WeeklyWorker

Letters

Open letter

Dear Jeremy, Given the success of the campaign in the Labour Party (2015-19) to undermine the left by weaponising anti-Semitism, it came as no surprise when, on November 2 2025, while you were being interviewed by Samantha Simmonds of BBC Politics London, you were challenged on this issue. Instead of countering her framing, questioning the application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ‘definition’ or challenging the good faith of the media, yet again you gave the impression of accepting the premise that there had been an ‘anti-Semitism problem’ on the Labour left.

We, and many other activists and members, were expelled under your leadership as part of the ‘anti-Semitism’ witch-hunt, despite having fought fascism and racism all our lives. In fact we were expelled because we were, and remain, anti-Zionists. We received no support from you as leader. Quite the contrary.

In Labour’s leaked report it stated, on page 306: Jeremy Corbyn himself and members of his staff team requested ... that particular anti-Semitism cases be dealt with. In 2017 LOTO staff chased for action on high-profile anti-Semitism cases Ken Livingstone, Tony Greenstein, Jackie Walker and Marc Wadsworth, stressing that these cases were of great concern to Jewish stakeholders and that resolving them was essential to “rebuilding trust between the Labour Party and the Jewish community”.

We find it astounding that you still don’t seem to understand, a decade after you were elected leader of the Labour Party, how and for what purpose, with the support of the majority of Labour MPs, factions like Labour Together and the Israeli embassy-funded Jewish Labour Movement, ‘anti-Semitism’ was weaponised. As activists and Labour Party members, we were collateral damage. You and the pro-Palestinian left, were always their principal target, yet you never seemed to quite grasp this.

At no point in the recent interview did you challenge the assumptions of the journalist. Your response was to claim innocence on your own part. Nor did you question the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or raise the fact that the EHRC commissioner who conducted the ‘investigation’, Alasdair Henderson, was someone on the far right, who ‘liked’ tweets of fascist philosopher Roger Scruton and Islamophobe Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society.

The whole EHRC investigation was shoddy. Chris Williamson secured the removal, after threatening legal action, of all references to himself. The alleged harassment consisted of two members, Pam Bromley and Ken Livingstone, exercising their right to freedom of speech to deny that there was an ‘anti-Semitism problem’ in the Labour Party. You didn’t even repeat your previous criticism of the EHRC as being “part of the government machine”.

Nor did you challenge the interviewer’s premise that Labour had been swamped by anti-Semitism. Today Zionists, including the JLM, accuse all opponents of the Gaza holocaust of anti-Semitism. It is now clear to most people that Israel’s standard response to accusations of war crimes is to cry ‘anti-Semitism’. This is not the time to be defensive. This is the time to press our message home: that allegations of anti-Semitism were, and are, being weaponised for political purposes.

We are disturbed that you repeated the mantra of the Labour right that ‘one anti-Semite is one too many’. Leaving aside the fact that what they meant by ‘anti-Semite’ was ‘anti-Zionist’, this is the wrong way to fight racism. It is noticeable that Labour’s right never said the same about one Islamophobe being one too many, as most of them would have been expelled!

If Your Party should succeed in challenging the establishment, accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ will again be one of the primary weapons that will be used to attack us. Rather than face down such accusations, as we have seen people like Zarah Sultana, Zack Polanski and Andrew Feinstein do so effectively, it is clear, Jeremy, that you will be unable to defend the movement.

We need a leadership team that can effectively challenge our opponents: that is able to take pride in anti-racism, with the understanding that Zionism is a form of racism. This is why we oppose you becoming sole leader of Your Party.

In solidarity

Jackie Walker, Tony Greenstein
email

OMOV good points

It has been widely reported that the established socialist groups largely got what they wanted in the votes on the YP constitution (collective leadership, dual membership, etc). It appears to have been much less reported that you lost most of the votes, when it came to the standing orders (I say ‘you’, as I have not been affiliated with a socialist group prior to YP, unless you count Labour in 2017). In particular, proposing and voting on motions will take place online with a ‘one member, one vote’ (OMOV) format, rather than being carried out by conference delegates.

I share some of your fears that this allows people who are not engaged with their local branch or with the conference to vote without a full understanding of the impact of their decisions, and this makes it easier for the leadership to push their own agenda. I also recognise that this changes the nature of the relationship of trust between the branch and its delegates. However, I think we can see this structure as an opportunity to think harder about how we achieve full inclusion in our branches in the digital age.

