The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Expulsion without Trial

Four activists ordered to leave Germany due to anti-genocidal activism.


09/05/2025

Protest "Until Total Liberation“ on International Women‘s Day

Germany’s New Tactics to Politically Cleanse Unwanted Dissident Voices

In the past month, the Berlin Immigration Office ordered three EU citizens and one US student to leave Germany after police investigations related to their activism in the Palestine Solidarity movement. As an investigation for The Intercept revealed, this occurred following a directive from the Berlin Senate’s Interior Department—even though none of those affected had been convicted.

Rally “You Can’t Deport a Movement”, April 7, 2025. Translation of sign: “Expulsion without trial?” Photo by Nadine Essmat

In mid-March, the three EU citizens Shane O’Brien, Kasia Wlaszczyk, Roberta Murray, and US student Cooper Longbottom received notices from the Berlin Immigration Office, terminating their right to residence and ordering them to leave Germany by April 21; otherwise, they would face deportation. In addition, the Immigration Office issued a three-year entry and residence ban against the EU citizens and a two-year entry and residence ban for the Schengen area against US student Longbottom.

The four individuals have been investigated for separate charges related to their anti-genocidal activism in the Palestine Solidarity movement, such as trespassing, insulting police, resisting arrest, and incitement to hatred for chanting the slogan ‘from the river to the sea.’ The one severe and common accusation that connects them all concerns an alleged serious breach of peace for participating in the occupation of the Free University’s presidential office on October 17, last year. None of the individuals has been convicted.

Attempted Occupation of Free University’s Presidential Office, October 17, 2024. Photos: Nadine Essmat

While these are not the first expulsion cases following Palestine-related activism, the reasoning behind these particular cases and the circumstances around them are quite remarkable and raise major concerns about the rule of law and fundamental principles of democracy.

Departure Order without Conviction

The Berlin Immigration Office based the revocation of US national Longbottom’s student visa on German residence law. According to Sections 53 and 54, a foreigner without conviction can be expelled—after a complex balancing of considerations—if their residence poses a threat to the public order and security, the free democratic basic order, or to the security of the German state. The latter is assumed where there is reason to believe that the foreigner was a member of a terrorist organization or supported such an organization.

The Immigration Office considered the blanket police accusations against Longbottom in the FU occupation case sufficient proof of a threat to public order and security, despite the fact neither the police files specify what action Longbottom is accused of nor has the prosecutor filed an indictment against them.

In the cases of EU citizens Shane O’Brien, Kasia Wlaszczyk, and Roberta Murray, the Immigration Office invoked Section 6 of the Act on the General Freedom of Movement for EU Citizens, according to which there must be reasons for public order, public security, or health to terminate the entitlement of residence. The law also states that a criminal conviction alone shall not constitute sufficient grounds for the revocation and only insofar as the criminal action indicates a personal behaviour that constitutes a real and sufficiently serious threat to the public order, affecting the basic interests of society. Notably, Article 27(2) of the EU directive 2004/38 EC explicitly prohibits justifying withdrawal of residence rights on grounds of general prevention.

While the threshold for revoking residency rights of EU citizens is explicitly higher than for non-EU foreigners, the Immigration Office argued in the case of the three concerned EU citizens that a conviction was unnecessary. It deemed the blanket police allegations against them as sufficient evidence of a threat to state security. Notably, the Office classified the accusation of chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ as indirect support for Hamas—without providing further legal reasoning for this determination.

Invoking German Staatsräson

The Immigration Office also invoked the so-called German Staatsräson (German raison d’état) to justify a serious threat to the fundamental interests of the society, as provided in the EU Freedom of Movement Act. It did so by saying: “(i)n particular, Israel’s right to exist, its protection and the integrity of the State of Israel are German Staatsräson and, especially given Germany’s historical responsibility for Jews in Germany and Israel, are of great importance and particularly worthy of protection. It is in the considerable social and state interest that the German Staatsräson is filled with life at all times and that at no time – neither at home nor abroad – is there any doubt that opposing currents are even tolerated in Germany.”

The authority also used German Staatsräson to justify immediately enforcing the departure orders. Normally, revocation of residence rights does not require immediate departure; enforcement is typically suspended during pending appeals unless authorities demonstrate urgent necessity. In these cases, the Berlin Immigration Office asserted such urgency by declaring: ‘The continued presence of foreign nationals in Germany who—like the defendants—disseminate antisemitic and anti-Israeli hatred and hate speech against the backdrop of the terrorist attack on Israel by the radical Islamic group Hamas on October 7, 2023, must no longer be tolerated but ended as quickly as possible.”

