Author: Justus Wilhoit (Page 2 of 2)

Questions for AfD: 

• In the event the firewall against your party is removed, what specific policy do you hope to see implemented the most outside of stricter immigration control?

• Germany is becoming increasingly more diverse, is there a place for migrants in how your party envisions national identity?

• What is the AfD party doing outside of Germany to further its presence on the international stage?

Berlin proposal memo: How the AfD is changing football culture in Germany

In recent years German football clubs and fan groups have become increasingly political, holding demonstrations against far-right parties and right wing extremism in stadiums on matchdays and in the streets. Back in February at St. Pauli, a Hamburg-based club with a strong anti-fascist tradition, fans made their feelings known by chanting: “The whole of Hamburg hates the AfD!”

A catalyst for football turning more political in Germany came last year when the country hosted the UEFA European Football Championship, and multiple members of the AfD criticized the team for not being German enough, and too “woke.”

Maximilian Krah, a member of the European Parliament for the  AfD, called the German team a “politically-correct mercenary squad” It’s the rainbow team. The pride team,” he said. “We can ignore it.”

Football has come to be viewed as playing an important role in defending democracy. In spite of these protests, the AfD is increasingly becoming more popular, and while there may not be banners in favor of AfD inside these stadiums, racism is becoming more tolerated in the sport. 

This was not always the case, I would like to get various perspectives around the sport – from journalists that cover it, to athletes/ managers of local teams who have either migrated or have politically supported or opposed AfD publicly, to what German-based organizations are doing to support individuals. 

Potential sources:

• One of the local football clubs in either Nuremberg or Berlin that have come out publicly against AfD to get a management perspective, a player would be great as well.
• German journalist Ronny Blaschke, who published a book about racism in football in January 2025
• Gesellschaftsspiele,” a Berlin organization focusing on football fan culture and political education.

After reading and watching this week’s materials, I think it is fair to say that Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) is in a lane of its own. I was particularly touched by the Bellingcat documentary and by reading the NPR article about the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab trying to track the movement of Ukrainian children in Russia. Numerous pieces this week mentioned the phrase “citizen journalism.” My research in the past has examined the intersection of media and various far-right groups, which contain members that have described themselves as “citizen journalists.” However, these members tend to be more like street agitators that like to generate conflict rather than a concerned citizen watching out for their neighbors. Therefore, I have not always had the best connotation when hearing about citizen journalism. 

OSINT turns this connotation on its head for me. I was amazed to hear that some of the people contributing to Bellingcat were volunteers and not on any type of pay roll. Bellingcat’s model gives me hope for the future of journalism. Not only do I feel that it makes the industry more accessible, because they are utilizing public documents, videos, social media posts, etc and putting a story together, something anyone can do. However I also understand that skills like coding and geolocating are more integral to how they operate, and thus their work is not as simple as going to an event/location and interviewing people. Additionally, I think Bellingcat further proves that a journalism publication does not need to be part of a big media conglomerate, or have the backing and visibility from a legacy media outlet in order to have credibility, and to know their work is making a difference. 

The example in the beginning of the Bellingcat documentary where journalists cross-referenced photos and social media accounts to identify white supremacists at the Charlottesville rally immediately made me think of January 6th. In that case, the FBI used similar open-source methods, including videos like the one captured by New Yorker reporter Luke Mogelson, where he followed Trump supporters onto the Senate floor as they stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Authorities also relied on geo-location data to identify individuals who were present during the insurrection. One of those individuals was Princeton’s own Larry Giberson, who, despite his involvement, still graduated with a degree in 2023.

My main concern with OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) is its long-term sustainability. The documentary noted that investigators are able to archive websites and documents before they are taken down, but when does this intelligence run out, and do more harm than good? Can OSINT be effective for day-to-day news coverage or breaking news situations?

Would this open news organizations to greater legal risks if stories are published too quickly, without the thoroughness of longer investigative pieces like those done by Bellingcat? I can understand why Bellingcat takes its time. Even though they can be cross referencing information from multiple photos, social media posts, documents, etc, they’re also relying on digital sources from the open internet, not from close, vetted sources.

This week’s readings highlight the layered challenges of migration, beginning with the decision to leave, the uncertainty of the journey, questions of what life will look like if resettlement is possible, the fear of permanent separation from loved ones, and the struggle to remain connected to one’s homeland. They also continue what was featured in past weeks’ readings, as they demonstrate the weakening in cooperation among countries part of the European Union, a severing that ultimately shaped and worsened the migrant itself as Kingsley claims in The New Odyssey.

