Sunday, December 21, 2025

What Germans Think About AI

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

In a recent AI study (November 2025), slightly more than 1,000 Germans were asked about artificial intelligence (AI), online security, deepfakes and democracy.

Overall, there is a strong increase in the uptake of AI in Germany. Roughly two out of three Germans use AI (65%) in one way or another. Given that ChatGPT started to appear in Germany around November 2022, the question “Have you already used AI?” shows a rapid rise. 

About half a year after the launch of ChatGPT, 23% of Germans said “yes”. By October 2023, the number had increased to 37%; by October 2024, it was 53%; and by October 2025, it had reached 65%.

Meanwhile, slightly more men than women are using AI. However, AI use appears to be related to age more than to gender. In other words, younger Germans are using AI more than older Germans – no surprise here. To the question “Have you ever tried or used an AI application?”, 67% of men said yes, while 63% of women said that they had used AI.

The gap is vastly greater when it comes to age. In 2025, 91% of 16- to 29-year-olds said they had used AI. For the 30- to 49-year-old cohort, the number is still 80%, while for 50- to 64-year-old Germans, it drops to 63%. Once people are 65 and older, the use of AI declines to about 35%.

Meanwhile, almost every second individual uses AI several times a week. That was the answer to the question “How often do you use AI?” Twelve per-cent said daily, 33% said several times a week, and 36% said once or twice per month. Among younger Germans, these numbers – as expected – are higher. In total, 55% of all 16- to 29-year-olds use AI frequently.

When it comes to using AI at work or privately, a clear 1/3 to 2/3 gap emerges. In other words, 61% use AI for private purposes, while only 32% use AI for professional or work-related purposes, including school, education, and studying. AI is thus used more at home than outside the home in Germany.

When asked whether they use paid AI accounts, 88% said they do not use “paid-for” accounts in the private sphere. This number declines to 67% when it comes to work-related use.

Meanwhile, the mobile phone or smartphone has overtaken laptops. When asked which device or devices they use for AI, the smartphone is the preferred choice for 82%, while PCs or laptops are used by 71%. Devices such as smart speakers (e.g., Amazon’s Alexa) and smartwatches are used by a meager 4% each.

Beyond all this, ChatGPT dominates AI usage in Germany. Eighty-five percent use ChatGPT, followed by Gemini (33%), Copilot (26%), DeepL (20%), Meta AI (18%), Google AI (14%), Bing Search (10%), Canva AI (8%), Perplexity (7%), DeepSeek (4%), Claude AI (3%), Grok (3%), Le Chat (1%), and others (4%).

On the question “What is AI used for?”, 72% said they use AI when searching for information. Forty-three percent said they use AI to create or improve texts. Thirty-eight percent use AI for brainstorming and the development of ideas. Thirty-four percent use AI for translations. Sixteen percent use AI to create images, videos, or audio files. Eleven percent let AI perform calculations, while only 8% use AI to create websites or code. The same share (8%) applies to analyzing datasets.

On the question of why they are using AI, 61% said it helps them work more productively, and the same share applies to learning and education (61%). Fifty-four percent use AI to deal with routine tasks, 50% to develop new ideas, and 47% to be creative. Interestingly – and perhaps surprisingly – 43% of Germans use AI to solve personal problems. Thirty-two percent use it to better organize everyday life, and 29% use AI for fun and entertainment.

Regarding how people communicate with AI, 96% said they do so via text input. Voice-to-text input is used by 38%, while voice dialogue mode is used by 33%.

On the more noteworthy question of how Germans describe their emotional relationship with AI applications, most (80%) said that AI is simply a tool and that they do not have an emotional relationship with it. Germans do not seem to “love” these machines. Twenty-seven percent see AI as a smart coach who supports them in different situations, while only 6% see AI as a good friend to whom they entrust personal things. Notably, zero percent (0%) said they see AI as a permanent partner. It gets even better: nobody (0%) sees AI as someone for whom they feel romantic or emotionally close.

Yet when it comes to trustworthiness, Germans trust AI more than ever before. In 2024, 48% reported a high degree of trust in AI. By 2025, this number had increased to 53%. Still, 41% expressed rather low confidence in AI delivering trustworthy answers. Absolutely no trust in AI was expressed by 4% in 2025 (up from 2% in 2024).