The authority made no mention of the fact that the defendants were protesting Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, in which more than 50,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed, and for which Israel is on trial before the International Court of Justice.

Court Ruling in Relation to Urgent Appeal

The four individuals have appealed against the departure orders before the Berlin Administrative Court and filed urgent appeals against their immediate enforcement. As of the article’s publication date, the Court has only ruled on EU citizen Shane O’Brien’s urgent appeal, which it found successful.

On the matter of conviction, the Court agreed with the immigration authorities that a conviction was not compulsory for the revocation of his right to residence. This position is remarkable, as in another recent case of EU far right-wing politician Martin Sellner, the Potsdam Administrative Court rejected an entry ban to prevent Sellner from attending a far-right conference on „re-migration“ last year. The Court argued that the consequences of such a ban were so serious that it could not be assumed prematurely that there was a threat to public order and security. It came to a similar conclusion in the case of British-Palestinian doctor Ghassan Abou Sitta. It rejected the entry ban imposed on him in connection with the Palestine Congress last year.

However, the Berlin Administrative Court criticised the Immigration Office for its flawed examination of O’Brien’s case and found fault with its reliance solely on vague police accusations instead of requesting the prosecutor’s investigation files to examine them closely, particularly with regard to the concrete level of evidence.

The Berlin Court also criticised the Immigration Office for not stating in more detail which alleged actions of the defendant constituted a threat to the basic interests of society and to what extent. In this context, it emphasized that charges related to insult and violating the Berlin Assembly Act are considered of a lower criminal category and—even if they would have been committed numerous times—were not suitable to constitute a serious threat to the basic interests of society.

As for the accusations of using signs of terrorist organisations by chanting the slogan ‘from the river to the sea,’ the Court recalled that the legal assessment of that slogan is controversial among the courts and that Section 86a of the German Criminal Act falls under the lower criminal category anyway.

The Court, however, did not challenge or otherwise address the authority’s invocation of German Staatsräson. It is important to note that the nature of the Staatsräson is neither a law nor a legal concept but rather a purely political idea aiming at safeguarding the state’s interests. German Staatsräson asserts that the state’s primary interest is the security of another state. That alone seems bizarre and completely illogical.

The court decision on the remaining urgent appeals is still pending. In the meantime, the other three individuals concerned are protected from deportation.

Notification Orders by Political Command

What made The Intercept’s investigation particularly explosive was that the departure orders were issued following a political directive from the Berlin Interior Department, the supervisory body of the Immigration Office. The German NGO FragdenStaat published the internal email communication between the SPD-led Interior Department and the Immigration Office, which reveals that the Interior Department had ordered the authority to terminate the stay of the four individuals with immediate effect over their alleged involvement in the FU occupation. The immigration officer in charge refused to comply with these instructions, citing legal concerns from the head of the Immigration Office, Engelhard Mazanke, as none of the EU citizens had any criminal conviction, and the lawyer’s statement regarding US national Longbottom was still underway. The officer from the Interior Department responded “with astonishment” that the directive was not being complied with and upheld the order without further reasoning. The Immigration Office eventually relented and issued the requested departure orders against the four individuals.

Dangerous Trend

These circumstances and reasons given for the departure orders mark a new chilling low point of an already dangerous trend in Germany, in which the state seems to use common authoritarian tactics to eliminate unwelcome dissidents.

The statements of Burkard Dregger, policy spokesman for the CDU parliamentary group in the Berlin House of Representatives, expose this dangerous escalation when commenting on the departure orders to the Axel Springer daily news Die Welt: “These are criminals, and it is important to set an example when it comes to the so-called pro-Palestine demonstrations, which are, in fact, pro-Hamas demonstrations.”

Dregger’s statements constitute a clear infringement of fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. First, by defaming defendants as criminals and thereby disregarding the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 of the European Human Rights Charter. The statements further reveal that deterrence is used as the state’s primary rationale for issuing the departure orders, while EU law clearly prohibits that. Furthermore, they frame peaceful demonstrations against the genocide in Gaza as support for the banned Hamas without further evidence—thus vilifying and criminalizing freedom of speech, while, by referring to the protests as “so-called pro-Palestine demonstrations,” the reader is conditioned to believe that Palestine doesn’t actually exist.

