Hans-Georg Maaßen in an interview: “I reject firewalls”
The former head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution wants to bring the Values Union out of political obscurity. What drives him—and what is his stance on the AfD? An interview.
The man who once headed the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and is now considered a "right-wing extremist object of observation" seems to prefer not to attract attention. Hans-Georg Maaßen suggested a restaurant in western Berlin for this interview. He waits at a table far back in a corner, greets politely, and speaks thoughtfully, almost cautiously. Thus, it's difficult to mentally connect him with the Maaßen who shimmers in his texts and posts. The one who suspected a "human breeding program" against whites, accused the media of manipulation, and generally seems very alarmed about the state of this country.
So who is this man who lost his job under Angela Merkel because he publicly questioned whether there were right-wing extremist witch hunts in Chemnitz after a Syrian and an Iraqi killed someone? The man who still often speaks about Merkel today, accusing her of being close to anti-German ideology. He now leads his own party, the Values Union, and poses smilingly next to AfD leader Alice Weidel ?
“Why should anyone have a problem having their photo taken with Ms. Weidel?”Mr. Maaßen, you recently attended the CPAC conference in Budapest. Afterwards, you shared a photo of yourself and Alice Weidel, captioning it: "So what?" What are you trying to say with that?
My credo is: I talk to anyone who wants to talk to me. I don't avoid Ms. Weidel. And I wouldn't avoid Ms. Wagenknecht either. We don't have to get married or form a coalition. I would also talk to left-wing or Green politicians and have my photo taken – but the other way around, there are probably firewalls.
Are you trying to provoke with something like that? It's a bit of a provocation. I reject firewalls. So, "So what?" Why should anyone have a problem with having their photo taken with Ms. Weidel?
In your speech at CPAC, Alice Weidel thanked you for the fact that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution had not monitored the AfD under your aegis. Were you pleased with this thanks?
It was nice. I've seen Ms. Weidel a few times. I value her as a talented and intelligent woman. She puts in an incredible amount of effort. I was pleased that she recognized me in the audience. But I was just doing my job, and I don't want any thanks for that.
Others would say that you didn't do your job properly because you didn't monitor the AfD. Was that a topic of discussion in your department at the time?
I firmly believe that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, as a domestic intelligence agency, should not monitor political parties. This doesn't happen in any other Western country, with the exception of Austria. When I spoke to my American and British colleagues as head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, they just shook their heads—that an intelligence agency run by a political official and subordinate to the Interior Minister could monitor opposing parties and publicly defame and discredit them. I agreed with then-Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich . When we stopped monitoring the Left Party in 2013, I thought we were on the way to normality. In 2016, the discussion about monitoring the AfD began.
How did that go?
I remember there was a state election in Baden-Württemberg. A few weeks before, I was approached by a colleague from there. He asked me if I would like to set up a federal-state review group on the AfD. The state interior minister was from the SPD. The election threatened to be a fiasco for the SPD. I said that I would not allow myself to be made a lackey of parties before a state election. Then came Kramer, the newly appointed President of the Thuringian Office for the Protection of the Constitution under Bodo Ramelow , who had himself been under surveillance for many years. Incredible political and media pressure was put on me. Ultimately, the political decision was made to investigate the AfD. That was in 2018. I told the then Interior Minister Horst Seehofer that logically we would have to monitor the Left Party again.
You say that you are fundamentally opposed to monitoring entire parties. But even under your leadership, right-wing and left-wing extremist parties such as the Third Way and the German Communist Party (DKP) were monitored.
Yes, that's true. This happens when personal connections to the violent scene are involved, or when party status is merely a legal shell used to overthrow the system. But it's indeed worth considering paring down these observations as well.
Hans-Georg Maaßen: “The CDU is actually a left-wing party”In a Spiegel TV video from the 2021 federal election campaign, you said you were keen for the AfD to disappear. You also said that you wanted to offer people an offer – that problems can be solved "non-radically." Has your view of the AfD changed?
Some things have changed, especially the CDU. In 2021, I was the CDU candidate in southern Thuringia and represented the party's interests, especially the local district associations, which are grounded and conservative. We firmly believed that if we had a conservative CDU, we no longer needed the AfD. Even now, as the Values Union, which I founded, we see a clear difference from the AfD. The AfD is a right-wing party; we are the conservative party. We want measured, centrist policies, not radical ones. For example, with immigration. We want to control and limit migration. That means we want rejections at our borders, but we don't want to abolish the right to asylum. When it comes to immigration law, we have less of a legislative problem than a problem of a lack of political will to apply the law.
Your party was unsuccessful in elections. Has the Values Union failed?
