How dangerous is the utmost right in Germany? What should we know about the increase in neo-Nazi terrorism? What is the function of peculiar services in Germany? Leszek Jażdżewski talks to Jacob Kushner, an global writer dealing with migration, terrorism and violent extremism, discipline and wellness in Africa, Germany and the Caribbean. He is the author of books “China’s Congo Plan” and “White Terror. Neonazis in Germany” (2026, Black Publishing). He is besides a lecturer in journalism at Columbia University, fresh York.
Leszek Jażdżewski (LJ): What is the movement of the National Socialist Underground (NSU) in Germany and what prompted you to analyse this uncommon phenomenon in the media?
Jacob Kushner (JK): As a abroad correspondent, I was stationed in East Africa erstwhile I first heard of the National Socialist Underground. I reported attacks on LGBTQ refugees across East Africa. During the wave of the influx of asylum seekers into Europe in 2014, 2015 and 2016 I began to see reports of attacks on specified people in Germany. I started going to Germany to gather information about these attacks in tiny towns in different regions where people tried to set fire to exile centers to prevent them from settling in their communities.
It was during these trips that I heard about NSU. It was a terrorist group that formed and radicalized in the 1990s in the town of Jena in east Germany, a fewer hours distant from Berlin. In the 2000s. This group carried out terrible attacks, murders and bombings on immigrants and immigrant children throughout Germany. The same crimes were shocking, but another component that shocked German public opinion erstwhile the case came to light in 2013, was that terrorists avoided detention.
For thirteen years this terrorist group has survived hiding in Germany and making further attacks for many years, never being captured by the police. This component fascinated me as a journalist. 1 of the fundamental duties in journalism is to hold the authorities accountable, and I wanted to realize how they avoided arrest and why the German authorities had turned a blind eye for so long.
LJ: From what background do the main members of the Jena group come, and how have teenagers become extremist and influential extremists?
JK: The National Socialist Underground was a network of various members, but 3 major members grew up as teenagers in the town of Jena in the 1990s. It was a period of advanced unemployment in East Germany, marked by concern after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of Germany, which active the closure of many factories. It was these issues that aroused the discontent of these three.
However, it is worth noting that 2 of these 3 people have never experienced unemployment problems, as have their families. Uwe Mundlos was the boy of a prof. of computer discipline at the university. He was very skilled in computer handling and studied; neither he nor his parents had any problems with employment. Similarly, Uwe Böhnhardt's household had permanent employment, although they did a class-class job.
The situation of Beata Zschäpe was a small more complicated. Her parent frequently moved between Bucharest and Jena in search of work, studied various courses, but never kept her employment for a long time. Its situation reflected to a greater degree the difficulties encountered by residents of east Germany at the time.
Their ideology began to make as a consequence of discontent with society and the feeling that there was no place in it for them. They felt that immigrants were in a better position than they were themselves, which was not in line with the facts. After the fall of the wall, they had far more opportunities than immigrants. Many temporary workers in East Germany lost their jobs completely, faced visa problems and had to leave factories, shipyards and accommodation centres where they lived to effort to build their own lives for the first time. Their anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic beliefs did not necessarily stem from their individual economical experiences, although these were the views they began to take.
The first offenses began as teenagers. They engaged in specified activities as profaning judaic monuments and graves of judaic leaders. yet they began experimenting with explosives, placing tube bombs at stadiums and elsewhere, including possibly outside immigrant homes. They initially radicalized as provokers. In East Germany, the 1990s, there was no more effective way to provoke or rebel than to become a neo-Nazi. Finally, they full accepted the hard neo-Nazi ideology. They did not make in isolation; they grew up in a network of far-right extremists throughout the Land of Thuringia, meaning they were radicalized within a much larger group.
LJ: Could you describe the ambivalent relations between German peculiar services, police and the utmost right-wing NSU movement, especially in the context of the usage of informants?
