The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

The End Times Holy War

Western imperialism has stopped even trying to plausibly justify its wars. We should be scared


15/03/2026

My father always reminded me to keep a “cool head and a warm heart.” Today, we are living through one of those moments when it is wise to apply that advice.

First, let us make a few things clear: the United States and Israel have once again violated every conceivable rule by launching their war against Iran. Once again, while negotiations were still underway, they attacked that country, flagrantly violating not only a nation’s sovereignty but also the international legal order. Yet, this should not surprise us if we look at the destruction in Gaza and the history of the United States, a nation so fond of war. We knew this would happen; the question was only when.

What we know so far is that Iran has struck hard against all U.S. military installations in the Persian Gulf. Despite Tehran being subjected to violent bombardment, it has proven capable of responding—and with unusual force. Once again, it seems the Americans underestimated their adversary, a clear sign of their arrogance and ignorance in failing to truly understand their enemy. Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, as it had announced it would, and this is hitting the global economy hard. While lives are being lost in Iran, money is being lost in the United States (and a few lives as well). The cost of the war has already surpassed the staggering figure of 10,217,000,000 US dollars (last update 10.03.), and continues to rise every second, as indicated by the Iran War Cost Tracker website.

The battle is also being fought in the corporate media, which are striving to justify and cheer for this war as if it were inevitable. Western media outlets defend the criminal conduct of the aggressors while blaming the attacked party for responding. However, the manufacturing of consent for this war is rather weak. Twenty-two years ago, when the empire was preparing to invade Iraq, it made the effort to invent some excuse. Today, the justifications are ridiculous and reveal how little effort has been made to truly legitimize this war. What is the reason, the excuse, for this war? Regime Change or the Iranian ballistic missile program, or the threat of any use of uranium enrichment, or all of these? Recently, the historian Emmanuel Todd said in an interview: “The Western media system has become an empire of lies, incapable of describing reality.” Ultimately, the truth no longer matters. The empire has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for soft power, for international law, and for any commitment to truth. But when the empire believes its own lies, then you only have hubris.

We also knew who would support this new war and who would oppose it. True, European leaders always manage to surprise us with their extraordinary capacity for servility. This was to be expected from such lamentable figures as Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen. But not everyone in Europe is willing to twist the truth in the face of the obvious and kneel before Emperor Trump. Spain and Belgium seem to be exceptions, offering some condemnations. Meanwhile, the usual trio—the three stooges, Macron, Merz, and Starmer—compete to see who can demonstrate the greatest willingness to submit. All three leaders are ready to support U.S. logistics by allowing American forces to use military bases on their territory. That turns their countries into legitimate targets—or even makes them enter the war outright. Yet the supposed “unity” of Europe has been exposed as little more than a myth. This is illustrated by Chancellor Friedrich Merz agreeing with Trump that Spain should be punished for daring to contradict the American president’s will. It seems the empire increasingly demands that its vassals commit themselves more fully to its overseas wars. Those who wish to remain on the sidelines—or who still cite rules that this supposedly “civilized” world once claimed to respect—will become pariahs within an increasingly warlike and nihilistic Western alliance.

Western propaganda against Iran has been effective. Without defending the current regime in Tehran, we must reflect that many people accept this war simply because “the Iranian regime is bad.” Those who think this way have simply swallowed the entire narrative of Western propaganda, which absolves the true aggressors. It is as if we were to believe that the bombs now falling on civilians and defenseless children will somehow bring them salvation, freedom, and democracy. Gaza is destroyed with a death toll 50 percent higher than the official figure. Syria is now Balkanized after the overthrow of Assad, led by a former Al-Qaeda figure who now serves as a puppet of imperial power. We should not expect Iran’s story to end very differently if the regime falls. 

Consider the project of Greater Israel, which Netanyahu and his band of fanatics are constructing as a colonial project based on dispossession, genocide, and war. We already see this in Israel’s advances into Syrian territory, its incursions into Lebanon, and the looming illegal annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. When the criminals who give these military orders speak of democracy and women’s rights while dropping bombs, remember the million direct and indirect deaths that resulted from the Iraqi invasion. Iraq is a society that could indeed sing a tragic song about that fable of ‘democracy’. For this reason, I believe that those who defend this war care little about the people of Iran. Rather, they ride the wave of their own hatred toward the ayatollahs. That hatred may not be unfounded, but to believe that bombs dropped by an external power will be welcomed as liberation is mistaken. If you think so, then Western propaganda has succeeded, because in the end, we come to accept what should be utterly unacceptable.

Take a brief look at the history of the United States and its interventions, invasions, and regime-change operations around the world. We see that it has always been an empire addicted to war. War is what the empire knows how to do – destroy, deceive, kill, annihilate. That is not the same as winning. Has Israel “won” the war in Gaza? Undoubtedly, it has destroyed it, but it has not won the war. In fact, several analysts already suggest that the empire will lose this war because, for Iran, it is an existential conflict. Whereas for the United States, it is optional—just another war in its long historical repertoire.