The readings emphasize that escaping danger does not mean the worries of migration ever truly end, the immigrant experience is an ever-evolving journey. This is reflected in the stories of Syrian doctors weighing whether to return after Assad’s fall in the Washington Post, and in Hakeema Taha’s visit back to her Iraqi village, where she honored family members killed by IS fighters while she herself had found refuge in Germany, as portrayed in the ARTE documentary.

If I could title this blog, I would title it “Vomiting Party” as I believe it metaphorically represents the experiences of many of the refugees we are reading about. The journey can be exhausting, sometimes even nauseating, as was the case for Hashem al-Souki in the Kingsley reading, who was so crammed in a wooden dinghy heading to Northern Europe with other migrants that in route ‘everyone’s clothes [were] caked in other people’s vomit, each [had] paid more than $2,000 to spew over fellow refugees.”

However, even after you have concluded this journey to Northern Europe and possibly resettled and feel some sense of peace, the vomiting continues. Not from fellow refugees, but from politicians like those in the AfD in Germany for example or civilians telling you to go back home, and that your presence is hurting the country. What they don’t recognize is that many of these migrants don’t have anything to return to. Many migrants have had to pay the price in metaphorically vomit and money, but the stories of Hashem, Hakeema, and more show us that people can rise above all the hatred.

While the Odyssey metaphor is clear, I thought of The Handmaid’s Tale and the parallels between Hashem’s story and June’s more often. June may be a fictional character but Margaret Atwood, the author of The Handmaid’s Tale, has claimed that everything that occurred in the book has happened at some point in history or real life. Both lose autonomy to political systems beyond their control, Hashem dragged away from his children by armed men, June torn from her family by Gilead. Both were able to escape but contemplated doing so, the guilt of leaving loved ones, and the grief of watching their homelands collapse. 

Both of their stories resist ostracization, humanizing migrants in The New Odyssey and survivors in The Handmaid’s Tale. As Kingsley writes, “in some ways they are the lucky ones, since they have been allowed to live.”

Across this week’s readings, a common thread was how Afghans who managed to reach countries like Pakistan or Germany, whether in limbo or fully resettled, continued to advocate for others left behind. This can be seen in the case of Shakerah Baresh, who resettled in Germany with her children, pleaded with German authorities: “Please, bring the refugees that are now in Pakistan, especially the activists, to Germany. Because it’s a matter of life and death.” This theme of solidarity “we’re all in this fight together”stood out. Yet I was struck by the absence of voices from Afghans who may not share that perspective, who might reflect the anti-immigrant sentiment the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has weaponized in recent elections, or who might even support restricting refugee programs they once relied on.

The few glimpses of tension appeared in a Reuters article, where some Afghans expressed concern about being unfairly associated with asylum seekers linked to deadly attacks in Germany. One woman, Kimia, living in a guesthouse in Pakistan while awaiting resettlement, said: “I’m so sorry about those people who are injured or killed … but it’s not our fault.” These comments reflect fear and frustration, but not outright opposition to migration. 

This anti-immigrant rhetoric from migrants themselves was also scarce and raises larger questions: during migration and resettlement, how much do assimilation pressures, political leaders, or the need to align with majority opinion shape migrant perspectives? The U.S. offers a clear parallel. In recent presidential elections, especially 2024, immigrants were seen as pivotal voting blocs. Despite Donald Trump’s often hostile rhetoric and restrictive policies, many immigrants supported him. They believed that siding with Trump might earn them favor or speed up pathways for long-term residents, even at the expense of more recent arrivals, rather than voting for Kamala Harris, who campaigned on a more pro-immigrant platform.

Yet this strategy I argue backfired. After Trump’s reelection, reports surfaced of immigrants and die-hard Trump towns regretting their votes, recognizing that aligning with the majority did not deliver the protections or advantages they had hoped for. 

This dynamic highlights the precarious balance immigrants navigate between gratitude for resettlement, pressure to assimilate, and the risks of political alignment.

What emerges from the Afghan case is a counterpoint to the U.S. example. Afghans in Germany, Pakistan, and beyond largely stood in solidarity with fellow refugees, even amid anti-immigrant rhetoric growing worldwide. Their advocacy underscores that receiving refuge does not obligate political conformity. In the U.S., by contrast, some immigrants align with the majority that ultimately failed to safeguard their interests. Together, these cases show that resettlement may grant safety, but it does not erase the complexity of political identity and retaining that connection to your homeland from far away. Solidarity, assimilation, and self-preservation all remain in tension.

In watching Faith Under Siege, reading the articles, and listening to the podcast on Reuters, it becomes clear that war itself has changed and global cooperation or at  least nations holding one another accountable is more important than ever.

Like oil and nuclear weapons, drones have now become a resource that allows countries to have a greater chance at competing on the world stage, furthering their presence. This can be seen in the case of Ukraine, but even more interesting than the Ukrainian use of drones is the role civilians are playing in the war effort even though the country has a military.