While 45% – slightly less than half – of Germans trust AI only to a limited degree (41%) or not at all (4%), Germans are extremely unwilling to share personal and confidential data with AI. To the question “Have you ever entered personal or confidential data – such as your name, address, health data, or passwords – into an AI program?”, a reassuring 86% said “no”.

This reluctance increases with age. In the 16- to 29-year-old cohort, 78% said “no”, while 22% said “yes”. In the 30- to 49-year-old group, 85% said “no”. Among 50- to 64-year-olds, 92% said “no”, with the same applying to those over 65. In other words, Germany’s elderly are less likely to hand over sensitive data to AI, whether dodgy or not.

On the question “How big is your concern that the data you have entered into an AI application could be hacked, misused, or even published without your consent?”, 13% said they are very worried. Thirty-seven percent said they are somewhat worried, 43% said they are less worried, and only 4% said they are not worried at all.

On deepfakes and the question “Which of the following experiences have you already had in connection with AI?”, 51% said they had come across manipulated AI videos online showing real people. Thirty-one percent said they had received AI-generated phishing emails with deceptively realistic texts. Twenty-six percent said they had been called by automated AI voices imitating human conversations. 

Another 26% agreed with the statement “I have the impression that frequent use of AI makes me think less”. In other words, AI-induced cognitive dulling – or “cognitive atrophy” – is not a figment of our imagination.

On the issue of AI-generated false images and the question “Have you ever fallen for AI-generated content such as texts, images, videos, or audio?”51% said yes. Twenty-six percent were surprised by how genuine the content appeared, while 25% said they noticed it very quickly. Thirty-two percent said they had never encountered this, and 16% said they were not sure. 

With 51% saying “yes” and another 16% unsure – together 67%, or two-thirds of all Germans – it is reasonable to argue that this is a serious problem. The arrest of Donald Trump (wishful thinking), the pope’s puffer jacket (funny), and Cambridge Analytica’s (dangerous) manipulation of democracy have already shown this.

Fittingly, Germans are worried about the use of AI to manipulate democracy. Germans see democracy and the media as being under the influence of AI. When asked about the consequences of AI – such as ChatGPT – for Germany’s media system and democracy, Germans expressed deep concern.

To the question “To what extent do you agree with the following statements?”, a whopping 91% said that AI makes it harder to distinguish between real and manipulated content. Simultaneously, 83% believe AI will massively accelerate the spread of accidental misinformation and deliberate disinformation. 

Seventy-three percent are convinced that AI negatively influences political opinion formation, while roughly half of all Germans (49%) think AI is a threat to democracy.

Many Germans are also worried about the “incalculable” risks of AI. To the question “How much do you agree with the following statements about possible opportunities and risks of generative AI?”, a staggering 97% said there are unpredictable risks associated with AI technology. 

Worse, a clear majority of almost 60% think they will lose their jobs as a result of AI. At the same time, 32% worry about losing out in AI competence. And just when one might think it cannot get worse, about half of all Germans (49%) are convinced that humanity will lose control over AI technology.

Set against this is the conviction that AI needs regulation. Germans clearly do not believe in the neoliberal myth that “the free market will fix it”. To the question on European regulation of AI, a massive 83% said regulation is necessary to responsibly manage AI development and use. 

Sixty-two percent said regulation makes them feel better protected from AI-related risks, and 47% believe regulation will promote innovation in Europe by creating clear rules and standards.

Meanwhile, 33% believe regulation will slow technological development, while 28% think it will help Europe gain competitiveness compared to the USA and China. Interestingly, 17% agreed that AI should be banned altogether.

While a ban is rather unlikely, regulation – most likely at the European level – has already occurred with the EU AI Act of August 2024.

On the question of how important specific measures are to ensure AI safety and ethical standards, a reassuring 89% said it should be mandatory for manufacturers and suppliers to indicate when AI is used in a product or application. Eighty percent said there should be mandatory safety and quality testing of AI systems by independent organizations. In other words, Germans do not want a mirage of so-called industry self-regulation.

They want independent oversight and appear not to trust Big Tech – the profit-driven and monopolistic GAFAM corporations (Google/Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook/Meta, Apple, and Microsoft) and their BATX counterparts (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Xiaomi). Among them, the “four headless horsemen of the apocalypse” – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Meta—run the show.

