Joakim Lamotte.

    Åberg wants the woman to pay him SEK 15,000 in damages for sharing a Facebook post that Joakim Lamotte wrote about Tomas Åberg, in which Åberg is described as an animal abuser.

    The woman has turned to Lamotte and is appealing to him for help with the situation. She says that she cannot afford to hire a lawyer and that she must try to manage the defence on her own.

    “Currently in hospital,” she writes in a message to Lamotte, adding, “Have a poor pension and don’t know how I will cope.”

    This is why the Netizen was never convicted of animal cruelty

    Tomas Åberg has in recent years set up a system of demanding money from, in particular, elderly people who have shared reviews of him on Facebook. Often these are elderly people with little financial resources who cannot afford to hire a lawyer to defend themselves from the accusations.

    The Reviewer and Lamotte
    63-year-old man ordered to pay SEK 10,000 to Åberg
    Another pensioner to pay SEK 10,000 to Tomas Åberg
    Tomas Åberg sues 61-year-old woman for SEK 20,000
    Court: unlawful to call Åberg a “traitor”, “turncoat”, “gold digger”, “snitch” or “enemy of the people”
    67-year-old woman convicted of portraying Tomas Åberg as an animal abuser – judge:

    “There is no general right to tell the truth”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Lamotte convicted of aggravated defamation:
    “Will never back down”

    Published 16 December 2022 in Fria Tider

    Journalist Joakim Lamotte has now been convicted of aggravated slander against the so-called “Net Hate Reviewer”, animal abuser Tomas Åberg.
    – It may be worth every penny. I will never back down for people like this, says Joakim Lamotte to SVT Nyheter Väst.

    The case concerned various posts that Lamotte put up on Facebook where Tomas Åberg is, among other things, singled out as an animal abuser.

    Joakim Lamotte has argued that these were journalistic examinations of a public figure.

    The court, however, agrees with the Näthtsgranskar and sentences the journalist to a daily fine of SEK 30,000 and SEK 20,000 in damages to Åberg for gross defamation. Joakim Lamotte must also pay the costs of almost a quarter of a million SEK.

    A number of other people, pensioners and others, have previously been convicted of calling Åberg an animal abuser.

    – I stand by everything I have written and I have no regrets. I stand up straight through this, it is not me who should be ashamed, says Joakim Lamotte to SVT Nyheter Väst.

    Joakim Lamotte announced last summer that he was ending his journalistic activities, which took place in front of a large audience via Facebook, because of threats against his family.

    • Sounds like Aberg needs the snitches get stiches and then a ditch treatment?
      In Africa, it is quite fascinating to watch the hyena’s eat a man alive, perhaps a trip to the northernly regions of Sweden where the wolves still roam?

    • SHA 70,


      – has decided that the Swedish justice system should not be a clown circus in which the public loses confidence. Thus, hoaxers such as the so-called “Net Hate Reviewer” (Tomas Åberg/Bergström) cannot be allowed to run amok with the sole purpose of enriching himself.

      The work of exposing this whole ugly play must be done properly so that I the legislators wake up from their sleep of thorns. Loopholes in the law must be closed.

      In this section, a person who started before SHA 70 emerges. His name is Kjell Böhlin and it was something of a shock to realize that he passed away in 2021.

      I had hoped to be able to work with him. However, found a video clip that was probably made around 2020. It shows excellently what a thorough man Kjell Böhlin was.

      Luckily his Youtube channel is still up. For how much longer I don’t know. But be sure to visit it and see all his work! Link:


  6. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?” ~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) excerpt from his book: “THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO 1918-1956”

Comments are closed.