Yet there are other issues that should keep us awake at night now that Pandora’s box—already described by some as the beginning of a third world war—has been opened. Strict censorship in Israel prevents the world from seeing how Iran is striking its cities, military, and logistical bases. But once Iran deploys its most modern arsenal and once the anti-aircraft batteries of the United States and Israel begin to run out, Israel may suffer far more severe damage. We should not forget that the political leadership governing “the only democracy in the Middle East” is deeply fanatical and messianic. In their mystical-religious delusion, one may reasonably fear that they might resort to the “Samson Option”. That is the nuclear option. With such individuals at the helm of a genocidal government, the worst can be expected when that wounded animal finds itself cornered.

But this religiosity is not limited to Israel. Political analyst Pascal Lottaz, who runs the discussion platform Neutrality Studies, warns that several members of the Trump administration frame this war in explicitly religious terms. High-ranking officials, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, are known for their radical Christianity. We know that the United States and fundamentalist Christian evangelicals are among the most openly declared allies of Zionism. They share a messianism and expectations of Armageddon. These Christian fundamentalists appear to conceive of this conflict as a holy war, in which the Armageddon they anticipate would herald the return of Christ. 

Last year, political analyst Naomi Klein spoke of “end-times fascism”, referring to the network of bunkers that technology magnates are building around the world. In other words, while these people push the world toward a greater conflagration, they also seek to shield themselves in case things go wrong. What do these ultra-billionaires know that we do not? Klein pointed to the strong alliance between the MAGA sector and the techno-feudalists—figures such as Peter Thiel—who have already demonstrated their contempt for the world and ordinary people. It is as if overnight we had awakened in a dystopian Mad Max world, where two parallel projects appear to converge: the fortified city of the hyper-wealthy and the world outside it. As Klein and Taylor wrote: 

“The start-up contingent clearly anticipates a future defined by crisis, scarcity, and collapse. Their high-tech private domains are essentially fortified escape capsules designed so that a small chosen group can enjoy every possible luxury and opportunity for human optimization, giving them and their descendants an advantage in an increasingly barbaric future. Put bluntly, the most powerful people in the world are preparing for the end of the world—an end they themselves are frantically accelerating.” (Klein & Taylor, 2025) These signs should alarm us. When fanatical and radical religious political figures lead what they call a “holy war” against “absolute evil,” we should not be surprised if these leaders are willing to set the entire world ablaze. A glance at the U.S. doctrine of nuclear warfare is enough to confirm that these people genuinely believe that a nuclear war can be won. We can only hope that the costs of this entire campaign become so immense for the political and financial class that these warlords ultimately decide to abort the mission. They will still declare victory, even if, strategically speaking, the United States and Israel have been defeated. Iran’s strategies appear to be effective in targeting both global oil flows and American assets in the region. While Iranians are being sacrificed, the empire collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, its unsustainable militarism, and its enduring arrogance.

Banning social media will not protect kids 

On why governments are restricting young people from online platforms


14/03/2026

Adult covering the eyes of two children who are holding a tablet.

Disregarding the diverse needs of children and teenagers, the Australian government legislated in November 2024 that all people under the age of 16 would be restricted from accessing social media platforms, such as TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube. 

Despite advice coming from within Australia and organisations like Amnesty International that a total ban on social media for under-16s may be detrimental for teenagers, many countries in Europe and globally are now also taking similar steps and initiating social media bans for minors. 

Germany’s conservative government passed a motion on February 21st to restrict access to social media platforms for users under the age of 14, and France’s leaders intend to have teenagers off social media by September 2026. Other European countries taking similar approaches include Spain, Norway, Greece, Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands. MPs in the UK have recently rejected a proposed social media ban, but it is not off the cards completely. The European parliament has proposed ‘a harmonised EU digital minimum age of 16’ for access to social media platforms. India and Malaysia have also expressed plans to restrict children and teenagers from social media.  

Australia was not the first country, however, to tighten social media regulation for young people. Already in 2025, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) introduced ‘minor mode’, which operates, not as a blanket ban, but as a system of tiered age restrictions based on the developmental stage of the child. For example, toddlers should only have access to audio-based content, whereas 12–16-year olds can access curated news, entertainment and education materials, including break reminders and time limits. 

China’s approach to regulation, in contrast to Australia’s, appears to be more in line with Amnesty International’s recommendation that ‘Rather than banning children and young people from social media’ there should be ‘strict regulation on platforms to better protect children’s privacy, right to peaceful assembly, right to health and freedom of expression’. 

So why are countries like India, Germany, France and so on, despite widespread contrary advice, now going full steam ahead with replicating an Australia-style social media ban, rather than China’s regulated social media usage? And what does such a ban even look like in comparison to the already-in-place, but ineffective, age restriction of 13 years? 

In Australia, under the law that came into effect in December 2025, the onus is now on social media platforms themselves, rather than on parents or children, to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that no users under the age of 16 can access their platforms. The law, however, does not stipulate what these steps should be. As such, platforms are implementing various age-verification methods in order to comply with the law. Meta, for example, is using selfie-based age recognition; TikTok is using existing account data to estimate age; and Snapchat and Youtube rely on user-declared data such as bank- or government-verified ID. 