It is also not an isolated case in which an official was pressured to follow an evidently unlawful directive and according to an email correspondence published by FragDenStaat, the former FDP Education Minister Stark-Watzinger instructed officials from her ministry last year to compile a list of academics openly opposing the evacuation of the FU campus in May 2024 to withdraw state funding from them. The email correspondence further reveals that officials did raise legal concerns regarding this order.

But in particular, Germany’s increasing tendency to invoke political concepts like German Staatsräson and adopt non-binding resolutions- instead of passing their content through a proper legislative and democratic process – is a worrying authoritarian tactic aimed at encroaching on fundamental rights and freedoms through the imposition of measures that are otherwise legally untenable.

The critical point has been reached, where courts begin to legitimize these tactics as a potential legal justification for violating these fundamental rights. This is precisely what the Berlin Administrative Court did in the recent cases by not clearly objecting to the use of German Staaträson as a justification for expulsion. In the Shapira case, the Berlin Criminal Court went even further. It invoked the non-binding and controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism to justify a three-year prison sentence against a German-Palestinian student for dangerous bodily harm on the grounds that the defendant had an “antisemitic” motive; a punishment that even the prosecutor did not request.

The signs that Germany is transitioning to an authoritarian state are already evident. This shift is driven by the above events and trends, which appear to initiate a countdown toward arbitrary and politically motivated trials. That, in fact, seems to be the real and most serious threat to our fundamental interests as a society, one that we all must stand up and fight against if we don’t want to fall back into a new era of fascism.

An earlier version of this article was published on April 22 on the author’s Substack. The case has developed further. On May 6, the Berlin Administrative Court also upheld the urgent appeal of Irish national Roberta Murray, citing the same grounds as in Shane O’Brien’s case. This time, the Court additionally expressed concerns about using the concept of German Staatsräson as a justification to determine Murray’s loss of the right to free movement.

Judgement UK Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers & relating EHRC-Guidelines

Letter to the British ambassador, Andrew Gill


08/05/2025

Your Excellency, The judgement of the UK Supreme Court in the case For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers has a devastating effect on the daily life of transgender and non-binary people, not just in the UK but anywhere in the western world like it has in Germany too. That´s why we‘re reaching out to you.

We are convinced that the court´s unanimous judgement is unanimously biased and that the judges sided with the appellants, regardless what transgender people had to say about it. They simply haven´t been heard. In a case like this that is not just unusual, it looks like basic procedures like those in any other supreme or constitutional court in the western world have been omitted. Though we are no experts in British judiciary, that can´t be right. The judgement itself does not create “clarity” as the British Government calls it. In our opinion, it contradicts the Gender Recognition Act (2004) and the legal framework that made it come to life: The judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice. On the contrary, the Supreme Court gave no hint that EU case law had to be set aside. The UK are still a member of the European Council on Human Rights. Back in 1997 the European Court of Justice decided discrimination on grounds of being transgender is discrimination on grounds of “sex”.

That judgement is part of the Supreme Court´s opinion making but hasn´t been fully taken into account. Even worse, the UK´s Equality and Human Rights Commission vastly overstretched the Supreme Court´s judgement with its preliminary guidelines published recently.

In our opinion it´s a violation of Art.11 Human Rights Act (1998) to tell women-only, lesbian-only or gay-only and men-only associations who should become a member or not. EHRC is telling these associations they have no say in that. If an association like those deliberately doesn´t admit trans* people so be it, but we think it´s illegal to force them. The supposed “clarity” will probably lead to transgender men applying for membership in a women-only club let´s say a gym. A transgender man (“biological woman”) with a beard and a low voice there or a nice “female” looking trans* woman entering a men-only gym, forced into this situation by law, will clarify only the ignorance behind this legal action. Moreover, employers are now be forced to actively ask their employees whether they are trans* or not to avoid trespassing English law. Once a trans* person is known to the management, she will be forced to out herself as trans* every day, once she uses a bathroom.

This kind of “clarity” creates embarrassing and discriminating situations and contradicts provisions of the Equality Act regarding gender reassignment. First examples became apparent in May. For us, EHRC´s guidelines are a 21th century version of apartheid. EHRC is degrading itself to an institution promoting inequality on a path already laid out. We´d appreciate an answer from you to the following questions:

How exactly will the British Government ensure the dignity of transgender people in light of our arguments brought forward?

The Supreme Court Judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers will probably be contested at the European Court of Human Rights. Will the British Government accept a verdict from that court?