(1) The OMOV system completely changes how the pre-conference planning in the branches will be conducted - instead of trying to decide how we want our delegates to vote, we can have a less directed exchange of views, in which we try to explain our points of view to one another, and then each of us can vote as we see fit.

(2) OMOV also encourages us to engage more effectively and consistently with members who cannot attend branch meetings. We will talk to them after the planning meeting in order to share the outcomes, so that they can be better informed when they cast their vote; and we will be more motivated to include them throughout the year (as we should be doing anyway), so that they will be more likely to take these outcomes into consideration.

(3) Finally, OMOV changes the role of the delegates. We still need to trust them to represent us with their speeches, but now they will hold the responsibility of reflecting the conference back to the branch members. In particular, if a speech on the conference floor raises a point which the branch didn’t discuss at the planning meeting, the delegate will be responsible for conveying this to the branch members (many of whom may not have had time to watch the conference themselves), in case it affects their votes.

So arguably, we need to trust the delegates even more than we did previously, that they can report neutrally on the conference and trust us to form our own opinions. I hope we can all commit to forming a culture in YP where this is possible.

Patrick Ramsey
Nottinghamshire

Organise in YP

Your Party lives - broken, relatively incoherent, primed for a new spat of civil war and with a name that is an insult to the English language. It is nonetheless alive. A bar perhaps a bit too low, but in the weeks building up to the November 29-30 conference it appeared the petulant backroom knife fight may well have strangled any hope for this to be the vehicle for socialism in our lifetime.

Corbyn’s aloofness, genuine Bennite democratism and aversion to confrontation meant that the half-departed independent alliance, with Zarah Sultana, Karie Murphy and her orbiters, tore each other to shreds thrice over. They bled the party of tens of thousands of cadre, plus an unquantifiable level of goodwill among the electorate, and were piling it on with renewed vigour, with only days left for the congress. The unnamed (apart from the potentially over-personalised Murphy) steering committee moved to crush a proposed on-the-floor intervention for a new steering group, launching an arbitrary purge of the entire Socialist Workers Party and leading figures in Counterfire.

Sultana’s boycott of the first day, the removal of the ability to make points of order and a series of chairs who, when not actively censoring the broadcast, failed in performing the simplest tasks assigned to them - all that meant that the mood going to the second day was defeatist at best. The Socialist Unity Platform fringe event that night focused almost entirely on preventative measures to forestall single leadership and a wholescale ban on the left.

Thankfully, key missteps by the Murphy-Corbyn group prevented that. Firstly, the entire scorched earth policy, which has crippled the party electorally in the short-to-medium term, has, on the one hand, massively strengthened the Greens as the torch bearers of social democracy, making a repeat of Momentum pointless, and, on the other, turned off all but the class-orientated left, massively empowering the groups they have attempted to sideline from the start. This is likely how they came to the conclusion that a purge had become a necessity.

Second, the confused structure of the event, an in-person Zoom call, with speakers chosen by gesturing at the floor (probably the first and hopefully last of its kind), was so half-thought-out that the steering committee clearly failed to predict that keeping the votes open for a handful of hours would disproportionately represent the in-person crowd over the presumably doing-something-else online attendees. While the voting times were lengthened as the weekend progressed, which was likely unnecessary in the case of the incredibly unpopular dual membership amendment, this allowed collective leadership to scrape by. Once this was realised, amendments were open for double the time and the much derided name and standing orders for a full 48 hours.

The editorial line of this paper is that this remains something of a loss, and I would argue that this mistakes defeat for what is as yet a non-decisive victory. The fight, yes, will continue into the central executive committee (CEC) elections, where the question of dual membership will be decided. The SWP remains purged, and the regionalisation of the CEC empowers the secret leadership, given that many of the left’s strongest fighters are based in the urban heartland, but I think, ultimately, it is still ours to lose.

First, it’s hard to imagine they have anywhere near the talent of the Sultana bloc, especially if Claudia Webbe’s chairing seems anything to judge by. Thanks to Karie Murphy, plenty of successful socialist independents are aligned with us, including the entire former MOU Operations Ltd, all of whom were selected on the basis of their ability and prestige within the left.