There are a number of issues arising from the aforementioned age-verification methods. Inaccuracy, firstly, is a problem already encountered with the facial-recognition and user-data age assessment tools. Secondly, a potential breach of privacy and online rights occurs when users are required to declare age information using official IDs. 

While the Australian law prohibits the data that is collected for the purpose of verifying age to be used for any other reason, Tom Sulston from Digital Rights Watch Australia warns that data could easily be leaked onto the internet due to internet security flaws. Sulston also worries that being regularly asked for an ID can lead to the ‘proliferation of our private data’ and ‘inures us to the sense of always entering our ID’. Similarly, Dr. Stephan Dreyer from the Leibniz Institute for Media Research in Hamburg warns: ‘Age verification at scale requires either comprehensive control infrastructure or probabilistic profiling, with both approaches showing deep intrusions into the rights of all users.’

As I think many of us would agree, social media indeed poses serious dangers and challenges to all users, not just children. I, too, am suffocated by regret following an hour of doomscrolling; and my ability to concentrate seems to worsen day by day. The effect on one’s ability to think and concentrate is not the only recognised harm. Others include: exposure to adversarial speech, harassment, hate speech and doxing (which involves sharing a user’s personal information to encourage threats), as well as exposure to disinformation and misleading media such as deepfakes. That’s not a childhood I would like for my nieces or nephews, or any child or teenager. 

However, there are also a number of benefits of social media use that a total ban ignores. For some groups of young people, such as those living with disabilities or chronic illness, social media can provide important peer support that enhances wellbeing and connection. 

Amanda Lennestaal, a mother of three based in Sydney, Australia, has observed from her own experience that ‘for kids with disabilities, those online spaces are actually some of the most accessible social environments, where you don’t have the physical, sensory or even at times communication barriers.’ Since the ban took effect in Australia, her kids have lost an important place for social connection.

Moreover, if social media constitutes their primary form of communication, children who have emigrated to a new country with their family may also experience a sense of disconnection from their friends and family in their home country 

In 2024, a mental health hotline in the UK conducted a survey with its adolescent users about what they needed to cope with crises. The number one response? More opportunities for social connection. While not every child may rely on social media for social connection, it is clear that some do. Taking away an opportunity for this connection ignores the multiplicity of needs of children and may place vulnerable children more at risk than before the ban. 

Despite the benefits of social media for some young people, 66.98% of adults agree that to protect young people from online harms, people under the age of 16 years should not be allowed to have accounts on social media platforms, according to a survey conducted in Australia in December 2024. This result likely arises from people’s exasperation over the failure of governments to actively minimise digital harm and also from the moral panic surrounding social media use for children.

Societal panic about what is morally good or bad for children is not a recent phenomenon. New forms of media in particular are often seen as part of the moral corruption of youth: responsible for inciting violence, crime, sexual promiscuity, and disrespect for social conventions. Political actors like to exploit moral panics to prove to society how much they really care about young people. This case is no different. 

Last year, the series Adolescence hit the UK with a ‘wake up call’ about the dangers of online spaces—namely, the ‘manosphere’.  The series centred around the question of why 13-year-old Jamie would murder his female classmate. The UK’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, swiftly took advantage of the moral panic that followed the film, insisting that violence against girls is a ‘growing problem’ and we must do something to ‘tackle it’.

In addition, the moral panic about social media partially stems from Jonathan Haidt’s bestselling book The Anxious Generation. Haidt’s book has been described as ‘an urgent warning about the effect of digital tech on young mind’s’ and argues that smartphones are responsible for the huge decline in the mental health of young people, citing the increased anxiety, depression and suicide since 2010. 

We should be cautious when reading popular science books that lean into moral panic. Researchers at the University of Würzburg highlight a number of issues with The Anxious Generation. Haidt’s book, they argue, describes a situation that is specific to the USA and cannot be easily transferred to other contexts. Moreover, the researchers contend that other factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic situation, climate change, and crumbling healthcare systems may also impact a person’s mental wellbeing. It is disingenuous to place the sole blame of mental illness on social media use. 

According to research conducted by Rob Cover, Joel Humphries, Ingrid Richardson and Dan Harris, moral panic is typically based upon technological determinism, which suggests that ‘society, identities, culture, and individual practices are shaped by the use of and exposure to technologies, often in a way that perceives them as external to culture and the cause of sociocultural change—such as being seen as the cause of increased rates of poor mental health.’ This often leads to the restriction-based approach that is being implemented across the world at the moment in relation to social media. 

European leaders have demonstrated the tactical reaction of the political class to moral panic by claiming that the social media ban would be a way of ‘protecting’ young people from the harmful effects of social media. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, for example, allegedly wants to prevent ‘personality defects and problems in the social behaviour of young people’ and his deputy Lars Klingbeil claimed: ‘Protecting young people from the flood of hatred and violence on social media is ‌a top priority.’ 