In the end, Germans show a hefty dose of distrust toward Big Tech and its often-promoted notion of “industry self-regulation”. Al Capone should not make gun laws. Perhaps there are good reasons why ordinary cars require regular technical inspections rather than relying on owner self-regulation. Perhaps large profit-driven corporations should be trusted even less.

Beyond that, Germans are using AI – and usage is growing. With ChatGPT dominating, Germans shifted AI use from laptops to smartphones between 2024 and 2025, with 72% using AI primarily to search for information. Meanwhile, a comforting 80% see AI as a tool, and 0% see it as a romantic partner. AI is a machine, not a girlfriend.

This is further substantiated by the fact that roughly half of Germans believe AI could be hacked and that their data are not secure. Virtually the same number have encountered fake material online, while 91% believe AI will make it harder to distinguish between what is real and what is fake.

Most troubling, however, is that 73% believe AI will negatively influence political opinion formation. Worse still, about half of all Germans think AI poses a danger to democracy.Email

avatar

Thomas Klikauer has over 800 publications (including 12 books) and writes regularly for BraveNewEurope (Western Europe), the Barricades (Eastern Europe), Buzzflash (USA), Counterpunch (USA), Countercurrents (India), Tikkun (USA), and ZNet (USA). One of his books is on Managerialism (2013).

The Kurdish Freedom Struggle Is Facing a Crucial Moment

Source: Jacobin

“I encountered patriarchy and male dominance presiding over women and life, all in conjunction with the occupation of my homeland. We all knew that the state was the root cause,” says Peyman Viyan, the female coleader of PJAK, the most prominent Kurdish revolutionary group in Iran.

I am reading her responses, which have been sent to me and translated by intermediaries from a PJAK base in the mountainous border region of eastern Iraqi Kurdistan, on the border with Iran.

Kurdistan, divided and occupied by the regional powers of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, is a nation without a state. But its various political groups have carved out a semblance of autonomy for themselves, especially in Iraq and Syria, where centralized government control has receded as both states crumbled into internal conflict.

Peyman Viyan is her nom de guerre, inspired by her comrade Viyan Peyman, a singer and sniper who died fighting ISIS at Kobane in 2015. She tells me she comes from the “small but strategic” city of Maku in northwest Iran, near the Turkish border.

“We were children when the influence of the Apoist movement and its members spread. When we became teenagers, that influence became stronger. At one point, they distributed CDs with teachings about the struggle for a life of freedom,” Viyan says. “Apo” is the affectionate name that supporters use for Abdullah Öcalan, founder of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who has been in jail on a small island near Istanbul since being captured by Turkey in 1999.

Despite his confinement, Öcalan’s influence among his Kurdish supporters and his importance to Turkish and Syrian politics have never been greater. He has become a key figure in the disarmament negotiations between Turkey and the PKK, and between the Syrian government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) who have controlled the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) since the start of Syria’s civil war.

Potential for Peace

After Öcalan’s imprisonment on İmralı island, he turned toward studying and writing, incorporating the work of American anarchist Murray Bookchin into a new theory of government tailored to the needs of the Kurds. This political philosophy, called Democratic confederalism, rejects nationalism in favor of a confederation of autonomous, democratic, and decentralized political groups. Öcalan and the Kurdish parties in Turkey then modified their separatist demands to put forward a less antagonistic call for greater autonomy.

As beloved as Öcalan is by many Kurds, he is hated by Turkish nationalists. Around forty thousand people have been killed in the conflict between Turkey and the PKK, and many Turkish families have relatives who have died fighting the PKK. Nobody is keen to return to the dark days of the 1990s, with the Turkish army demolishing Kurdish villages and frequent extrajudicial killings.

Turkey’s pursuit of a conclusive peace process with the PKK at the end of 2024 began just as the Syrian civil war was ending. Thousands of Kurdish fighters with nothing to do in Syria could easily move to Turkey or Iran to help their fellow Kurds. For its part, Turkey is looking to consolidate its military supremacy and become a key hub for energy resources from the Gulf.

The goal of peace with the Kurds is key to Turkey’s regional hegemony. This puts Öcalan in a surprisingly important position as a figurehead for Kurds in Syria and Turkey. There are suggestions he could even be invited to address the Turkish parliament.