Furthermore, the Zoomocracy makes it practically impossible to build any momentum for fresh candidates. There is no established party media, there will presumably be no mass rallies, and the general media won’t report on it except to ridicule. All campaigning will be fought and won on social media and in the proto-branches. We already have the loyalty of the majority of those same proto-branches. Many of the candidates that it will be in our interest to support will be the established independent socialists, with their own resources to call upon and established names within the wider left. We will have Sultana’s formidable social media machine and mailing lists, as well as the organised left’s existing media ecosystem, mailing lists, social media and - most crucially - their ability to vote in blocs. Here the SUP can be a weapon far more than it was at conference.

On the other side, outside of Collective, the Peace and Justice Project, the independent MPs and Corbyn’s social media, they don’t really have anything to endorse and mobilise with. Not to mention it’s not in Corbyn’s nature - he made no outright voting recommendations at conference and seems unlikely to openly use his position for CEC endorsements/condemnations. Therefore, short of using the official party channels and/or treating candidates as they did the amendments, I don’t see them possibly being able to win a majority. For that, a much wider purge would be required prior to the establishment of a CEC that has formally been given the sole right to oversee one.

Additionally, the intricacies of conference organisation are one thing - far more opaque and easier to abuse, compared to an open purge of candidates, which would certainly invoke a backlash from the broader membership. Given their unwillingness to rig the elections outright on the days of conference, it seems likely they won’t go that far. Assuming this, the correlation of forces is in our favour. We wanted a democracy from below, but, as is so often the case, we are forced to contend for that from above.

That can be done. All we have to do is organise around an agreed list of candidates and we can build the party we need.

Harry O’Donoghue
email

Sultana hope

I’ve watched Jack Conrad’s report-back on the Your Party conference and read what the Weekly Worker has written, but there is still the generally unanswered question: ‘What should we do now?’

The reports by the organised left that I have seen about the conference are inaccurate. It was a defeat. Yes, for example, dual carding is theoretically possible - the YP CEC will have to agree any other parties allowed (seems unlikely) - but the main problem was that the widely supported alternative to have no dual-party ban was not even allowed on the agenda, despite many branches submitting amendments in support of this. Repeatedly YP HQ lost the motion, but then rode roughshod after such (or had already done so).

In east London, I have seen comments by Socialist Alternative, the SWP and more talking about ‘great victories’. When I questioned this, I was told: ‘This is the only game in town. We must build Your Party.’ So now these comrades talk about the CEC elections as the next great opportunity - as though YP HQ will allow such to be conducted fairly. One of the first things I expect them to do is expel as many of us Trots whose names they know. And who is running the party and what damage can they do until these election results?

Moving a motion from the floor suspending the agenda was agreed by the Socialist Unity Platform. The unannounced attempt to move this at conference sounds half-cocked. They should have known the platform would close them down. A megaphone addressing the attendees (rather than the platform) may have garnered enough people standing to enable a vote from the floor to be taken - but now water under the bridge.

The great instability is the position of Zarah Sultana: she is clearly still dissatisfied - and was on LBC after the conference criticising HQ for still carving her out. I can’t see her hanging around in YP. I was thinking of stopping my Your Party activity after the conference, as YP HQ are continuing to do what they wish, despite facing what will doubtless be the strongest assembling of the opposition to them in Liverpool. Yet I have decided to hang around, solely in the hope that Zarah Sultana leads a split to a left party soonish. I am not going to waste time, as comrades did in the dead end of Respect, the Socialist Labour Party or Momentum, if such a split does not look likely.

Southpawpunch
East London

No friend

Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club have excluded Guardian journalists from attending matches because of the paper’s reporting on allegations concerning the club’s owner.

The reporting also involves a long-standing associate of Nigel Farage and a key figure in Reform UK, George Cottrell. This isn’t just another lurid story in the world of political fixers and billionaires, nor is it part of a ‘smear campaign’ against Farage’s latest outfit: it’s a window into how concentrated wealth, political influence and the gambling industry infests football.

Tony Bloom, Brighton’s billionaire owner, is named alongside Cottrell in connection with a gambling syndicate. Bloom is known in the gambling industry by the nickname, ‘The Lizard’, and used ‘whales’ (or frontmen) to assist in gambling enterprises to make his fortune. Starlizard Betting Syndicate makes about £600 million each year in winnings via bets, which are sometimes placed on the accounts of frontmen, including “footballers, sportsmen and businessmen”.