If you believed that capitalist governments cared about the welfare of children, you might be more inclined to believe that the proposed social media bans are being implemented to protect children; but after years of watching countries like Germany, Australia, the UK, India, and France support, fund and/or supply weapons to Israel as it carries out a genocide in Gaza and doing nothing as Israel directly targets children, you would be forgiven for believing otherwise. 

What then, if not to protect children, is the purpose of banning social media for young people? In Australia’s context, Eddy Jokovich and David Lewis write that the social media ban shows the government’s desire to appease powerful media conglomerates, particularly News Corporation, and to gain better control over the news and media that young people have access to.

A quantitative analysis conducted by The Intercept of the coverage of Gaza by the New York Times and other mainstream newspapers shows that these newspapers heavily favour Israel. For instance, the word ‘massacre’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1. Legacy media may not be making Western kids anxious and depressed, but by dehumanizing Palestinians, it generates consent for genocide. 

Meanwhile, social media has become a place where mainstream discourse can be challenged. Kareen Haddad argues that social media has been invaluable in reaching audiences in regards to the Palestinian liberation struggle and education about the genocide occurring. Haddad claims: ‘When the media we consume comes straight from the people being impacted, and not through channels which weaponise ‘objectivity’ to spread a certain agenda, it becomes much clearer to whom we owe our allyship’. This is dangerous to Western hegemony. 

Are capitalist governments afraid that young people will learn about the horrors their countries are funding and committing? Or that young people will feel empathy for the people the West has worked so hard to demonise? Are the ruling classes trying to prevent more adolescents like Greta Thunberg—who at age 15 in 2018 used social media to reach out to and interact with supporters and activists—from using social media as a tool to mobilise other teenagers and question the power structures that will determine their future? 

It could be argued that teenagers, once they turn 16, can still engage in political activities online. But until that age, children and teenagers will have scant access to media that is not state or billionaire approved. We often hear about the danger of disinformation online, but what about the bias from legacy media corporations? In Germany, this has dire consequences relating to the reinstatement of Wehrplicht (compulsory military service)—children must be informed from an early age about a duty that could see them sent off to die at war. It is well documented that German youth were a particular target of Nazi propaganda. We must not abandon children and teenagers to be propagandized by state or corporate-owned media.

Lenin once said: ‘Give me four years to teach the children, and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.’ While we cannot rely on billionaire-owned social media platforms to inform our children, the platforms still offer some opportunity of sharing real human stories that challenge capitalist structures. We need to build and maintain alternatives to the current platforms, and strive for a path forward where we turn towards each other for strength and education.

Pedro Sánchez and No a la guerra

Spain begins to reckon with its role in the genocide of Palestinians


13/03/2026

The Spanish government’s decision not to allow US aircraft involved in the brutal bombing of Iran to use the two NATO military air bases on Spanish territory has been applauded by millions of people around the world. From the early days of the Zionist war against Iran in March 2026, as several European leaders kissed the boots of war criminals Trump and Netanyahu, Pedro Sánchez distanced himself from the position of Merz, Starmer and Macron—heads of state of nations that seem unable to accept the loss of their colonies and global relevance—and spoke of respect for international law and human lives, which he seemed to place above the economic and geopolitical interests that are clearly behind this war. Several other heads of state and representatives of Western institutions, including Macron and Starmer, who seem to have backtracked and no longer uncritically and publicly defend all the lies and excuses spouted by Trump and Netanyahu in this criminal war, have timidly joined in this defence of international law.

But this comes too late: the façade of the existence of impartial and universal international law and respect for it is one of the victims of the genocide in Gaza. And Pedro Sánchez and his government have also collaborated in this.

How else can we understand their allowing the genocidal US army to use NATO bases on Spanish territory from October 2023 to the end of September 2025?

Despite the Spanish government’s constant statements of concern for the Palestinian people and its supposed support, for two years it allowed the use of its air and naval bases to facilitate the genocide in Gaza, when—as we have now seen—it would have been enough to explain that Spain is sovereign and can control the use of NATO bases.

But why has it been so quick to refuse to collaborate in the war against Iran and so slow to stop the use of its bases for the genocide in Gaza? The answer is complicated, but we can  see several factors that have influenced this.

On the one hand, after two years of strong and constant mobilisation by the peoples of Spain in support of Palestine, the government declared late and poorly that it would no longer allow its bases to be used for genocide in Palestine. This position does not seem to have cost it any political capital at the national level and has placed it even more firmly in the international arena in the camp of Western leadership against genocide, which this government boasts about, while ignoring other governments such as South Africa, which has done more, earlier and better.

On the other hand, in recent months there have been several regional elections in different parts of Spain in which the parties that make up the government, the PSOE and Sumar, have fared badly. In both Extremadura and Aragon, the majority of votes went to the right-wing forces of the People’s Party (PP) and Vox, and something similar is predicted for the elections on 15 March 2026 in Castile and León. Faced with what appears to be a reactionary wave and with general elections just around the corner, it may be in the government’s interest to take a firm stand against the war in Iran, as the PSOE did back in 2003, when it was in opposition against the war in Iraq.