Does the British Government support or not support any change of how sex data are recorded, leading to passports and other documents showing the sex recorded at birth of transgender people rather than an updated gender marker?

mit freundlichen Grüßen

Jenny Wilken, dgti

We Are All in the Gutter, But Some of Us Are Girlbossing the Stars

On Bezos, Blue Origin, and Katy Perry


07/05/2025

Two weeks ago, a friend sent me a video on TikTok that looked very much like an outtake from Greta Gerwig’s Barbie. A gaggle of women, clearly fresh from the hair and make-up department and wearing matching midnight blue spandex spacesuits à la iconic cartoon trio from Totally Spies, hopped onto a spaceship for a blink-and-you’ll miss it zoom into the galaxy. I only recognized Katy Perry, but some of her cohort seemed hazily familiar. I chuckled at the video, because I immediately assumed it was AI-generated. I was even reluctantly impressed: somebody had obviously presented AI with a ludicrous prompt and it had risen to the occasion splendidly. Hours later, I found myself back on TikTok, and realised in horror that this was an actual thing, that had actually happened, in actual real life. You have to hand it to Katy Perry, who as the most famous member of the bunch is receiving the most press. Every time she seems to take her most embarrassing misstep, she returns with an even fiercer flop. 

Since COVID, general feeling towards celebrities and the elite class has soured. You couldn’t really place the blame on an exact moment in time, but Gal Gadot and her assortment of celebrity mates crooning John Lennon’s Imagine a mere fortnight into lockdown always seemed to me significant domino in this line of disenchantment. (We were social distancing for two weeks, Gal. Why do you want us to imagine there’s no people?) The cannier of celebrities—or maybe their public relations teams—have caught onto this and seemed to conspire a pivot, striving to straddle a line between relatability and aspiration. Perry has never quite levelled up to her shrewd peers. But despite this, I was still blown away by her involvement in such a breath-taking misfire at empowerment and spirituality. I’m not surprised she and the women she took to the skies with are out of touch, but I am amazed that they didn’t have the sense to pretend not to be. 

The eleven-minute “mission” (trip? Jaunt? Expedition?) was an initiative of Blue Origin, a Jeff Bezos-founded company envisioning “a future where millions of people will live and work in space with a single-minded purpose: to restore and sustain Earth, our blue origin”. Bezos has made the dubious claim that the rocket had no carbon emissions, with a variety of experts promptly calling into question the likelihood of this. BBC News almost immediately explored and critiqued the green credentials touted by the billionaire. Despite his philanthropic initiatives, Bezos has been embroiled in a number of controversies, from toxic work environments to tax avoidance to drastically underreporting Amazon’s carbon emissions. As with many billionaires, there’s an altruistic surface and a sinister underbelly. But as ruthless as I imagine him to be, I wouldn’t have expected the concoction of such a ridiculous scheme from him. Unless, of course, it was planned to go viral due to cringe in the age-old spirit of “all press is good press”. If that’s what he wanted, he succeeded magnificently. 

Alongside Perry, the mission’s crew included journalist and Bezos’ fiance Lauren Sánchez, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, CBS Morning’s co-host Gayle King, film producer Kerianne Flynn, and former rocket scientist for NASA Aisha Bowe. Sánchez spearheaded the mission/trip/jaunt/expedition, and hand-selected her crew. “All of these women are storytellers in their own right. They’re going to go up to space and be able to spread what they felt in different ways,” Sánchez told ELLE Magazine before the flight took place. An ambitious order for eleven minutes. 

I don’t wish to disparage these women for their achievements. All of them have clearly excelled in their respective professions. I also don’t intend to undermine femininity or frivolity: I’m a big fan of glam, and the outfits and freshly blown-out hair were probably the best part of their venture to me. If you’re going into space, you may as well serve face. Considering the punishing lens women in the media are often under, I do try to approach stories like this with as much measure as possible. But I am fairly confident that, in a parallel universe where the mission/trip/jaunt/expedition took place with Justin Timberlake and Jimmy Fallon, it would go down with the public almost the same way. Of course, boasting that this was only the second all-female space flight since Valentina Tereshkova’s in 1963, Blue Origin attempted to employ a veneer of female empowerment, a veneer flimsier than Gal Gadot’s ability to read a room. 