Unlike the high-profile cases of footballers being banned from playing for involvement in betting, these reports give people a glimpse into the gambling industry’s colossal power, and proximity to the game and to politics, and should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who believes football and politics should be insulated from corrupting financial interests. Whether every claim in the court filings against Cotterell, Bloom and Starlizard is proven or not, the fact that such relationships can be plausibly alleged shows how deeply intertwined money, speculation and power have become in the game.

Football fans, by their very nature, will often feel that referees, including video assistant VARs, and all the way up to the game’s governing bodies, are biased against them, or even corrupt. Everton were twice punished for breaking the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rule (PSR), while Manchester City’s 115 charges went unpunished - a case in point. We should, however, expect that matches are contested fairly and that owners, staff and insiders are not simultaneously using the sport as a private casino. But, when club owners or their associates are linked to industrial-scale betting syndicates, the risk of conflicts of interest becomes structural, not incidental.

Although players and staff are supposed to be governed by betting rules, it seems that ‘whale’ company betting introduces ambiguity into those rules, freeing them to enter the betting world inhabited by the wealthy owners, those who shape broadcasting deals and, it appears, those who shape regulation and legislation in the case of Farage and Reform. Those betting rules in football no longer appear to be fit for purpose and have created an underground system, enabling profit to the already wealthy at the cost of the integrity of the sport.

This story must be understood in a wider context. Football has, for decades, been embedded in a commercial relationship with gambling companies. Shirt sponsorships, stadium advertising, TV advertising, in-play betting apps and ‘data partner’ deals have normalised the presence of gambling at almost every level of the game. Even clubs that present themselves as ‘community first’ organisations have become advertising vehicles for an industry that profits from addiction, debt and despair.

Syndicates like Starlizard represent the hyper-financialised end of this process: gambling not as casual recreation, but as algorithmic, data-driven extraction, with insider knowledge and power. That is the inevitable destination of a sport surrendered to the market.

There is also a blatant double standard in who gets punished by the rules as they stand. Players such as Sandro Tonali and Ivan Toney were (rightly) sanctioned for breaching betting rules, their careers publicly scrutinised and reputations tarnished. But their cases expose a deeper structural hypocrisy. Footballers are easy targets for enforcement, while the wider ecosystem that enables mass betting on football - including ‘whale’ intermediaries, ‘shell companies’, data syndicates and sophisticated proxy operations - remains largely untouched.

It is widely understood in the gambling world that wealthy clients often operate through corporate fronts, private brokers and third-party accounts to place vast sums out of public view. The result is a two-tier system: players become examples, while the truly powerful - owners, financiers and political fixers tied into the professional gambling infrastructure - are insulated by money, lawyers and anonymity. That is not integrity: it is class-based selective enforcement.

Reform UK presents itself as a voice for “ordinary people” against the ‘elites’. But the presence of figures like Cottrell - and the party’s proximity to opaque wealth, high-risk financial operators and billionaire-linked gambling networks - tells a very different story. It highlights why Reform feels comfortable offering membership to the party’s “inner circle” for £10,000 a year!

A movement genuinely rooted in the lives of working class supporters would be fighting to lower ticket prices, protect local clubs, rein in the power of owners and attempt to break the stranglehold of ‘the market’ and the gambling industry on the game. Instead, what we see is alignment with a world in which football is just another speculative market and fans are merely consumers to be monetised. You cannot stand with the match-going fan, while moving in circles that profit from turning their club into a data point in a global betting portfolio.

If we are serious about protecting football, the response must be structural, not cosmetic. As a first step, new rules should include a total ban on owners and their proxies engaging in betting, including through ‘whale’ companies. There must be an end to gambling sponsorship in football, which provides the powerful and wealthy lobbyists with access to our clubs. We should demand full transparency over ownership, with full lists of investments made individually or through proxy businesses - full transparency over political donations by football clubs - plus funding of youth and community sport paid for by a levy on gambling companies. All of which should be overseen by real fan representation on the clubs’ boards. These are not radical demands. They are common-sense protections for a national game that has been slowly stripped away from the communities that built it.

Whether the allegations against Bloom, Cotterill and Starlizard prove true or not, the pattern is unmistakable: football is being swallowed by the same forces that dominate all aspects of our lives, such as housing, energy and politics - wealth concentration, deregulation, speculation, capitalism. The real scandal is not simply who placed which bet: it is the system and those with power that make such entanglements commonplace.