Let’s go back in time. In 2003, Spain, under the leadership of José María Aznar of the PP, occupied one of the two-year rotating seats on the UN Security Council, and the US needed its vote. The majority of Spanish society at that time (and now) opposed the war. Millions of people demonstrated for months in the streets of hundreds of cities and towns under the sloganNo a la guerra (No to war)”. At cultural events and award ceremonies, the most famous figures in Spanish culture declared their opposition to the PP government’s decision to go to war. But Aznar did not listen and instead, smoked cigars, with his feet up on the table at Bush’s ranch in Texas, and announced his support in Spanish with anembarrassing Yankee accent. Spain’s vote in favour of the Iraq war was bought with cigars and promises ofimmense profits, and was finalised at the famous Azores summit, where Bush Jr., Blair and Aznar signed away the lives of millions of people. Months later on 11 March 2004, Madrid suffered its worst terrorist attack in history, with 192 people losing their lives and thousands injured in the Atocha death trains. With elections a couple of days later, Aznar’s government did everything possible to make the Spanish population believe that it was ETA, knowing that if it surfaced  that it was  Al Qaeda that carried out the attacks, they would lose the elections. The lie could not withstand the weight of the truth, and the PSOE, under Zapatero, who had opposed the war outright—and in fact famously remained seated during the US military parade on Hispanic Heritage Day on 12 October 2003—won those elections.

By reviving thet “No a la guerra” slogan, Pedro Sánchez, a tremendously skilful politician, wants to remind us what happens when the right wins. A Spanish right, that even today, continues to lick the boots of the Americans.

But perhaps the most decisive factor is that Pedro Sánchez and his team, in contrast to certain American, Israeli and German leaders, may have a modicum of humanity, and are coming to regret their role in the genocide and extermination of entire peoples whose only sin in these Zionist wars is to have been the stewards of the resource-rich lands that these unscrupulous men wish claim as their own.

The far-right takes aim at CSDs

Neo-Nazi groups exploit queerphobia, weaponizing ‘traditional family’ ideology


This article is the fourth piece in the series Neo-Nazis and Anti-Fascism in Germany since the 1990s. The rest of the series can be found here.


Last year Julia Klöckner, President of the Bundestag (CDU) declared, ‘One flag flies over the German Bundestag—black, red and gold.’ Thereby, she put an end to the recent tradition of raising the rainbow flag during Christopher Street Day (Pride) celebrations. The order covered the entire premises, to the extent that the police were called on Stella Merendino (Linke) for displaying a progress flag in her office.

Klöckner’s move came at a time when the presence of far-right disruption at CSD across Germany had begun to tangibly rise. 2024 in particular saw a high number of counter-demonstrations. While CSD in Berlin has lost meaning as a progressive event with sponsorships by large corporations and the distribution of rainbow coloured Israeli flags, smaller events across the country provide much needed visibility. They are also often the most vulnerable. According to a CeMAS (Center for Monitoring, Analysis, and Strategy) report, the two largest CSD events of 2024, Berlin at 250,000 and Kölln at 65,000, were met with 28 (7:62 500) and 13 (1:5000) counterprotestors, respectively. The largest counter protest was in Bautzen, a city of 38,000 in Saxony, attracting 700 to a CSD demonstration of 1 000 participants (7:10). In Zwickau (population 88,000), 400 counterprotesters showed up at a CSD celebration of 800 (1:2) and Görtlitz saw an opposition of 460 to 700 participants (slightly over 2:3).

The report describes the participants as young, eager to use violence, and seduced by neo-Nazi movements through mainstream social media platforms such as Instagram or Whatsapp and to a lesser extent, TikTok. The largest account aimed at youth is that of Deutsche Jugend Voran (DJV), with just under 5,000 followers as of March 1, 2026. Another youth organisation with a strong presence among neo-Nazis is the Junge Nationalisten (Young Nationalists), who advertised for their Hessen counterdemonstration with graphics stylising ‘CSD’ similar to Hebrew characters. 

The interest in CSD demos stems from ideology regarding traditional family as a tool for advancing nazi eugenics. Der III. Weg (the Third Way), a political party that openly commits itself to ‘German socialism’ and the ‘restoration of a whole Germany to its rightful borders’ also inscribes in its programme, ‘The nation needs German children!’ Under this point, they declare their opposition to marriage equality and ‘gender doctrine’ on the grounds that these disrupt the ‘natural bond’ between heterosexual couples and their children. On their blog are countless posts celebrating events disrupting CSD celebrations. They, and groups sharing similar sentiments, use CSD as an opportunity for counterprotest, taking advantage of the occasion for their own visibility to win favour for ideas that were long taboo in German society.

Der III. Weg is a fringe party, receiving a negligible number of votes in elections and with a membership of just 950. However, the ideology they tout, easily classified as neo-Nazi-adherent, is seeping into broader society veiled in ‘critical’ views of queer visibility. 

