Germany - Deutschland, but in EnglishI have to add some context here: The song was supposed to be embedded in a show discussing the AfD, the chances of effecting a ban on the AfD, and why nobody had effected such a ban yet.
There is a lot of ad hominem shouting I could do about Danger Dan, but let's focus on the song:
As a song proposing how to fight open neo-Nazism in the streets like in the 90's it's pretty good. As a song proposing how to handle the AfD... - it's borderline lunatic. You can't dox and beat up ¼ of the voting population. It has nothing to say about how the AfD present only the most extreme form of the racist, militarist, anti-working-class politics that have shaped Germany for years and years.
So it kind of missed the point of the show and is also musically basic as fuck.
Hitler was just a far right activist
If only
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Mayr
Streisand Effect goes brrr
The performance was canceled at the last minute due to its message.
Straight up absurd
Was mich am song etwas nervt ist, dass sichere Geräte, Messenger und Flugmodus nicht erwähnt werden.
Und dann aber Kanäle bei Telegram??
Sind halt so klassische Tips von Leuten die von Technik nicht viel verstehen. Also hier nochmal
- Pixel mit GrapheneOS. Keine iPhones, keine Google-Androids, auch eher keinem LineageOS, /e/OS etc. vertrauen. CalyxOS eventuell, iodeOS ist auch okay.
- Flugmodus an, bluetooth und wifi aus wenn man draußen ist. Das geht nur auf open source Androids sicher, iOS macht das auch nicht zuverlässig
- als Messenger: Molly mit Usernames, SimpleX
- sichere VPNs verwenden, Tipps von PrivacyGuides. ZB MullvadVPN oder IVPN
- keine SMS, normale Telefonanrufe, nicht open source E2EE messenger
- metadaten von bildern entfernen und sie komprimieren. ZB einfach mit Signal, oder Imagepipe oder ScrambledExif. Erst dann teilen!
- Alles was im Netz passiert hinterlässt Spuren.
- Warum sollte man das Gerät dann überhaupt mitnehmen, wenn man es auf Flugmodus schalte? Und dadurch riskieren, dass es einkassiert wird, denn...
- ...PINs sind leicht zu knacken und biometrische Entsperrung darf erzwungen werden.
- E2EE ist genau dann nutzlos, wenn die Ermittlungsbehörden, das Endgerät haben.
Die Beschreibungen aus dem Song (keine Messenger, keine Fotos, keine Handys mitnehmen, ...) sind für rechtliche Grenzfälle deutlich risikoärmer, als alles andere.
Das Handy kann trotz Flugmodus geortet werden. Um das zu verhindern muss GPS auch ausgeschaltet sein. Noch besser ist es, das Handy eingeschaltet zuhause zu lassen, wenn man konspirativ unterwegs ist.
Exakt dies. Heute wird häufig angenommen: "Telefonstandort = Personenstandort". Telefon dalassen kann also sogar ein Alibi verstärken, wenn eine Funkzellenabfrage erfolgt und rauskommt: Das Gerät der Zielperson war tatsächlich am Wohnort.
Vielen Danke für deinen Beitrag.
Leider ist einer der Gründer von Mullvad ein Unterstützer einer schwedischen Partei die sich für Re-Emigration einsetzen: https://korben.info/en/mullvad-cofounder-funding-far-right.html
Also eher nicht die richtige Wahl für Antifa und Unterstützer.
Re-Emigration
Können wir bitte aufhören, Nazi-Euphemismen zu normalisieren? Das heißt immer noch Verschleppung.
(Er meine Fake-Accounts bei Telegramm zum Informationserhalt)
- Was ist der Unterschied zwischen iodeOS und lineageOS? Iode ist doch von lineage geforked - gibt es da Sachen die iode bedeutsam besser macht?
- Ich hab gute Sachen über SimleX gehört, aber Signal wird weitaus breiter benutzt und sollte genügen, oder?