Perhaps in 2014, when the Oscar selfie took the internet by storm, this may have been better-received. I doubt it. Even prior to the sullied feeling towards the rich and famous gaining traction, I struggle to imagine the most fledgling feminist finding the spaceflight to be empowering. And yet, they took to the skies seeming thoroughly convinced that the footage would inspire a frenzy of female admiration. Perhaps Perry thought by taking this step for us normies, she’d return to a planet much like that shown in the music video for her song Woman’s World, released last year. People were actually very ready to welcome the campy songstress with open arms and she was certainly primed for a comeback. Then she brought us a shallow, pseudo-liberating, clumsily executed, and melody-lacking flop produced by the same Dr Luke who Ke$ha had accused of sexual and emotional abuse. The album was duly universally panned. That’s partly why I was shocked she was on the flight; after the backlash, I’d imagined she, or a publicist, or her partner, or a friend, or a pet, or a bird in the trees would have raised concerns about the optics. 

The optics were this: reeking of performativity, the group boarded the ship like they were readying themselves to burst out of it en-masse once high enough, to then Kill Bill the harmful radiation affecting the ozone layer. Instead, they bobbed ineffectually inside, mugging at the cameras, wide-eyed, breathless, toting personal mementos. Look, I’m sure it was a humbling moment, peering down at the earth from so high above. I can understand their wonder. I just can’t fathom why they expected it to be inspirational. 

“Taking up space!” the group cheered, a mantra repeated when they returned to land eleven minutes later. Flinging themselves from the ship, they struck power poses and burst into noisy, extravagant tears. They saluted the sky and kissed the ground. It was clear the team of women had bought into the notion that the world would react with fervent applause. King, probably imagining the story to be profound, recalled afterwards how Perry burst into an acapella version of What a Wonderful World on their way down, finished by the singer dreamingly gazing at the landscape rushing towards them and remarking, “I haven’t sang that song in years”. 

A panel discussion was hosted afterwards, wrapped in a bubblegum-pink facade of superficial girly pop-feminism. I—and most others—was confused by the sanctimonious, self-satisfied discourse bestowed upon us viewers as if they were a pack of wise storybook owls. “We’re making space,” Perry said, with the honeyed, emotionally wrought, yet oddly vapid tones of a Yoga instructor at The White Lotus. “I hope [people] can see the unity that we modelled, and replicate that, and understand that we weren’t just taking up space, we were making space… for the future.” Lauren Sánchez underscored how the event made her feel, “connected. More connected than you realize”. They referred to each other as “celestial sisters”, bonded by this singular experience. 

As of yet, it’s still unclear what they modelled. They certainly took up space, in the literal and figurative fashion. Making space? Where? The average woman on the street is as likely to find themselves in the next Blue Origin ship as they are to sprout wings themselves. Female astronauts who have studied assiduously for years do not seem to have received anything of worth from what has boiled down to a catastrophic publicity stunt. Personally, the only thing I felt upon realising the footage was real (oh, how I wish it was AI) was mirth, mingled with disgust. The estimated cost of the mission/trip/jaunt/expedition is between $200,000 and $500,000, and a further estimated cost of $150,000 to reserve a seat. It’s difficult to ascertain whether the attendees paid this fee. Either way, it was an exquisite and unnerving show of wealth, wrapped up in a bow of platitudes and presented to a planetful of people facing climate catastrophe, tariff chaos, and social oppression. 

Valentina Tereshkova’s three-day stint in space in 1963 was, and still is, hailed as a landmark achievement and an inspiration for women worldwide. Tereshkova, a textile factory worker and amateur skydiver prior to joining the Soviet space program, orbited the Earth 48 times solo. That single trip logged more flight time than had been amassed by all American astronauts who preceded her. Dubbed an international role model following the feat, Tereshkova received masses of letters and telegrams from all corners of the world. Women in particular reacted with acclaim and excitement, as the event sparked a wave of think pieces, academic articles, and news stories celebrating the sense of visibility and symbolic progress it projected around the world. 61 years ago, Tereshkova’s journey achieved what Bezos and company wanted: she reached women of all ages, and she expanded the idea of the spheres in which women can take up space. 

Almost all coverage of the Blue Origin mission/trip/jaunt/expedition, from Loose Women to The New York Times, has noted that a billionaire-funded parade of women taking a brief joyride to the edge of space does little to advance real progress or meaningfully shift the needle for women’s equality. The people involved in the event—most of whom would claim to be liberal—have undoubtedly wreaked havoc on the climate already, and now they’ve indulged in another upper-crust experience completely inaccessible to us mere mortals. And absurdly, they expected us to be thrilled by it. I haven’t yet watched the latest season of Black Mirror, but despite its good reviews I wonder if Charlie Booker ought to hang up his hat. His dark reflection of our society keeps being outdone by the grotesque reality. I imagine Saturday Night Live will parody the space-excursion, but at the same time, how much further can they go? It’s already satire.