And a political party entwined in that system - or even comfortable around it - is not a party for the average football fan. It is part of the problem.

Carl Collins
email

Agreement

I am in agreement with Daniel Lazare’s point (Letters, November 27) about my article on the US economy (‘Capitalism’s structural rot’, November 20).

I have myself been saying since my first book in 2019 (Socialism or extinction) that interest rates are probably going to start trending back upwards because of the historical bottleneck on profitable investment opportunities, given just how automated production is becoming. I, of course, agree that central banks can’t print indefinitely in order to lower rates indefinitely, although they might be able to pull off negative nominal rates to some extent - for how long and how deeply I do not know - while the state takes on responsibility for innovation that capital cannot afford (while the profits are privatised).

The central bank will certainly try, and if it doesn’t the government will make it try. But it is ultimately damned either way, because so is capitalism. A massive write-off of financial assets is the only possible alternative, as Daniel says, and is partly what I meant, when I said that the capitalist state will have to bail out a smaller proportion of the private sector than it has done during the past two crises. That might allow what remains to enjoy lower rates for a while. But in all likelihood it won’t.

Ted Reese
email

Cranks together

Tony Greenstein writes that David Miller has appeared as a guest on the podcast of alt-right US cluckwit Stew Peters (‘Wood for the trees’, November 27). That places Miller alongside dregs and smegs like Nick Fuentes and Germar Rudolf.

The site’s blurb for the latter is: “Germar Rudolf tells all after leaving prison for exposing the holohoax! Germar Rudolf joins Stew to discuss his being imprisoned by Jewish supremacists for exposing the fake holocaust!” ‘Yes, exactly - that’s the coolly rational anti-racist venue for me,’ decided Miller apparently.

The sad news of his accelerating spiral into uncritical anti-Semitism prompted me, for the first time in an age, to have a look at the website of another figure blown through the looking glass by mangled forms of anti-Zionism: Ian Donovan. I’ll admit I hadn’t thought of him for years - but then, who has? It’s no great shock to discover that one of Ian Donovan’s great crusades now (alongside defending holocaust denier Paul Eisen of Deir Yassin remembered) is the exculpation of a fellow named ... David Miller.

Cranks of a blether crank together.

Joachim Ohl
email

Targeting migrants

The German media disproportionately reports on violent crimes committed by foreigners, particularly those from predominantly Muslim countries, compared to actual police statistics, leading to a distorted public perception.

The key findings concern:

From what is dished up by the - often corporate - media, it appears as if crime and migration are inextricably linked. But this link might not reflect reality. A recent study examined exactly this connection and found something rather interesting. It showed that Germany’s leading media do report on violent crimes committed by foreigners - but they do so far more often than the actual share of such crimes in Germany’s police statistics would justify. For example:

n One quarter of TV reports on violent offenders mention the origin of the suspects. Of these reports, 94.6% concern foreign suspects - the highest value measured since the long-term analysis began in 2007.

n One third of print reports on violent crimes mention the origin of the suspects. Of these, 90.8% refer to foreign suspects. Yet, according to Germany’s latest police crime statistics, the proportion of foreign suspects - that is, people merely suspected of committing a crime - amounts to 34.3%. In other words, foreign suspects are overrepresented in Germany’s media by roughly a factor of three.

Almost three quarters of the foreign suspects mentioned in media reports come from predominantly Muslim countries (TV: 70.3%; print: 70.1%). This is significantly more than the police statistics show for these countries (15.8%). Suspects from Muslim countries are thus more than four times overrepresented in Germany’s leading media.

On February 13 2025, a 24-year-old man drove a car into a demonstration organised by a trade union at Munich’s Stiglmaierplatz, killing a 37-year-old engineer and her two-year-old daughter. The suspect was of Afghan origin. Roughly 1,000 reports appeared on this case. Germany’s leading public broadcaster - the ARD - even aired a “special focal point” that evening.

Less than three weeks later, something similar happened: a man drove into a crowd, killing two people. Soon after, the identity photo of the alleged suspect began circulating on social media - supposedly a migrant. It was misinformation, as the police clarified: the arrested suspect was a 40-year-old German with no migration background. Almost immediately, media interest waned.There were only half as many reports - 50% fewer than in the first case. Both acts of violence differed in only one notable aspect: the nationality of the suspect. This is neither an isolated nor an exceptional case: it is media reality in Germany. In TV coverage of violent crimes, reports almost exclusively focus on foreign suspects.