JK: Readers of my book will get acquainted with a character named Tino Brandt. Tino Brandt was most likely the ideological leader of the far right scene in this country. He worked for an utmost right-wing publishing house, publishing right-wing books. In his spare time, he organized far-right rallies and coordinated group activities. He provided legal training for neo-Nazis on how to avoid detention while carrying weapons in vehicles or how to deal with police so they could carry out violent attacks. He was a leader.
Tino Brandt was besides an informant for the state intelligence agency. This leader of the far right scene was receiving money from German taxpayers, who, as he later admitted, invested straight back into this environment. It was the money of German taxpayers that helped fund a network of extremists, in which the terrorists from the National Socialist Underground radicalized.
As far as the relation between police and intelligence agencies is concerned, the police were at any point investigating Tino Brandt and his network in connection with about 30 crimes—from the profanation of monuments to force against leftist activists. erstwhile the police asked the D.A. to charge Brandt and his co-conspirators, Thuringia's intelligence services intervened to defend him due to the fact that he was their informant. They confessed to this intervention. Although he did not supply useful intelligence, he was paid simply for being a well placed informant.
This conflict reached its climax erstwhile police yet obtained a warrant to search Tino Brandt's home and computer. His intelligence coordinator found out about the upcoming search of the erstwhile evening and warned Brandt to hide his computer due to the fact that the police were coming. The next morning, Tino Brandt waited for the police at the door and voluntarily donated his computer; however, the hard drive was removed due to the fact that Brandt had previously been warned. The German intelligence agency actively obstructed the police to execute their duties and helped the accused criminal avoid justice. This shows what the situation was at the time and why the intelligence agency did not take the network seriously, which later became known as the National Socialist Underground.
LJ: What allowed these people to operate for thirteen years and commit many violent crimes against immigrants without stopping?
JK: The time of 3 in Jena ended erstwhile police obtained a warrant to search their garages where they produced bombs. The trio ran distant due to the fact that the police misconducted the operation that day, and these 3 people were never seen together in public again. For years, they have been hiding in various cities in east Germany. Their ability to avoid capture was facilitated by an extended network of friends who rented them apartments and provided motorhomes utilized to rob 15 banks to finance their operations. They received crucial assistance from this network in arms procurement and logistical support.
The police couldn't halt them due to the fact that they weren't looking for them. all time an immigrant was murdered, police came to the scene and immediately blamed the victim. Whether the victim was a man of Turkish origin in his kebab bar or in a tool shop, police automatically attributed the crime to the Turkish mafia or conflicts involving the Kurdistan Workers organization (PKK). She treated these events exclusively as organized crime.
Police spent time interrogating household members – demanding wives, daughters, sons or fathers to confess who killed the victim or what disputes existed – alternatively of identifying the real perpetrators. The police were blinded by organization racism to specified an degree that they could not comprehend that it was white Germans, not immigrants, who carried out these attacks. This possible allowed force to last that long.
Meanwhile, intelligence agencies have maintained many informants specified as Tino Brandt in the utmost right-wing environments. Either they have never received information about the National Socialist Underground—which any analysts consider unlikely—or they have received it, but have not taken any action, repeating their earlier behaviour from Thuringia.
In my book, I'm tracking the destiny of an intelligence agent who told me about his actions with an informant from the far right who may have had ties to the National Socialist Underground network. Avoiding justice resulted from a combination of organization racism by police and the reluctance of intelligence agencies to exposure their informants to defend immigrant communities. erstwhile the agency takes action based on information from an informant, it frequently exposes the origin and deprives it of its usefulness. This raises the question of why intelligence agencies passed on taxpayers' money to utmost right-wing extremists – who utilized these funds to carry out attacks – and then refused to usage these sources to defend society and immigrant communities.
LJ: Are there double standards for home utmost right-wing terrorism compared to abroad or muslim terrorism? If specified double standards exist, what factors affect this discrepancy?