The top general of the Kurdish-led SDF, Mazloum Abdi, says that he wants to meet with Öcalan, and that a successful PKK disarmament process would lead to peace between Turkey and Syria’s Kurds: “There is currently a ceasefire with the Turkish army here. This came about thanks to the [peace] process. If the process reaches a conclusion, the ceasefire on our side will also become permanent.” However, Öcalan has warned that if the peace process breaks down again, as it did previously in 2015, Turkey could return to the “coup mechanics” that brought down governments in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997.

Negotiations between the SDF and the post-Assad Syrian government to integrate Kurdish fighters into the Syrian army have also stalled. Al-Monitor suggests that the pause is probably meant to give Öcalan space to broker an agreement that Ankara and the SDF would both find acceptable: “But that’s a tall order.”

“The process that began in Turkey is very important,” Viyan says:

If the Turkish state resolves the Kurdish question and recognizes Kurdish identity officially, then the war in Turkey will cease, politics will change, the economy will change, foreign policy will change, and all of that will have a ripple effect on the region.

Rojhelat

The Iranian part of Kurdistan, known as Rojhelat in Kurdish, has long been a problem for the Iranian state, under both the regime of the Shah and the Islamic Republic that replaced it. It was here that the only independent Kurdish state in history existed for a year at the end of World War II. The Shah’s forces crushed the Republic of Mahabad in 1946, but its memory continues to inspire Kurds who dream of autonomy.

Estimates of the number of Kurds in Iran vary, from seven to fifteen million (which would be somewhere between 8 and 17 percent of the total Iranian population). Data is patchy because Kurds often don’t receive documentation until the age of ten, while many ethnic and religious groups are simply denied identification as a way to pressure them to convert to the state religion, Twelver Shi’ism. Outside of the three recognized minority groups — Zoroastrians, Christians, and Jews — Iran often does not recognize the marriages of religious minorities, meaning that people from groups like the Baháʼí, Yarsan, and Sunni groups like the Shafi are not counted.

Rojhelat was the home of Mahsa Amini, the young Kurdish woman who was killed by members of Iran’s Guidance Patrol after being arrested for supposed improper wearing of the hijab. Her death sparked widespread anti-government protests in 2022. The slogan that came to be associated with these protests, “Woman, Life, Freedom” (“Jin, Jiyan, Azadi” in Kurdish), was also inspired by the prison writings of Öcalan, who has said that “a country cannot be free unless the women are free.”

Iranian Kurds like Peyman Viyan hope that peace between Turkey and the PKK will force Iran to address its own Kurdish question. PJAK representatives say they are not looking for open confrontation with the Iranian state but will retaliate when attacked. Small clashes took place in 2025, with Iran killing PJAK members and PJAK retaliating by killing soldiers from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC).

In December, Iran launched a “counter-terrorism exercise” in the northwest with participants from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Launched with six members in 2001, most notably China and Russia, the SCO now comprises ten states, and Iran joined it in 2023.

According to PJAK Assembly Member Siamand Moeini, PJAK has the military capacity to take control of cities in Rojhelat, but it refrains from doing so because of the consequences that would follow for the people living there from retaliation by Iranian forces. Viyan insists that the ideas of Democratic confederalism can be applied here as well:

Whether the Iranian regime changes itself or collapses under pressure, opportunities for freedom will emerge for the peoples of Iran, the Kurds, and other ethnic groups. While the formula for the system we use is unique for Kurdistan, it can be adjusted to suit the needs and requirements of Iran.

Iran’s Kurds have been making common cause with the Baloch people, whose land is split between Iran and Pakistan, and who also dream of autonomy, although it is not clear how deep coordination with the Baloch goes. “I must be clear that our perspective is not nationalist,” Viyan insists. Democratic confederalism seeks the self-determination of all peoples, she says, and this has encouraged the trust of other peoples like the Baloch:

The Baloch are both historically and culturally close to Kurds and, in many cases, religiously closer to Sunni Kurds (given that there are also Shia Kurds in Rojhelat), and they also face similar levels of oppression by the regime. Geographically we have some distance between us. Spiritually and culturally our ties are very close.

An open fight with the IRGC is not one PJAK could win by themselves. Asked whether PJAK would accept Israeli or US help, Viyan says that “any help and assistance offered must respect our fundamental human rights and freedoms. We will not accept assistance that costs us our principles of freedom and equality.”