I believe that the Values Union is needed. We see ourselves as a conservative party in the tradition of the former CDU/CSU and FDP. Our problem is a lack of visibility – we are not seen in public. Our target groups, traditional CDU/CSU and FDP voters, probably don't know us. I estimate the gap between the CDU/CSU and the AfD at around 15 percent. Before the federal election, it was said that there was hardly any room left for the Values Union between the Merz-led CDU/CSU and the AfD. Since the election, it has been clear that Merz is not keeping his promises. It is a policy of business as usual. We see this as our opportunity. We must make it clear to our target group that the CDU is actually a left-wing party.
What distinguishes you from the AfD?
We have some common ground in some areas – for example, in that we see structural flaws in this country, particularly with regard to migration policy and freedom of expression. But for us, the AfD is a right-wing party that relies on a strong state because it sees it as the solution to problems, not as a problem. We, on the other hand, are a conservative party that advocates for the dismantling of the state in many areas. Not just in terms of citizen's income and transfer payments; we also want the state to largely withdraw from our lives. I don't even want to be aware that the state exists in my life. It should do what its actual tasks are: internal and external security, national defense, good diplomacy, infrastructure, education, and a reasonable social safety net. The state is failing to fulfill these tasks adequately today. Instead, it is deeply interfering with our freedoms. It is behaving in an intrusive manner.
However, in a much-criticized article in Cato magazine in 2021, you sounded very different. In it, you formulated a more right-wing critique of globalization, similar to that seen in some parts of Donald Trump's work, which favors protectionism and state intervention. How does that fit together?
I am in favor of a strong state insofar as it fulfills its actual functions. Apart from that, it should stay out of our lives. Globalists—I use this term deliberately—are, to me, people who strive for a collectivist form of society in which power ultimately lies solely in the hands of a few super-rich individuals and the organizations they control, who want to dictate how we should live. Their ultimate goal is to transfer the sovereignty of democratic states to bodies that are not democratically legitimized but are influenced by them. I am strictly opposed to this and see parallels between globalists on the one hand and neo-Marxists on the other, because both favor replacing liberal democracy. What both have in common is that citizens are being deprived of free self-determination over their lives, and others want to decide for them how they should live, raise their children, and, for example, how they should heat their homes. I see both as a threat.
Because you speak of "globalists," you have been accused of anti-Semitism. Who are these people and organizations you have in mind? At CPAC, almost every speaker mentioned "globalists" at least once. I think Orbán used the word ten times, and Kristi Noem umpteen times too. And they certainly didn't mean Jews. They mean those who are called oligarchs in the East and often call themselves philanthropists in the West. Those who don't just want to be rich, but want to transform their wealth into power. Whether that's Bill Gates or George Soros, who tries to engage in politics under the guise of philanthropy. The goal is a collectivist society in which individual freedoms are further restricted.
That would also have to apply to Elon Musk or Peter Thiel, whom you didn't mention.
I generally have concerns when people don't just want to be wealthy or prosperous, but also when they use their wealth to make politics. As for Elon Musk, this is clearly an attempt to create ideological equality. I acknowledge that.
You now describe the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution as a "threat to the constitution." Others have been saying that for decades. But the intelligence agency hasn't fundamentally changed since your departure – were you simply unwilling to see the problems before?
Above all, the legal situation has changed. Until 2021, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution was fundamentally prohibited from monitoring individuals. After the Second World War, the Allies wanted a separation of police and intelligence services so that there would never be a Gestapo again. Therefore, the police are not allowed to use intelligence resources. The police are not allowed to intervene before a terrorist buys the ingredients for a bomb. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is allowed to do so, but for a long time it was only allowed to monitor organizations and not individuals because an individual does not pose a threat to the free democratic basic order. Then, in 2016, we made the wrong decision that terrorists who do not belong to a terrorist organization fall under the purview of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. It would have been better if the police had been allowed to monitor them in advance. In 2021, the restriction to lone terrorists was lifted, and the regulation was declared applicable to all individuals whom the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution suspects of being at risk of radicalization. This means that almost anyone who expresses delegitimizing, i.e. critical, views towards the government can become a target of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
Your dismissal is now quite some time ago. What distinguishes you today from Hans-Georg Maaßen of the past?
It's normal that political officials have to leave. In that respect, it was clear to me that if Mrs. Merkel didn't like the way I looked, she could have fired me at any time without giving a reason. So I can't complain. Of course I've changed. I've gotten older. I've learned a lot and met people I wouldn't have met otherwise, after my lectures, for example. I listen to that; you learn a lot about different life experiences. And when listeners occasionally say nonsense, when they call themselves "Reichsbürger" (Reich citizens), for example, and believe that Germany is a limited liability company, you have to at least try to convince people that your own point of view is correct. And freedom of speech must also apply to nonsense. I think more politically these days. And I take a more critical view of some things when it comes to the work of the federal government.
A few years ago, you told Der Spiegel that the public insults and insinuations following the debate about the riots in Chemnitz were harsh. How do you look back on that time?