JK: Double standards surely exist. Before comparing utmost right-wing terrorism with muslim terrorism, it is worth looking at how authorities treat left-wing terrorism. In talks with the German authorities, it is heard that no right-wing force was seen as terrorism at the time of these attacks. Instead, the historical mention point for terrorism was the Red Army faction, which dealt with the kidnapping of bank directors, and aircraft and another acts of leftist violence. This is the argument of the authorities why they initially interpreted these murders as organized crime. Authorities have prejudice due to the fact that they are traditionally utilized to investigating left-wing terrorism, not right-wing terrorism.
As an American, I see immense prejudices in the United States in the treatment of far-right extremists compared to Islamists, both before and after September 11. In his book The panic Factory, writer Trevor Aaronson shows how the United States government after 9/11 falsified many cases involving muslim terrorism, utilizing methods resembling police provocation. The national Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified Muslim individuals with unstable psyche, convinced them to act under the influence of anger, and active them in conspiracy to get weapons to carry out the attack. The FBI staged these events to guarantee convictions and show that the agency takes muslim terrorism seriously.
This discrepancy besides persists in the case of contemporary terrorist attacks by white people in the United States. Dylann Roof, a white extremist who committed massacres on black parishes in Charleston church, published a manifesto explaining his motives; however, prosecutors did not charge him with terrorism laws. This demonstrates the inability to specify terrorism accurately. Prosecutors may have thought that they would neglect to get a conviction for terrorism, as an American jury might not consider this act to be terrorism, which illustrates the discrepancy in the social perception of this phenomenon.
Society frequently associate terrorism exclusively with muslim extremism; however, since 9/11 more Americans have been killed by far-right extremists than muslim extremists. In the United States, there have been 3 times as many attacks on the far right as the attacks on Islamists, and a akin situation has besides been observed in Germany. It is so essential to redefine what constitutes terrorism.
A fewer years ago in Germany, an effort by the Reichsbürger group to overthrow the government took place. 1 of its leaders, Prince Heinrich XIII Reuss, lived in a castle on the Saale River. After his arrest, the magazine “Der Spiegel” described him as an aristocrat wearing a tweed jacket, noting that he did not match a typical terrorist. That journalistic assessment was wrong. In countries where the population is predominantly white, specified as Germany and the United States, empirical data show that most terrorists are white men with right-wing views, just like Prince Reuss. There is, therefore, a misconception among public opinion and journalists that terrorism is primarily associated with muslim groups, even though the data indicate that this phenomenon is mainly far-right.
LJ: Is the disclosure of the case of the National Socialist Underground and subsequent coup plans fundamentally changing the organization culture regarding the utmost right in Germany, or is this threat inactive mostly underestimated in the face of the political emergence in the popularity of anti-immigrant movements specified as the alternate to Germany (AfD)?
JK: There are many studies on the correlation between extremist rhetoric and political violence. Following the disclosure of the activities of the National Cojalist Underground there was a five-year trial of 5 members of this organization, as described in my book. The disclosure of the case caused a immense stir throughout Germany. The Bundestag launched 3 separate investigations into the National Cojalist Underground to find how the group avoided prior detection. As a result, the heads of the national intelligence agency and 1 or 2 intelligence agencies at national level were released and replaced.
The current situation has conflicting signals, suggesting that although Germany has implemented any organization reforms, they are inactive facing crucial problems. Public awareness of the utmost right within German armed forces and police has increased. For example, in Baden-Württemberg, a group of police officers were found talking about conducting a terrorist attack and framing immigrants to trigger a racial war. A soldier, Franco Albrecht, was besides detained, who planned a terrorist attack utilizing weapons stolen from the military with the intention of framing an immigrant to trigger a racial war. Although these cases show that the threat inactive exists, their disclosure indicates that the authorities are actively investigating and detecting these structures. However, it is hard to find whether this reflects the improvement in the effectiveness of law enforcement, or whether these cases represent only a fraction of undetected extremist activity.