 It had me curious how although the United States has a stronger military, what a potential war would look like if civilians had to get involved in fighting back. My initial thought is that various militia groups may jump at the charge to fight as many are anti-government, and they may think that if given technological resources, they can be more effective than any military branch could be. Whereas on the other hand, those same militias tend to be very far-right, and some members in these groups have admitted to wanting to cause chaos, and having violent fantasies.  They may use these drones and other technology to focus on a different common enemy that doesn’t align with the U.S government’s interests, not an opposing nation, but immigrants who they think don’t deserve to be in their country.  If this were the case, then civilians “contributing” to the war effort wouldn’t be any better than the individuals who are contributing to the increase in attacks on asylum seekers and refugee shelters in Berlin as written about in The Guardian article. 

What the readings, podcast, and documentary all represent is the quest for control and/or power in the face of the uncertainty that comes with war. Additionally, what the materials this week do a good job at is trying to show how the war impacts those at a local level who have seen devastation in their communities, how it is seen at a foreign policy level by heads of government, and diplomats, and how the current war on Ukraine has implications for technology going forward. 

Given the amount of time the war has gone on for, it’s easier to not always stay updated or to feel like it is a lost cause. As mentioned in the article, the author makes the claim that Putin has concluded that “Trump will never be serious about punishing Russia for its refusal to accept a ceasefire or engage in serious peace talks,” and he’s right. Trump seems to never push Putin on the issue, never prioritizing standing with the US’s European allies and instead only focusing on being besties with Putin as shown in his summit with him in Alaska that resulted in a photo op and asking politely for a ceasefire, in which Putin said no and there was no backtalk from Mr. Trump. 

Similar to where neighboring countries of Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium have all left Germany to uphold the international protection regime and to fight its immigration crisis by themselves. Inaction and not having a unified front is only giving into Russia and this is leading to more Ukranian’s lives being disrupted, anti-immigrant rhetoric increasing, and many immigrants living off a “bed, bread, soap” lifestyle when there is more that can and should be done.

If one quote conveys the cornerstone message across the readings, I think it can be found in the Just Security Article by Rebecca Hamilton where she references Viktor Orbán, the prime Minister of Hungary whom she describes as “autocratic”. The quote reads “Whoever controls a country’s media controls that country’s mindset and through that the country itself.” I highlighted this quote specifically because after first reading Edward Helmore’s piece in The Guardian, it echoed a statement I had heard in another context. After going through reading by reading, a quote by Jim Morrison that was recently featured in Beyonce’s Renaissance Tour came to mind. The quote reads “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” 

 The similarities between Morrison’s words, who is a poet and a singer, and then Orban, a politician, emphasize that media control extends beyond simply the end goal of manipulating public opinion. Rather, it raises additional questions about how this manipulation is achieved: through the framing of information, the access certain outlets are granted, and others aren’t, and the channels by which consumers encounter it, whether through social media, television, or personal networks.

 President Trump is a contemporary example of this dynamic. Through both of his administrations Trump has tried to gain support from groups his policies often hurt the most and talks down upon including immigrants, women, LGBTQ+ individuals and more. Yet his approach is effective as he was re-elected to the office the country voted him out of nearly five years ago and made inroads with some of the very groups he targeted in his first presidential campaign and administration.

 While President Trump tends to be more transparent and blunter than his predecessors through his use of Twitter and Truth Social and has “expanded” press access to nontraditional media outlets in the name of expanding freedom of speech, particularly in his second administration, his approach is more selective. By dismissing legacy media as “fake news” because they hold him and his administration accountable through threats of legal persecution and restricting press credentials, Trump has instead created a different media ecosystem. An ecosystem that resembles celebrities who tip off paparazzi to generate favorable coverage, making him and his administration look open and accessible while being calculated behind closed doors. 

 This ecosystem of manipulation is designed to counter dominant narratives that cast him in an unfavorable light, helping keep his supporters under his spell so they remain loyal, while drawing in new ones. This strategy fuels disinformation and echo chambers, but its influence now extends beyond voters to corporations. 

 As Omarosa Manigault Newman once predicted 2016, there may come a day when Trump’s detractors must “bow down” to him, a warning increasingly reflected as more companies fall in line. At his inauguration, tech leaders like Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, and Shou Zi Chew attended, signaling cooperation in exchange for what looked like a “get out of jail free card.” 

 With recent settlements from ABC, and deals like Paramount’s $8 billion Skydance merger on the line, Trump is attempting to prove that he can orchestrate both the fourth estate and government to control the country’s mindset and through that the country itself.