That left its mark at first, but time has passed. As head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, I was already dealing with journalists and giving interviews. But of course, it's different when you yourself are the subject of reporting and have almost zero influence over it. At the time, I spoke with a press lawyer about what I could do, and he said, "Mr. Maaßen, this is a hail of bombs, get under cover, there's nothing you can do." Some injuries had already been caused.
Maaßen: "Merkel insisted that the borders remain open. Why?"You're a lawyer. They're actually known for weighing their words to describe reality as precisely as possible. But after the attack on X in Mannheim, you wrote of "media manipulation," a sweeping accusation. You complain that journalists are puzzling over the perpetrator's motives. Yet it's part of their job to gather facts and not publish them too quickly. Since you asked how I've changed: I have several public roles today. Yes, I'm a lawyer, a lawyer. I was head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. And now I'm also a party leader. As such, I express myself differently than in my other roles. My biggest problem is with the public media because they are legally mandated to provide comprehensive and balanced reporting. Private media are allowed to be biased and even engage in propaganda. No newspaper has to be objective and impartial. It's different with public broadcasters. In my view, however, they aren't fulfilling their mandate. That's why I deliberately refer to them as state media.
This means you can always choose the role that's right for you. Who is sitting in front of us at this moment?
Not the lawyer.
When you talk about media manipulation, that presupposes intention. Meaning, someone wants to influence. After the New Year's Eve riots in Berlin, you wrote about a "human breeding program" against white people in relation to migration. Why do you suspect a grand plan here, too?
I think I was referring to a tweet from a so-called sea rescuer. He wrote that in 50 to 100 years there would be no more "white bread" here. He meant people with lighter skin. I was speaking as a political activist, not as a lawyer. I find it outrageous to express myself like that. Not because I'm nationalistic. I can't describe it in legal terms. I find it outrageous when people pursue the plan that people with a certain skin color should die out and others should dominate. It is irrelevant what skin color these are.
At CPAC two years ago, you said that politicians wanted illegal migration to destabilize Germany and the EU. Another perfidious plan. How do you come to that conclusion? I was in charge of the Federal Criminal Police Office for a long time. When I have a case, when I see a problem, I ask myself why that is? That's not a conspiracy theory, but rather I'm working with a working hypothesis or a suspicion. In 2015, Merkel left the doors open to migration. I asked myself, like millions of others: Why? Later, journalist Robin Alexander described her and her government as "driven." She was driven by the mood at the time and the media. That doesn't convince me. Ms. Merkel had the opportunity years later to reverse that. At the latest in 2018, when Seehofer said we are closing the borders as part of a new migration program. But she insisted that the borders remain open. Why? If I were a prosecutor, I would question her to find out her motive. Why did she leave the doors open? There are several hypotheses or suspicions for this.
Namely?
I consider the first, that she was driven, to be refuted. The second, that she wanted to do something for asylum seekers. That doesn't make sense to me either, because the majority of the migrants coming to us are not eligible for asylum. Many have economic interests. Merkel knew that all of this was illegal. And if, as head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, you also concern yourself with the ideology of the anti-Germans , including anti-colonialists, then that fits in with the dying "white bread" I spoke of. For me, that's no longer a simple initial suspicion. There is a strong suspicion that mass migration to Germany and other Western countries is intended to bring about a social transformation.
Excuse me, but it could be much more mundane. Angela Merkel is said to have always kept an eye on the mood in the country in order to align her policies accordingly. Perhaps she thought that the majority of the population at that time didn't want border controls. That may be an argument. I would counter that the AfD was quite weak until 2015. With Merkel, it gained the upper hand, and that contradicts your thesis.
We were more concerned with the mood in the camp to the left of the Union, which was known to be closer to the Chancellor than the far right.
Look at today's society. It's more unstable and divided than it was in 2015. I generally assume that politicians are aware of the circumstances and therefore intentionally caused the consequences they cause.But of course, it's also much harder to bear that the story, as it unfolds, is at times much more unplanned. It's characterized by coincidences and structures that operate independently of the actors' intentions.
Sure, sure, I know that. There are coincidences in politics, but far fewer than people generally think. At least, that's my professional and life experience. However, it will take time before we discover the true motivation, perhaps only with the help of historians who have access to the archives.
Hans-Georg Maaßen: “Rehabilitation is not crucial for me”The general public considers you a right-wing extremist by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Do you think you can be rehabilitated one day?
Certainly. I just need to get a few minutes on the news , on a talk show. But rehabilitation isn't the deciding factor for me; I'm fighting for political change.
As for rehabilitation through TV appearances, AfD politicians would disagree with you.
Of course, it depends on whether you are treated fairly by the media. Unfortunately, there are journalists, especially in public media, who conduct interviews more like a senior public prosecutor conducts an interrogation of a suspect.In your farewell speech at the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, you said that you would be happy to stay in touch with some of your colleagues. Do you still have contact with any of your colleagues there?
Yes. You never really leave.
Berliner-zeitung