However, Germany is more stringent than the United States. In the United States, utmost right-wing groups specified as the Oath Keepers have been actively recruiting active soldiers and veterans for years to their own militias, but the political will to argue this organization infiltration remains small. During the Obama administration, the Department of Homeland safety produced a study showing how utmost right-wing groups directed their recruitment to the US Armed Forces. The subsequent public and political consequence against president Obama for publishing passages of this study was so violent that the administration officially withdrew the document. This reaction demonstrates interior opposition in the United States before acknowledging the scale of utmost right-wing violence.
In this circumstantial context, Germany has shown greater organization readiness to address this problem, although only minimal structural changes have occurred in the intelligence sector. Hans-Georg Maaßen, who served as the head of the national interior Intelligence Agency of Germany for respective years, maintained well-documented links with the utmost right and was described by “Die Zeit” as German Steve Bannon. Furthermore, Bundestag has limited parliamentary oversight over these intelligence agencies. The public does not have access to information on the number of active informants utilized by the State and Bundestag itself receives very limited information. As a result, the scope of fundamental systemic changes remains unclear.
Society is facing large difficulties erstwhile they must recognise that national actors are the main threat to their safety. A good example is Gordian Meyer-Plath, a German intelligence officer who later became head of the state-level intelligence agency. During his visit to Oklahoma City National Memorial – the site of a white extremist bombing in which 168 people were killed – he noted that there was extended literature at the bookstore at the monument on global muslim extremism, but there was a deficiency of books on a peculiar kind of home terrorism that took place at that site. This reflection highlights the continuing social resistance, especially in the United States, against accurate designation and dealing with interior terrorism as it truly is.
LJ: Given that policy of concessions and moving the political spectrum to the right has not managed to weaken movements specified as the alternate to Germany or limit the utmost right, what structural strategies should Europeans and Americans implement to counter this threat?
JK: It is clear that centrist or centre-right parties are incapable to satisfy people with anti-immigrant views. Xenophobic views frequently have nothing to do with rational or economical motivations. Moving further to the right does not work erstwhile voters have an alternative, specified as the alternate to Germany or the Republican organization in the United States, which clearly opposes immigration. Political organization leaders must consider existing studies showing that specified concessions neglect as a strategy.
This creates a hard balance in Europe. Liberals frequently approach excessive state interference and the expansion of intelligence agencies. In Germany, intelligence agencies have historically led individuals who sometimes sympathized with these extremists or at least were unwilling to usage their intelligence data to defend immigrant communities.
The fundamental challenge in Germany and throughout Europe is to recognise the actual nature of these threats by collecting and publishing comprehensive statistics. Only late did Germany start publishing police data focusing specifically on utmost right-wing violence, alongside data on left-wing and muslim violence. The solution to this problem starts with the recognition of the origin of terrorism. Journalists are besides liable for this, due to the fact that global reports are more frequently addressing muslim attacks than far right.
The political parties must halt acting on the presumption that xenophobia will vanish if they simply adapt their policies to the needs of these voters. A healthy political environment requires separate parties with clear, competing programmes so that society has a clear choice. We see this fight besides in the United States, where the Democratic organization has difficulty defining its position on these issues. president Barack Obama has deported more people than any another president in the fresh past of the United States. Democratic leaders must decide whether they will effort to imitate Donald Trump's immigration policy or make an independent, separate programme. As a journalist, I see the request for a clear discrimination between political parties' positions on immigration.
Jacob Kushner will be a guest of this year's edition of the Freedom Games, co-organised by the European Liberal Forum (ELF) on 23-25 October at EC1 in Łódź.
Learn more: https://igracyfreedom.pl/
This podcast was produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with the Movieno Liberal Social and the Liberté Foundation!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are liable for the content nor for any usage of this podcast.
Podcast is besides available on platforms Sound, Apple Podcast, Stitcher and Spotify
Dr. Olga Łabendowicz translated from English
Read English at 4liberty.eu