Der Flugmodus ist eine gute Idee! Ich bin kein Security-Experte: Ich wollte so nur erfragen ob&wo ich falsch liege.
iodéOS hat zumindest einen eingebauten Trackerblocker/Firewall, die (anders als 3rd party-Blocker wie TrackerControl) nicht deinen VPN-Slot belegen.
The revolution will not be televised.
I'd actually say, watch on YouTube and Spotify to boost it up in their algorithms.
Yeah that's a good point for the first couple of playbacks I'd say. If, on the other hand, someone finds themselves listening to the song again and again, better not send that signal to Google.
Yeah Peertube is just load on their servers. But will save the channel in Grayjay!
Crazy the video is there in 2K, if the guy wants that XD the audio is the worse quality one in AAC instead of opus.
Youtube is kinda cool in that it has high quality OPUS audio.
The video on Youtube Keine Angst
Lyrics in English by bilingual people on Genius.
ty!
You can accuse them of many things / But not that we don’t know what they have in store for us
And history has already shown us / It gets even worse if you do nothing and stay silent
Don’t be afraid, take matters into your own hands / They look dangerous, but we’ll take them down
Coordinate with each other, start training / If you fight together, it can work
See now that's just wholesome.
What people are gonna miss is this was the intended outcome:
The song offers a step-by-step guide on how to organize local, leaderless structures aimed at countering far-right movements. It advocates strict operational security, such as avoiding digital footprints and relying on face-to-face communication. It also describes tactics for investigating political opponents and publicizing their identities and affiliations, a practice often referred to as "outing" or doxing.
The lyrics also include references to militant action and express solidarity with individuals who have been found guilty of leading violent attacks on neo-Nazis.
ZDF director Norbert Himmler said he stood by the decision to cancel the performance: "In my view, the lyrics unquestionably provide instructions for a leftist resistance willing to use violence," he told the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung.
They absolutely shouldn't have allowed the song to be aired, that's why the creators wanted to air the song, and submitted the lyrics months ahead.
Either the plug gets pulled early or late minute, someone was going to pull the plug once the people in power realized what was going thru common procedure. Doing it this way highlights both how ineffective procedural opppsition is, but also how to twist it to their advantage.
At the same time, he admitted that his station should have handled the case differently: "We can be faulted for the last-minute cancellation," he said, adding, "We should have asked ourselves basic questions earlier — ideally before inviting the artists."
Eight members of the ZDF Television Council have criticized the broadcaster over the cancellation. In an open letter published on Monday by the online outlet netzpolitik.org, the council members argued that ZDF missed an opportunity to spark a debate about right-wing extremism in Germany and the various ways to combat it.
They not only got their discussion raised, they gave the agency that should be keeping an eye on this shit a giant black eye that they're not doing their jobs properly.
ZDF director Norbert Himmler said he stood by the decision to cancel the performance: “In my view, the lyrics unquestionably provide instructions for a leftist resistance willing to use violence,”
One might argue, that he did the perfect thing at the perfect time to maximize the impact of this song, I'd wager even maximizing it more than a simple airing at something past ten in the night would have done. That man is not stupid and he knows how media works, that's why he's where he is. He saved face, he took the ZDF out of the legal and conservative line of fire and looking at the result, well, chapeau, almost.
unquestionably provide instructions for a leftist resistance willing to use violence
Exactly its resistance. Violent resistance to fascism is morally correct. Dude basically admitted that resisting fascism is against his ideals.
Also it definitely should have been aired. There are lots of songs out there describing much worse things that get aired without issue. Art is not legal advice and lyrics dont have to only contain things that are legal. And they werent planning to air it without comment, but with loads of context and discussion.
ZDF, the same broadcaster, literally aired his previous hit where he called for militancy against fascists, with a indirect death threat against a named fascists as an easter egg...
That is not what's happening....
Like, before you think the lyrics should be allowed for broadcast, go and look at them.
The lyrics were intentionally written to violate laws and everyone knew they would eventually be told not to play it. There was no scenario this song aired on TV.
It'd be like playing an American classic like "make crack like this" except "how to make and plant bombs".