The AfD on the other hand, can no longer be regarded as safely distant at the fringes of the political spectrum. With polls regularly reporting that around 25% of the population would vote for them, the AfD trails just behind the CDU in popularity. Yet, over half of AfD voters harbour right extremist views. In addition to measures against migration, their signature theme, the AfD enshrines ‘giving the confidence to have children’ and ‘a clear family ideal’ in its programme.

The party’s family politics echo those of Der III. Weg—that a family consists of a mother, father and children—and the Nazi party. Deputy parliamentary leader of the AfD, Beatrix von Storch, is the organiser of Demo für Alle, which serves the sole purpose of painting queer people as a force working to dismantle a ‘traditional family’ image. Despite the name, Demo für Alle is not a key player in the CSD counterdemonstration game, however they lend credence to such demonstrations by providing pseudoscientific arguments against queer visibility in all forms in countless blog posts and pamphlets available on their website. Compared to other outlets holding advertising similar views, their homepage appears professional and legitimate, with sections for ordering pamphlets en masse and a shop with ‘Tradwife’ mugs and baby onesies that say ‘I identify as an attack helicopter’.

The intuitive explanation for queerphobia on the extreme right is that queerness challenges the notion that intimate relationships are primarily for reproduction. Non-reproductive relationships and bodies deduct from propagating a ‘superior’ European, white race. Every German in a same-sex relationship is a German not spontaneously producing blond-haired, blue-eyed children to inherit the nation. 

And yet, queer people make up only 12% of the population in Germany. Furthermore, this statistic includes identities that don’t necessarily exclude a same-sex partnership. While presenting diverse family structures and ‘gender ideology’ as a threat to conservative norms, one in five citizens remaining childless hardly constitutes a threat of extinction, especially considering that 20% of German women have no children in their lifetime, a number which has remained relatively stable since the 1960s. This considered, the degree of energy and blame seems disproportionate if not counterproductive, given that an attempt to erase queer people, even if successful, wouldn’t move the eugenicist right closer to their goal in any meaningful way. Surely this has occurred to at least some neo-Nazi organisers and AfD politicians.

Beyond an argument of racial purity and dominance is the utility of the queer community as a common enemy. The far right constructs this enemy well by intertwining LGBTQ+ rights with child abuse. In their blog, the Junge Nationalisten condemn ‘early sexualisation and the promotion of homo-propaganda such as CSD’. The concept of ‘early sexualisation’ is a recurring theme among adherents to the ‘traditional family as the ideal family’ principle. On the right, it is a catch-all term used to describe legitimate issues of concern such as pornography exposure in childhood, grooming and internet safety to beneficial interventions such as research based sex education and school curriculums that foster tolerance of LGBTQ+ fellow citizens (the flyer ‘Diverse schools: Rainbow ideology in place of education’ specifically categorises participation in CSD demos as ‘early sexualisation’). 

Demo für Alle, in their leaflet titled ‘Creeping Pedophilisation’ begin by pointing out real dangers facing society’s most vulnerable members—children—then quickly veers into coupling the threat of sexual abuse with queer rights (in addition to, briefly and inexplicably, the anti-nuclear movement). They claim that gays and pedophiles have a history of ‘going hand and hand’, basing their argument largely on a reckless, unethical and abusive series of experiments in which boys were placed in the foster care of convicted child sex offenders conducted in Germany by Helmut Kentler. Kentler was gay. The leaflet neglects to mention that the single greatest source of child sexual abuse by a substantial margin is the family, and the single most frequent perpetrator is the central figure of the ‘traditional ideal’, a victim’s biological father. Furthermore, it criticises approaches to pedagogical prevention work, positing ‘Trans and gender ideology free media’, ‘protecting natural mother-father roles’, and the abolition of full-day childcare as alternative solutions. 

That such discourse ignores the realities of sexual violence against children in Germany renders transparent the true intention behind far-right motivation in ‘protecting children’. Fighting against one of society’s most painful problems and greatest sources of fear is a stance difficult to argue with. Unfounded scapegoating of the queer community on this backdrop creates an evil ‘them’ as a stand-in for liberalism and a benevolent ‘us’ that characteristically is the opposite; heterosexual, traditional, conservative. CSD demonstrations are the time when this fictitious opponent is most visible, and therefore the opportune moment for neo-Nazis to perform their ‘morality’ in opposition. They use these occasions in a similar way as intended—to show others who may be in hiding or against them that they are no longer afraid and ashamed. But rather than celebrating diversity and love, they center their actions around hate, exclusion, and nationalism.

