Udo Ulfkotte probably was indeed murdered for writing this book. It’s worth remembering that because he’s letting you know in this very book generally who did it. His early demise points to the veracity of his words. He paints a very clear picture of the international “government” we don’t elect and we can’t vote out. He describes this group’s methods and their preferred style of autocratic leadership.
Our excerpt placed here below of this very dishy book resumes as a British MI6 agent leads Udo to alone time with an allegedly closeted Omani Dictator who is so wealthy that he apparently makes a practice of giving Ferraris to handsome young men.
If we had more people like Udo Ulfkotte standing up and speaking out, maybe we wouldn’t have sunk this far into techno-fascism. I believe his spirit is still with us.
Ulfkotte continues:
Frankenberger reports with a bias. This was shown in another context in a 2012 bachelor thesis out of Munich, which used one of his articles as an example.
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger
I used to do that too. The truth is this: Since the 1990s. Frankenberger and I accepted invitations for luxury travel in and paid for by Oman We did this without our readers ever finding out who picked up the bill for these all-inclusive, full-service packages for the FAZ: the billionaire Oabus from the Sultanate of Oman.
So, what can the critics of today say about people like me and the current head of the foreign affairs desk at the FAZ? Based on the aforementioned ruling from the District Court of Cologne (case no.: 28 0 19/97), can they say that we were "bribed" for our Oman reporting in the past? Looking back at what I did, I would definitely have to say: I was bought.
This proximity to power corrupts. The Sultan had his own symphony orchestra. He had everything a human being could ever wish for. All of the world's finest automobiles were parked on exquisite carpets in his huge underground garage.
Then, all of a sudden, you were sitting next to him on the couch in his palace. In reality, you were nothing other than one of his many paid lackeys. Still, you didn't feel like just a cog. Instead, you somehow felt like you were a part of a powerful network.
This was also because a Sultan, worth billions of dollars, took the time to sit down with you. However, things like this sometimes develop completely differently than expected. During my first meeting with Sultan Qabus for the FAZ, I didn’t even know that Sultan Qabus was allegedly a homosexual and had only been married for a short time in order to keep up appearances in his Islamic country.
Before my first interview with the Sultan, I was briefed in the Sultan's antechamber by Anthony Ashworth, a British consultant and MI6 secret service agent. He prepared me for the meeting, expecting that I would be alone with the Sultan for a few hours. At the time, Ashworth told me something strange that I still remember to this day: "If he offers you a Ferrari and you don't want it, then simply decline it with gratitude. You just have to say it to him very politely, but also very clearly."
I thought his words were absurd, assuming it was his very dry, British humor, but I didn't understand the background behind what he was telling me yet. Why would the Sultan want to give me a Ferrari? Plus, I'm not really into Ferraris anyway. I prefer old Deutz tractors from the 60s with a top speed of 18 km/h.
As I mentioned, it hadn't dawned on me that this billionaire, with his own symphony orchestra and a palace where I never saw any women, but only a lot of boyish-looking young men, could allegedly get very comfortable with you when you were sitting all alone with him on his couch.
Here, so as to not give off the wrong impression, I have to say: The Sultan's behavior toward me was impeccable. He never offered me a Ferrari either.
Still, the secret service agent Anthony Ashworth and, above all, the German embassy were extremely nervous, because they were afraid that the Sultan would hit on me over the course of a private meeting lasting a few hours (which was not the case).
On the contrary, the Sultan told me how lonely he was in his palaces and how comfortable he felt in the bar he bought near Garmisch-Partenkirchen. In the rare hours he got to spend there, he could be a completely normal person and enjoy a German beer in the company of his male friends.
Here, I feel it's important to emphasize again that this proximity to power corrupts. If Sultan Qabus is financing these trips for the FAZ and the dictator is sitting on his couch, telling droll stories about his life, then everything that happens is ice cold and calculated. My colleagues at the FAZ and I all fell for it. Of course, all of this influenced our reporting in the FAZ – without a doubt.