To highlight that if someone makes the type of "song" but for the right, it most likely wouldn't get caught in time thru normal means to stop it from being broadcast.
Which is a very pertinent issue today in Germany with all the far right shit.
The system cant play whack amole thru the gish gallop, it's trying and it's fucking failing.
So this shoves it in everyone's face in a weird way that everyone regardless of stance says:
Maybe violent rhetoric is out of hand...
It reminds the right they're not the only ones who can act violent.
It gives the far right the same vibes as seeing Malcom X and 500 Black Panthers with AR15s march past Ronald Reagan.
But in a way that not a single law or even regulation was actually violated.
That's German humor. Making somebody look like an idiot but also be forced to agree with you on the larger point.
The lyrics were intentionally written to violate laws and everyone knew they would eventually be told not to play it.
There is nothing in that song that actually is illegal. Even the ZDF (broadcaster who denied the song being aired) never claimed so. They just said a vague "its a call for violence", which it might be, but artistic freedom allows for such things in Germany, as has the artists previously shown when he performed his other grey area song on... you guessed it ... the ZDF
before you think the lyrics should be allowed for broadcast, go and look at them
Motherfucker ive been banging this song on full volume on my speakers since it came out. I know whats in there and i know that its good advice for how to deal with nazis in your neighbourhood. Track them, record them, get into their circles, archive everything, contact their employers and landlords. Make it so they dont feel safe openly being nazis. Make sure you can defend yourself if you get caught.
But i also know that putting all that into a song is perfectly legal.
I don't know where you're getting this from. It's certainly not true that this was intended, ZDF pulled the plug extremely late, or rather, one single person did after it was already explicitly greenlit (which has some serious implications for corruption too)
Framed differently: If he wanted to Streisand it, he nailed it.
The other comment alleges that this may have been intentional: Feign incompetence for plausible deniability while precisely timing the pull for maximum effect.
They absolutely shouldn’t have allowed the song to be aired
Why?
They constantly air things where violence is a key part of the content, they show movies & shows where people do questionable things, air comedians that joke about rape and in general have a wide variety of content. How come an artistic piece such a song, being featured in an satire program, is somehow not allowable when those other things are?
Typical Himmler.
The artists are German rapper Danger Dan and pianist Igor Levitt if you want to look them up.
Having to rely on my browser's translation, I didn't notice anything I'd consider more than mildly troublesome. Am I missing something?
The "worst" part was saying people that are concerned should be finding out who supports right wing extremism and out them and it warned don't be surprised if the cops pay you a visit just for talking about getting organized in a defensive manner.
The whole was done in a calm tone, and I feel any political punk song is way more "inciting." Does any of that type of music draw negative attention in Germany?
There was a legal analysis in a major newspaper the other day. Some potential issues that it considered were: public incitement of criminal acts (violence, doxing, property damage), incitement of hatred, endorsement of criminal acts (shout-out to convicted left-wing extremists).
The analysis weighed these issues against artistic freedom. The conclusion was uncertain but emphasized that (a) the artist's simplistic assertion that all is "covered by artistic freedom" does not hold in this general manner and (b) that most of the potential issues are in a grey area and can still be seen as protected by artistic freedom, depending on how one interprets the piece overall and some legal constructs (e.g., whether neo-Nazis are a "group of people" in the sense of anti-hate laws). The clearest issue they identified was the one about property damage (graffiti) and with less certainty the one about incitement of hatred.
For the German speakers, I am posting the link to the article, but it's paywalled: https://www.zeit.de/feuilleton/2026-07/keine-angst-danger-dan-igor-levit-recht-kunstfreiheit-antifaschismus
Personally, most issues I would consider to be (still) covered by artistic freedom. But it's a slippery slope (What if this was a right-wing song?), and I also kind of understand why the TV station decided to back out, although I agree they could have done that differently.
Thank you for the article link! I was able to get the core concepts of the article, though reading a computer translation of a legal system I'm not familiar with surely had me missing a bit of nuance.