The connected arguments against a mother-father-children family image and childcare outside the home offer a promise to the young men and teen boys who make up the majority of neo-Nazi presence and CSD demonstrations. Young men in Germany today have lower overall education levels than women of the same age. Fewer years of education constitutes on its own a risk factor for right-wing radicalisation. In addition, it means that women are surpassing men in projected life outcomes on some scales. Men from this demographic in particular also express anxiety over their dating prospects. The far right preys on the vulnerabilities of young men with a narrative about recovering traditions that restore them to the top of the social hierarchy. Recent viral findings showed that a significant number of Gen Z men have beliefs rooted in misogyny. A third agree that wives should ‘obey’ their husbands, a quarter disapprove of independence and self sufficiency in women, and one in five think that women ‘should never initiate sex’. In all cases, less than half as many baby boomer men agreed with the same statements. With policies that ultimately cause more social inequality to the detriment of an already precarious majority, the far right distracts young men and boys who, faced with sinking education levels, relationship difficulties, and global crises for as long as they can remember, with the promise of power over women. Taking advantage of this vulnerability works—the counterprotests are overwhelmingly young men; the 28 arrests made in connection with a plot to attack Berlin’s CSD were exclusively male, 14 of them under 18.

In 2025, there were more CSD events than ever before. Incidences of far-right violence nearly doubled in comparison to 2024, with documented cases totalling 112. Most of these occurred in smaller cities and towns in the East. Fortunately, acts of solidarity at 2025 CSD events show promise in mitigating the danger—CSD participation tripled in Bautzen, drowning out 500 neo-Nazi counterprotesters. Pride Soli Ride helped coordinate transportation to threatened events from Berlin and other cities. A number of East German CSD events allied to call for solidarity, publishing a statement that outlines ways of offering support. Antifascist organising meant that many of the most at-risk demonstrations were afforded some protection in 2025. Despite the sharp and alarming increase in queerphobia in Germany in recent years, those with positive attitudes toward queer life still greatly outnumber those who reject it. With the first CSD events only weeks away, mobilising this population is essential—not just as an act of solidarity, but also as a stance against facism.

“There is always a way to make your voice heard” 

Interview with Nessa from Nein zur Wehrpflicht


11/03/2026

Thanks for talking to us. Could you first introduce yourself?

My name is Nessa. I am 24 years old, and I’m on the executive board of “Linksjugend” [solid] – the youth organization of the party “die LINKE”. I’m also part of the Nein zur Wehrpflicht Bündnis – “No to military conscription” alliance. We were part of the organising team of the demos against conscription.

It is just after the latest demonstration when thousands demonstrated in Berlin. How did you mobilise so many people?

It’s honestly crazy to me that it’s grown so much. The last one was also big, and though, in Berlin it’s about the same size (10.000 people), we had around 30 Cities additionally participating in the Strike this time, as well as international involvement across Europe .

We tried to get collaborators on Instagram. We worked our asses off trying to reach as many people, as many schools, as many students as possible. Ourteams went around the city and put up posters about the strike. We handed out leaflets in front of schools. We also talked to student representatives, principals and the parents’ committees.

Furthermore, we reached out to multipliers like Linke MP Ferat Koçak who mobilised for the strike on Instagram. We talked to the artists that showed up and played at today’s demo. We asked them beforehand to advertise the strike and call everybody up.

There were a few people on the demo with jackets from the GEW teachers’ union. Did  teachers respond?

Yes, positively. We worked closely together with the GEW. They were also part of the planning meetings and are part of the alliance against conscription. We tried to mobilize together.

Yesterday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz gave full support for Donald Trump’s war in Iran. Did that play a role in mobilizing people?

It definitely contributed to the mobilization, because there has not been a huge (leftist) demonstration for the cause of Iran yet. 

One thing that surprised me positively was the number of people today wearing kuffiyahs or holding Palestine flags. That was not usual for a demo in Berlin. Are you sensing a change in the mood on Palestine?

Definitely. The main change was in visibility. I think people were always in support of Palestine, especially after the situation became so grave. But back in the day, when you wouldn’t see so many kuffiyahs, people tried not to be so conspicuous and attackable.

The situation here in Berlin with the police regarding the topic of Palestine is quite authoritarian. We have lots of repression and violence against Palestine protesters. This meant that people were afraid to openly show their support for Palestine. But now, since the movement has grown so much, people are more and more comfortable about showing support and solidarity.

We also really tried hard to make the connection between the two topics. Oftenthere are single issue demos, and people have one topic which they care about very much, so they only go to those kinds of demos. We try to build the bridges and to intertwine the two topics together, allowingeverybody to be part of this movement, making formore people.

Talking about the police. The police intervened today to ban people from chanting  “Merz, leck meine Eier!” (lick my balls Merz) => possible Link to Merz Leck Eier campaign: www.merzleckeier.de leads to: https://schulstreikgegenwehrpflicht.com/repressionen

Yes. A student was even arrested for holding up a sign with those words. They try intimidating us again and again, and people are holding back against it. But it’s a dangerous situation. People know what might happen. Just two days ago, there was a Palestine demonstration where people were very actively attacked by the police. It happens more on Palestine demos. Here, because it’s primarily minors and students, police are probably more hesitant to run into the crowd.

What was good today was that the school students didn’t let themselves be intimidated by the police.

Yeah, that’s also a thing that we tried to instill in them in planning meetings. We had organisers talking about how to handle yourself if you get into altercations with the police, and if they’re asking you questions and something happens.