Iran’s access to water is a particularly important issue, with the government warning that Tehran may need to be evacuated if there is not significant rainfall in December. The Iranian authorities have even begun cloud seeding to induce rain. Viyan accuses Iran’s rulers of mismanaging the water resources of Rojhelat:

Over the decades, the Iranian regime has built thousands of kilometers of dams and underground wells, and diverted Kurdistan’s water to other cities, especially Iran’s capital and central cities. Part of this is connected to global climate change, but a large part is connected to the regime’s malicious policies and the corrupt and inept government.

Prospects

Kurds in Syria have welcomed the Turkey–PKK peace process. Hassan Mohamed Ali, the cochair of the Public Relations Office of the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), says that if it makes progress, “it will have a positive impact on us as well. This progress could reduce the Turkish threat and lessen the dangers facing Rojava and northeast Syria. The more the process advances, the better it will be for us.”

Ali believes Turkey has no choice but to seek a diplomatic solution with the PKK as it aims to position itself as a hub for energy supplies coming from Gulf states via Iraq and possibly Syria: “For these plans to succeed, there must be stability and peace in the region.”

Progress in negotiations between the SDC and Damascus has been slow, though Ali says that there were some positive developments in the latest meeting: “It was agreed that the SDF will be transformed into three integral military divisions, each maintaining its own structure and distinct formation within the government forces.”

The SDC is maintaining its demand for a more decentralized Syria. According to Aldar Khalil, a leader of the PKK’s sister party, the PYD, Syria’s interim president Ahmed Al-Sharaa “went as far as to say that he was okay with decentralization as long as we did not use that term. We could have it in practice and call it something different, he said.”

According to Ali, the US ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, has taken part in discussions between Al-Sharaa and the SDF commander Mazloum Abdi. Barrack, for his part, has said that he does not believe that decentralization is right for Syria, and that “benevolent monarchy” is what works best in the Middle East, which doesn’t bode well for the type of state the United States envisions in Syria.

The peace process is complicated by differing views of what its outcome should be. As the journalist Frederike Geerdink observes, Turkey’s governing parties AKP and MHP like to define the goal of negotiations as “a terror-free Turkey,” while DEM, a Turkish leftist party rooted in the Kurdish political movement, talk about the need for a democratic Turkey.

Berdan Öztürk, a DEM spokesperson, insists that a sustainable peace will require “the recognition, strengthening, and institutionalization of the Kurdish people’s political and cultural rights.” He adds that “concrete legal measures are needed to anchor the process on a solid and transparent foundation.”

What emerges from these conversations with Kurdish leaders is that everything now hinges on their ability — and that of Abdullah Öcalan — to reach an acceptable deal first with Turkey, and then with Syria. Peyman Viyan is optimistic that the ongoing processes of negotiation with Öcalan and the SDF will lead to greater freedom for Kurds throughout the Middle East: “Our motto for fifty years has been: either victory or victory. We see that victory is near now. With the hope of a liberated future.”



Source: Counter Punch

In Italy, the bell that signals the start of the school day has recently sounded like a call to arms—not for war, but against it.

While the Italian government actively supports the geopolitical machinery enabling the genocide in Gaza, a different kind of politics is being forged in the corridors of the nation’s historic licei (high schools). From Milan to Palermo, a wave of student occupations has swept the country, reviving a deeply rooted tradition of resistance. But this time, the banners hanging from the windows don’t just demand better school funding; they demand an end to the slaughter of Palestinians and a reckoning with the West’s complicity.

The Tradition of Occupation

To understand the gravity of this moment, one must understand the unique DNA of Italian student activism. Since the “Hot Autumn” of 1969 and the movements of 1977, the occupazione has been a rite of passage. It is not merely a strike; it is an act of reclaiming space. Students physically take over their schools, sleeping in gymnasiums, replacing state-mandated curriculum with self-organized debates, and turning the institution into a fortress of political thought.

Today, that fortress is flying the Palestinian flag.

Photograph by Michael Leonardi

Inside the Fortress: A Visit to Occupied Tasso

To understand the heart of this movement, one must go inside. Lara greeted me at the heavy wooden doors of the Liceo Tasso in Rome, one of the capital’s most prestigious and historic high schools. She guided me past the barricades—walls constructed from piled school desks and chairs, a physical rejection of business as usual—to introduce me to the protagonists of this uprising.