One in four reports on domestic violent crimes from the evening news and tabloid magazines of Germany’s eight highest-reach national TV broadcasters mention the suspects’ origins (25.4%). When that origin is stated, 94.6% of suspects are non-German; only 5.4% are German. Yet, according to police statistics, foreigners make up just a third (34.3%) of violent crime suspects.

This pattern of distortion comes at the expense of non-Germans - and it is statistically significant. Worse still, the proportions hardly differ between public broadcasters (95.7%) and private TV formats (92.9%). When Germany’s ‘high-reach’ national daily newspapers report on crimes and mention the suspect’s origin, in an astonishing 90.8% of all such cases the suspects are non-German. Meanwhile, a second pattern emerges across both television and print media. Whenever a suspect’s origin is mentioned, 70.3% (TV) and 70.1% (print) of those suspects come from Muslim countries. Yet, according to official police crime statistics, only 15.8% of suspects originate from such countries. Once again: people from Muslim countries are portrayed as perpetrators about four times more often than the data warrants. In other words, Muslim migrants aren’t more criminal - they’re simply presented as if they were.

The findings are based on ‘high-reach’ nationwide television channels, which account for a combined market share of 55% among 14- to 49-year-olds. At the same time, Germany’s main newspapers still reach a considerable audience. Overall, foreign suspects are overrepresented by a factor of three in German media, and suspects from Muslim countries by a factor of four. In other words, Germans hear or see four times more about suspects - not even convicts - when these suspects are non-German.

And yet, perceptions shape reality. If Germans feel that foreigners are somehow dangerous, that fear itself becomes real. This plays into what is known as the ‘politics of fear’. The interest symbiosis between Germany’s media and the far right is creating a perception that Germans might only feel safe again when they see fewer foreigners - whether those foreigners are dangerous criminals (rare) or simply fathers returning home from work (common).

Stoking xenophobia and racism are statements like the infamous and widely condemned Stadtbild remark by Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, implying that deporting people would somehow “improve the cityscape”. Echoing the racist ideology of the neo-fascist AfD, Merz also claimed that “his daughters can finally go to the disco in the evening without a daddy taxi!” Yet neither Merz’s insinuations nor the alarmist tone of much German media are based on facts.

The facts are these: leading German media report on violent crimes committed by foreigners far more often than their actual share in police statistics would justify. Worse still, mere suspects - not convicted criminals - from Muslim countries are portrayed particularly unfairly, overrepresented by a factor of four. In Germany’s police statistics, only about a quarter of all alleged crimes are attributed to ‘criminal Arabs’. Yet Germans are bombarded with headlines about foreign crime. In one notorious example, Bild blared: “Shock figures: 100,000 crimes committed by Afghans!”

Such headlines - and countless others like them - are broadcast to Germans almost daily. This happens not out of ignorance, but in defiance of what is known. Even Germany’s so-called ‘quality media’ participate. They too, it seems, have been influenced by the AfD’s rightwing framing of ‘foreign crime’.

Online, the problem is amplified: clickbait thrives at the expense of migrants. Yet racism in German media does not stop there. To refer to entire groups - ‘the Arabs’, ‘the Turks’, ‘the Muslims’ - rather than individuals when reporting on crime is nothing short of racism.

While there are explanations for why certain social strata, age groups or genders - mostly men - may exhibit higher crime rates, ethnic or religious affiliation has never been shown to be a decisive factor. But, for much of Germany’s media, it seems to be. The usual suspects are always the same. Playing one group off against another may serve rightwing populists - but it poisons Germany’s social cohesion.

After years of systematic overrepresentation of non-Germans in crime reporting, parts of the German public have been led to believe that migrants pose a threat. At the same time, Germans from migrant families feel - rightly - unfairly treated and criminalised. The winner is not German society, not truth, not fact - but the ultra-right, neo-Nazis, and the AfD. These groups pose as protectors of the German people against ‘dangerous foreigners’ - a threat that, according to police statistics, simply does not exist.

Germany is not threatened by ‘foreign crime’, just as it was never threatened by the ‘Jewish world conspiracy’ that Hitler claimed.

Thomas Klikauer
Germany