This is because, despite all his affected friendliness, Sultan Qabus is nothing other than a despot. Almost all of the human rights reports from the US State Department confirm this. The reports are critical of the fact that any form of criticism directed at the Sultan is prohibited by law and the Omani people have no right to replace the government. The Sultan alone has the power of disposition in all national and international matters. In plain language: He is a dictator.
According to reports from the State Department, government officials do not have to disclose their finances and police officers do not need a search warrant to enter homes. Furthermore, it also states that the laws of the country are abused to silence government critics of anyone who advocates undesirable opinions. Publications and the importing of books and other media products are also restricted as well.
Now, try and find any of this in the reports that we wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung after accepting those luxurious invitations from Oman. Clearly, up to the present day, hardly anything has changed in this respect.
In newspaper like the FAZ, you'll almost always see the smiling, benevolent, super Sultan who almost everyone supposedly likes. Looking back, I have to say: This is lobbying, propaganda and disinformation in its purest form.
How embarrassing. We were literally supporting a brutal dictator. If we had been honest, we would have reported in the FAZ about the many human rights abuses happening in Oman. However, since the Sultan bought off so many foreign journalists like us with luxurious trips, he has been able to continue his reign for many years.
One example: In July, 2014, two young Omani bloggers were arrested because they dared to mention human rights violations in Oman online. These adolescents were not allowed to contact a lawyer. They were simply locked up. One of them was even sent to a psychiatric ward, because he dared to criticize the Sultan.
It has gone on like this for years: Whoever opens their mouth gets arrested. Knowing this now as a reader, if you look back and consider who financed some of our 5-star Oman trips in the 90s with their accompanying courtesy reports, then you would see those articles on Oman in an entirely new light.
Using the analogy of the ruling handed down by the District Court of Cologne I mentioned above, is it safe to say that the FAZ not only "prostituted" itself with the Shell stories, but also with its Oman-friendly reporting? Just to be clear: My colleague Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger is a thoroughly agreeable person, a jovial cigar aficionado who appreciates fine wines. We just want to stick to the truth, yet I was also "bribed" by Oman back in the 90s.
What would be interesting to know, from the point of view of today's readers, would be the question of who has been arranging the trips to the Sultanate of Oman in recent years? Is everything still being arranged through Renate Kornes and the German press office for Oman like it was back in my day?
In hindsight, I was witnessing Frankenberger, my colleague at the time, cross one invisible line after another with every luxury trip to the billionaire dictator's country - just like I did. And I saw this from inside the editorial offices of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. It started with his first trips to Oman in the 90s ("Oman is on its way to become an Arab jewel”) covering the "improbable success story of Oman and it continued with his "voice of compromise and reason" and "festive ceremony to open the second session" of the "Council of Oman."
I would like to emphasize here that I am only using Oman as a synonym for a multitude of similar examples to be found in the German media. However, I can say that I never experienced anything like this at Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel journalists, as far as I know, never accepted any dictators' invitations to go on luxury trips like these.
For them, it was a question of honor, and everyone stuck to it. The same cannot be said for the FAZ. When I look back, we were completely corrupt. Are people like Frankenberger, the ones who have climbed up through the media hierarchy, aware of all this today? They probably are. I say this because after a scandal over the FAZ accepting paid luxury trips in another context and the corruptibility of FAZ journalists, there was talk FAZ wanting to provide "transparency" from now on.
Carsten Knop, in charge of corporate reporting at the FAZ told medium magazin in 2012, “In the future, we will provide transparency with regard to trips that we are invited to go on." After revelations that certain corporations had paid for first class trips on Lufthansa and five-star hotels, Knop said of the FAZ's new transparency, "This is not a temporary measure, but a new standard. This is how it will be from now on.” If you're a reader, you should try and keep tabs on whether this transparency only goes for the business section or if they're also going to practice this when it comes to paid trips and invitations from political interests.