I agree with the author's points at the end, that ZDF is not required to platform people they aren't comfortable with. I don't know who ZDF is, who owns them, or if they ownership normally leans one direction politically or another, but I think it's fair if they didn't want to air the song. Basically, their station, their rules. They didn't do anything to try and stop the artist from releasing it on his own, and they didn't seem to even speak against the actual content of the song that I have seen, they just didn't want to be the ones broadcasting it, and I think that is fair.
I can't speak to if anything they said is illegal, since I'm not familiar with German laws, the author listed what laws where the ones in question and seemed to objectively conclude the lyrics fell into legal grey area since all art if of a subjective nature and people will find different meanings from the same art or the same words.
The part about determining who is a protected group was the real interesting part for me. We struggle here in America as well with who is protected and where one groups protections start to interfere with those of another group. I think it's helpful to see the parallels and differences in how other nations deal with similar circumstances. To a point I can support that anyone should be allowed to believe any idiotic thing they wish, even if it is something very crass. The line between violence and self defense can get very blurry once groups start to gain significant numbers and power. I won't claim to know very much about the AfD or the current state of fascist support in Germany, but from the bits I do read and the poll numbers indicating support for certain things, it doesn't sound too different from the situation with the MAGA Republicans and the fascist and racist movements receiving what looks like preferential treatment while groups they are opposed to seem to receive much more scrutiny.
Hearing Germany debate if neo-Nazis can be considered a protected group is pretty mind-blowing, but the author at least had me understand a little bit how that is even allowed to be discussed. My main concern is when and how is an individual or group in our respective legal systems allowed to preemptively protect themselves? Is someone publicly wearing fascists symbolism on their clothing a serious and immediate threat to someone that is a traditional target of fascist violence? I think any rational person can say it is objectively good that it's illegal to hit someone randomly with a hammer. I think it's also rational to say hitting someone with a hammer to protect your life should be acceptable. But when does a threat become a danger? When does hitting someone with an object switch back from being for the removal of a threat and into violence? Does one have to let a fascist cause them physical harm before they can retaliate? How is that fair to the victim? Looking the other direction, does carrying a hammer in anticipation of coming across a threatening person become a form of looking for trouble or does it go from protecting to one's self to political violence after a certain number of hits? These points, like the interpretation of the song, are all subjective and easy to disagree on, but with the law, they need to eventually be codified. How governments wind up consistently siding can either ease or exacerbate the violence and the direction it comes from.
Overall, this just seems like an indicator of a larger underlying problem for Germany, similar to much I see going on in my country. It's getting scary to see the same things playing out in so much of the world, especially in countries most of us have typically considered "the good ones" for a long time.
I don't know who ZDF is, who owns them, or if they ownership normally leans one direction politically or another
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZDF
It's a public broadcaster, non-profit, sustained partially by federal funds from mandatory broadcast fees each household has to pay. That means it's supposed to be neutral, but obviously full neutrality is difficult.
Still, given the episode the songs was supposed to appear on was about political radicalisation and defensible democracy, and given they had no issue with most of the song except the part that might make them look like they're advocating for political violence, I think it's fair to say that they don't inherently lean right.
Lol why didn't I think of that! 🤪
So ZDF is a public broadcaster, and was the center-right CDU/CSU spinoff of the center-left SPD leaning ARD, but everything current I can find says laws have made both as impartial as possible now?
When looking to see if there was a consensus or not as to if ARD/ZDF has any bias today, it sounded like they are both as reasonably as possible neutral. I did find an English article discussing things related to how Germans see these 2 stations today and the ongoing difficulties neutral broadcasters are having in covering left and right wing movements.
One of the most persistent points of contention involves the reporting on decentralized political movements, most notably “Antifa” (short for anti-fascist). The debate here is not about whether these groups exist, but how they are characterized in news reports. Critics argue that public broadcasters often use descriptive language that legitimizes the movement’s goals while downplaying or omitting instances of political violence associated with these groups.