In the occupied halls, I met Salvatore, Maria, Enrico, and Marcos, the coordinators of the student committees from both Tasso and the nearby Liceo Righi. These are not the “mindless vandals” described by the right-wing press; they are articulate, fierce, and politically sophisticated.

“The government is in direct violation of the Italian Constitution,” Salvatore told me, his voice cutting through the noise of the assembly. “Article 11 states that Italy repudiates war, yet our government is a servant to the war economy, funneling arms and diplomatic cover to a genocidal regime in Gaza. They do not represent the people; they represent the defense contractors.”

Maria expanded on the intersectionality of their struggle. “You cannot separate Gaza from the class war happening here,” she explained. “The same system that enforces class stratification in Italy and ignores the climate catastrophe—the same system we fight on Fridays for Future—is the system dropping bombs on Palestine. It is a singular machinery of oppression.”

Photograph by Michael Leonardi

The Rejection of Mainstream Lies

What became clear in speaking with Enrico and Marcos is that the state has lost its ability to control the narrative. The students possess a sophisticated understanding of Zionism, viewing it not through the lens of European guilt, but through the clear reality of settler-colonialism.

“We don’t get our news from the mainstream media anymore,” Enrico said, dismissing the pile of establishment newspapers and mainstream TV outlets. “We know they serve the criminal war economy and the power structure. We see the reality on the ground in Gaza through direct sources. We know that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, despite how desperate the Zionist forces are to weaponize that charge to silence us.”

Lola Serrante of Liceo Righi, a 16-year-old student activist, offered a searing diagnosis of this democratic failure in a written reflection. “Although on paper ours remains a democracy,” she writes, “the representatives of this country omit their own faults… weighing their words to confuse, cover up, and once again look away.” She concludes with a defiance that characterizes her generation: “We will not let ourselves be intimidated: we will remain on the right side of history and, if necessary, on the right side of the barricade.”

Photograph by Michael Leonardi

Teachers Breaking the Silence: The Example of Liceo Plinio

Crucially, the students are not alone. In a quiet but powerful act of defiance, a growing number of teachers are refusing to be neutral. Defying the chilling effect of Ministry circulars, educators are turning their classrooms into spaces of critical inquiry.

A prime example occurred at the Liceo Plinio, where teachers and students organized “Palestine Days” together. They transformed the school into a center for truth, inviting representatives of the Palestinian community, human rights lawyers, journalists, and participants from the Global Sumud Flotilla to speak about the reality of the occupation.

When critics in the community complained that these assemblies were “one-sided” and “biased,” activist and film director Michela Occhipinti, who participated in the events, delivered a devastating rebuttal: “Inviting a Zionist perspective would be like inviting a Nazi perspective during the Holocaust.”

Photograph by Michael Leonardi

Direct Action and the State’s Panic

This refusal to be silenced spilled into the streets of Torino during the last countrywide General Strike on the 28th of November. Students broke into the headquarters of a national newspaper called La Stampa, spray-painting slogans against the “media escort” of the genocid, for Palestinian liberation and for the freedom of a Muslim Imam who has lived in Italy for over 20 years. Mohamed Shahin has been threathened with extradition from the country by the Meloni government for having said that “October 7th was an act of resistance”. They called out the Italian press for whitewashing Israeli crimes. While President Mattarella and the media unanimously labeled them “violent criminals,” the students see themselves as truth-tellers exposing the complicity of the state and media establishment.

The state’s fear is palpable. While Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, spoke via video feed to student assemblies in recent weeks, the reaction from the Meloni government has been repressive. Giuseppe Valditara, the neofascist Minister of Education, has launched an investigation into the schools that hosted her. The government is terrified that students are learning the legal framework of genocide from a UN expert rather than accepting the propaganda of the state.

Photograph by Michael Leonardi

A New Resistance

The students I met—Lara, Salvatore, Maria, Enrico, Marcos and Lola —cite the Global Sumud Flotilla as a major inspiration. They see themselves as the “motor” of the movement together with, Palestinains of the diaspora, the port workers from Genova and grassroots unions like USB — the energy that drives the general strikes and the national marches.

Walking back out past the barricades of Liceo Tasso, it becomes clear that the media has it wrong. These are not naive kids. They are the moral conscience of a nation that has lost its way. They understand that when the state is complicit in genocide, the only honorable place to be is in the resistance.