You’re Not My Daddy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio!

A pious letter from a San Francisco demigod to the chieftain of pedophiles at St. Peter’s Basilica


05/05/2025

Background 

Reuters, March 1, 2024:

“Pope Francis on Friday warned of the dangers of so-called gender theory, saying he had commissioned studies into what he condemned as an ‘ugly ideology’ that threatens humanity.” 

‘‘I have asked that studies be carried out into this ugly ideology of our times, which cancels out the differences [between men and women] and makes everything the same.’’—Pope Francis

CNN, April 8, 2024:

‘‘The Vatican has issued a strong warning against ‘gender theory’ and said that any ‘sex-change intervention’ risks threatening ‘the unique dignity’ of a person, in a new document [titled “Dignitas Infinita” ] signed off and approved by Pope Francis.

The Letter

Dear Dead Pope,

It has been known widely and painfully throughout centuries and continents that punching down and virtue signaling are integral parts of the Catholic church’s teachings, actions and history. This explains why a house of certified slavers, murderers, con artists, fascist collaborators, misogynists and above all pedophiles still stand in the most precious real estate south of Florence.

Your for-profit institution promoted slavery as the will of the “Almighty” to promote your God of murder and mayhem with the sole purpose of funding your predecessors’ orgies and payments to brilliant Dutch and Italian artists, jewelers and architects. What have you done about that, oh most “generous” Francis? Have you given back the billions your institution stole of the Native peoples of Amazon, Mexico, Peru and Bolivia? Have you compensated Jamaica and Haiti for your centuries of slavery? Have you opened your mouth except to tickle your vapid ego or to dehumanize trans people who are facing murderous hate from family and governments alike? 

I’d like to quote Martin Luther’s words for another leader of the un-Holy See who was also white but had a habit of fucking adult women instead of young boys, as written in his essay, ‘Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil’: “Gently, dear Pauli, dear donkey, don’t dance around! Oh, dearest little ass, don’t dance around—dearest, dearest little donkey, don’t do it. For the ice is very solidly frozen this year because there was no wind —you might fall and break a leg. If a fart should escape you while you were falling, the whole world would laugh at you and say, ‘Ugh, the devil! How the ass has befouled himself!’ And that would be a great crime. Oh, that would be dangerous! So consider your own great danger beforehand, Hellish One.” 

Dear Francis, now that you are dead and playing chess with Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who is going to be the refuge of pedophiles from Warsaw to Aachen to Dublin to Boston to Buenes Aires? That was a rhetorical question, you hypocrite, dead fuck. 

That you and your followers believe that attacking transgender people—who are the embodiment of a hot Christ—is the right thing to do in the age of AI and the refugee crisis across continents and right outside of your castles is why oceans are dying, why temperatures are rising, why fascist parties are popping up across Europe, and popular fascists are ruling Northern and Southern America and, above all, why pedophiles thrive and continue to thrive in your schools, buildings and offices across the globe. Here’s another fiery nugget from that  16th century German country boy: 

“A natural donkey, which carries sacks to the mill and eats thistles, can judge you—indeed, all creatures can! For a donkey knows it is a donkey and not a cow. A stone knows it is a stone; water is water, and so on through all the creatures. But you mad asses do not know you are asses.”

Dear dead ‘n bloated but expensive Francis:

While you were suffering in the best hospitals that amassed profits of slave trade and stolen precious metals could buy, while you were struggling to overcome the constipation of dying, your institution of “the Devil” softened its stance on trans people?!

CNN, Mar 5, 2025: ‘‘Vatican clarifies its position on gender affirming surgery, calling for ‘greater care’ and a case-by-case approach.’’

So while you were staying in the hospital, far from your throne, servants, gold, silk, organic breakfast and imported mineral water, your church is softening its stance on trans people seeking to not kill themselves to only exist? HA!

I will tell you what I told you last year. Actually, I never said it, and now you are dead. Well, I have one last gem of Martin Luther’s for your vapid existence:


“I can with good conscience consider you a fart-ass and an enemy of God.”

April 21, 2025

Tenderloin, San Francisco

Revolutionary 1st May demonstration 2025

Berlin Neukölln, 1 May 2025


04/05/2025