The core of the accusation is that by framing Antifa primarily as a movement fighting fascism, the broadcasters adopt the movement’s own self-definition rather than applying a neutral, external analysis of its methods. This perceived leniency is often contrasted with the reporting on right-wing movements, which critics claim are subjected to much harsher scrutiny and more frequent labeling as “extremist.”
Broadcasters, conversely, defend their approach by stating that they report on the stated intentions of the participants and that any illegal acts are reported as they occur. They argue that the term “Antifa” is not a single organization with a central headquarters, but a broad ideological label, making it difficult to apply a uniform “organizational” critique in the same way one might with a registered political party.
And they also had a nice section relating thing to our public broadcasting in the US, so that nicely confirmed I seem to be reading things accurately in how similar events are testing our trust in public media.
Germany’s struggle is a microcosm of a larger global trend. Across the West, public broadcasters are facing a crisis of identity. The rise of social media has democratized information but has also destroyed the “shared reality” that public broadcasters were designed to maintain. When everyone has their own curated feed of news, the concept of a “neutral center” becomes almost impossible to define.
n the UK, the BBC has faced similar accusations of bias from both the left and the right, particularly during and after the Brexit referendum. In the US, while there is no direct equivalent to the ARD/ZDF system, the funding battles over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) reflect the same political weaponization of media funding.
The challenge for ARD and ZDF is to prove their value in a world where “neutrality” is often interpreted as “bias” by whoever feels the reporting doesn’t align with their worldview. For these institutions to survive and remain relevant, they must not only adhere to the letter of the Medienstaatsvertrag but also demonstrate a visible commitment to intellectual diversity in their hiring and editorial processes.
Longtime public broadcasting fans here seem annoyed at NPR (public radio) and PBS (public television) has given more time promoting pro-MAGA viewpoints after the right in the first Trump term threatened their funding, and the right still calls them hardcore leftists, when they were center-left at best in my opinion. It sounds like Germany does things a bit better by the fees for the media go directly to the broadcasters from what I gathered. That keeps away the influence we have where the broadcasters have to get the money approved by our government.
Thanks to all of you who've replied to me so far! I never expected to learn so much from this and be able to relate it to my experiences so readily.
If I‘m not mistaken, those are the lines the ZDF didn’t want to broadcast.
Also plant immer mit der Konfrontation
Habt Überraschung'n dabei, wenn sie komm'n
Be always prepared for nazi attacks, have „surprises“ ready if they appear.
Ist eh klar, was zu tun ist, ich sag' nix mehr dazu
Liebe Grüße an Lina, Gucci, Maja und Nanuk
It’s obvious, what you got to do, greetings to (those four are on trial for attacking Nazis in Budapest) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_left-wing_extremism_trial
Ah, no wonder I missed it. Here in MAGAland our government is making bolder threats to its own citizenry than saying they have "surprises" for us that don't agree with them! Our media in general has been pretty graphically violent my whole life. I know many Europeans tease us that we can depict so much graphic violence but can't handle mild nudity.
Thanks for filling me in on the names also. It seems left extremism is globably clamped down on harder than right extremism. I think of so-called eco-terrorists that get punished more harshly than corporate and industrial polluters that hurt and kill many times more people.
An individual in Connewitz, Leipzig, named Tobias N. was attacked with hammers and suffered a broken skull, the treatment of which required surgery and metal plates. He was wearing a hat with far-right symbolism. He later claimed that he was no longer active in the far-right scene, and that the hat was an old part of his wardrobe.
German fashion police are no joke! 😆
No, they were concerned about the shoutout in the end "Grüße gehen raus an Maja, Lina, Gucci und Nanuk", who are those guys.
Still stupid, but that was the core of the whole 'scandal'
That makes the most sense. Another reply had shared that wiki article, so now I get it better. It sounds like if one of the musical guests on Saturday Night Live planned to give a shout out to Luigi Mangione here.
https://open.spotify.com/track/3s85SlGYWyADLRxE7IIr8s