We also had talks about legal stuff, so that everybody can be calm. These people are very young. For some of them, this is their first demo ever. We really try to have everybody safe at the demo, because it’s so big. Everybody should have a safe place around them and their friends.

How easy is it to coordinate around the different schools? Presumably, a lot of people don’t know each other.

We had different approaches to that across the city and across the country. In Berlin, there are many more schools as compared to smaller towns or cities.  We had school working groups that met up regularly in different parts of Berlin, additionally to the central school strike committee meetings. 

They gather as many people as possible, giving out flyers and stickers. That went very well. This is not surprising, because everybody loves stickers. We also made posters and Instagram posts. We tried to just reach as many people as we could. 

In the working groups that regularly met up, we – for instance – spoke to the student representative on the student council. We also talked to the teachers and the principal. They were sometimes planning together. 

It worked differently in different schools, because some schools were more supportive, some were less. But even those that were less in support weren’t necessarily against the cause at all. They were just hesitant to allow the students to organize and meet up because they just didn’t want any legal problems with parents. They were scared.

So organising in the stronger schools helped people in the weaker schools to organise?

Exactly

And as you say, this is largely people who’ve not been involved in any political activity before?

Yeah, not at all. That’s the most astounding part. There are people who you gain from these actions who you can win for the greater political cause. We were together with different youth organizations, parties and NGOs. 

We’d get people from “Fridays for Future”, or political parties who would attract new members.  It is a great opportunity to gainpeople for the movement and win them for later activism and organization. Politicizing these students and young people takes them on a journey.

This is interesting, because a lot of social movements are very wary of the involvement of political parties. You are saying that for you it was helpful?

Yeah, it was helpful. Because this is very political. You cannot deny it. For some other movements, you could say it’s just this one thing but that’s not very sustainable. 

“Fridays for Future” is maybe a good example. They didn’t really have the sort of effect that they hoped for in the beginning. While this may have been the first contact with activism for many, even me, they couldn’t keep them engaged in the long run. That is because they didn’t quite make the connection to real-life politics as clear as we did; and how people get involved and how students can stand up for themselves. We really try to make this connection, and I think it really links to them.

This feeds very well to our next question, what happens next? We’ve now had two school strikes. We still have the Wehrpflicht laws. Germany is just about to get involved in another war. How can you be successful?

The next strike is already being planned. We have a new date,  the eighth of May. We are trying to make it a regular thing. We’re just trying to reach more people, to grow more, and to organize and plan better. This puts more pressure on the government to act when everybody is pushing back. Maybe they will. They will find ways to talk about this issue again in the Bundestag. 

We are also currently pushing Kriegsdienstverweigerung, or conscientious objection. The involved groups t are organising consultations where people who are affected by conscription can be informed about how to object.

“Fridays for Future” shows that you can have big demonstrations and a popular movement, but this alone doesn’t guarantee success. What else do you think you need to win this fight?

I think a big factor is education. We are really big on educating these young people about the importance of raising their voices and organizing and building these bridges, how everything in the world is politically connected to each other. That is one thing that I personally believe the “Fridays for Future” failed to manage.

We are working hard to push into these young peoples’ heads that if they have a voice – if they want, they can stand up and push back against the things  affecting them negatively. There is always a way to make your voice heard. You can do something about the situation that you’re in.

I notice that 8th of May is the anniversary of the liberation of Germans from fascism. Is that deliberate?

Yes. We want to connect it to anti-fascism and the rise of right wing extremism. We want to remind everybody of how you can fight back. On top of that, there is an apparent remilitarisation process going on with the rising production of weaponry and, as you mentioned, Germany’s support in the war against Iran by Israel and the USA. Our students say “no war ever again”, meaning everywhere in the world and they’re very vocal about that. Because, as I said already, everything is tied together. 

Germany is not the only country experiencing school strikes. How are you linked to the similar movements in other countries?

We received a request from Italy – an Italian activist reached out to us to get connected. They are facing similar kinds of problems thereand they’re organising protests. We had a European zoom call, where we talked about organizing, and they even invited us to their summer camp.

They asked about how we are organized, and have been trying to get other European countries to join in. I don’t have every country in my head right now, but we now have Italy, Portugal, France, and Slovenia on our side, for example. 

What can people do to support the strike, particularly people who aren’t school students, but support the aims

A big factor is talking about it with other people – everybody you know. Talk about the movement. Share it on the social media platforms that we’re posting it on. We have different accounts, like Nein zur Wehrpflicht, Nein zur Wehrpflicht Berlin, Schulstreik gegen Wehrpflicht, and  Schulstreik gegen Wehrpflicht Berlin, but many other Cities across Germany have their own accounts.

Get organized, talk to people, go to the meetings. Even if you’re not a student, you can be part of the planning meeting and just organise. If you’re young and have never been politically active at all, talk to your parents about it. Talk to your aunts and uncles and your grandparents about it. Maybe they have knowledge and you wouldn’t even know that they were once politically active.

Just get organised. Get friends to go on the journey with you.

And everyone is welcome to demonstrate on the eighth of May? 

One hundred percent!