Germany bans extremist movement and arrests self-declared 'king' Peter
A self-declared "king" of Germany and three of his senior "subjects" have been arrested and their group banned for attempting to overthrow the state.Peter Fitzek, 59, was among those arrested in morning raids across seven states on Tuesday, which involved about 800 security personnel.The government banned their group, the Reichsbürger, or "citizens of the Reich", which seeks to establish the Königreich Deutschland, or "Kingdom of Germany".Alexander Dobrindt, German's interior minister, accused the group of attempting to "undermine the rule of law" by creating an alternative state and spreading "antisemitic conspiracy narratives to back up their supposed claim to authority".
His ministry announced the dissolution of the group, and accused it financing itself through "economic criminal structures".Fitzek, a former chef and karate instructor, calls himself "king" and identified himself to judges as "Peter the First" in a previous court case. He had himself crowned in 2012 while dressed in ermine robes and brandishing a medieval sword. Since then he has been buying land and property across Germany. Reichsbürgers have their own currency, flag and ID cards, and want to set up separate banking and health systems. Fitzek claims to have thousands of followers - or "subjects".In an interview with the BBC in 2022 he denied having any violent intentions, but also described the German state as "destructive and sick". "I have no interest in being part of this fascist and satanic system," he told the BBC's Jenny Hill, when she visited his "kingdom" in eastern Germany. Fitzek has repeatedly clashed with the authorities and refused to abide by German laws, often in what appears to be in a publicity-seeking manner.
He has previously been jailed for repeatedly driving without a licence, following a decision to hand his back in a symbolic rejection of the law. At the end of one trial session, Fitzek was seen getting into his car in front of the court and driving off.Fitzek is one of around 25,000 Reichsbürger in Germany. Numbers have been growing over the last few years.Many are right-wing extremists who peddle racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories. They refuse to recognise the authority of security forces and many possess illegal arms, which has led to shoot-outs with police. Officials say that around 2,500 are potentially violent and that 1,350 are classed as right-wing extremists.In 2022 dozens of people were arrested, many of them Reichsbürger, for plotting to overthrow the German government in Berlin. They were accused of planning a violent coup, which included kidnapping the health minister, to create "civil war conditions" to bring down German democracy.In the past, Reichsbürger were often dismissed as eccentric cranks because of their outlandish ideas.But as the far right has grown in strength politically in Germany over the last decade, officials now see them as a serious threat.The federal prosecutor's office in Karlsruhe said Fitzek was arrested along with three other suspected ringleaders of the group, which it classified as a criminal organisation.As the "so-called supreme sovereign", Fitzek had "control and decision-making power in all key areas", the office said."The 'Kingdom of Germany' considers itself a sovereign state within the meaning of international law and strives to extend its claimed 'national territory' to the borders of the German Empire of 1871," it added in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Geert Wilders collapsed the Dutch government. He wanted power, but had no idea how to govern
Earlier this month, Geert Wilders decided he had had enough. 'No signature for our asylum plans. No changes to the coalition agreement. The PVV is leaving the coalition,' he posted on X. After 11 months, he was withdrawing support for the Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof's rightwing cabinet, forcing the Netherlands back to the polls. The decision put an end to Wilders' far-right Freedom party's (PVV) first spell in power. Following an unexpected victory in the 2023 elections, the PVV joined a government for the first time in its 18-year history – alongside the conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the centrist New Social Contract (NSC), and the agrarian-populist Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB) – although Wilders's coalition partners did not let him become prime minister. But the promise to drastically reduce immigration and implement a strict asylum policy proved difficult to deliver due to numerous constitutional and legal restrictions. The Netherlands now faces a familiar question: What is the 61-year-old politician trying to achieve – and how? Looking solely at his political platform, the answer seems relatively clear. With its emphasis on immigration, national identity, sovereignty, more direct democracy and stricter law enforcement, the PVV is a fairly typical radical rightwing populist party. In the European parliament, the PVV belongs to the Patriots for Europe group, alongside Marine Le Pen's National Rally, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz and Matteo Salvini's League. Within that circle, Wilders is one of the most prominent and pioneering ideologues, introducing a highly alarmist caricature of Islam as a totalitarian ideology of conquest. 'Walk the streets of western Europe today … and you will often see something resembling a medieval Arab city, full of headscarves and burqas … Mass immigration is rapidly changing our culture and identity. Islam is rising, and I do not want Islam to rise! Islam and freedom are incompatible,' he proclaimed in his keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest in May. In Wilders' worldview, Israel is the primary defender of western freedom against Islam and therefore deserves unconditional support. 'If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Paris, or Amsterdam are next,' he said in the Dutch parliament last week. 'Western mothers can sleep peacefully because the mothers of Israeli soldiers lie awake.' Wilders' anti-Islam crusade soon clashed with the Dutch constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. To join the coalition, he put his most extreme positions 'in the freezer', as he described it – including a ban on the Qur'an and the closure of all mosques. Instead, he focused on curbing asylum migration from Muslim countries, repatriating Syrians and supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank (he consistently refers to the latter as Judea and Samaria). Yet, even in these areas, he faced setbacks. Under pressure from parliament and public opinion, the Dutch foreign minister, Caspar Veldkamp, has recently adopted a slightly more critical stance toward the Israeli government – much to Wilders' displeasure. In justifying the fall of his cabinet, Wilders mainly blamed resistance from his coalition partners, the bureaucracy, the courts and the media. But the truth is, he also has himself to blame. Nearly 20 years after its launch in February 2006, the PVV is still hardly a political party in the conventional sense. Exploiting a loophole in Dutch electoral law, Wilders chose not to allow any formal members into his party. As a result, neither PVV ministers nor parliamentarians are actual members of the party. Ultimately, he has failed to build and lead a professional political organisation that is capable of governing. Wilders adopted his party's unusual structure partly out of fear of attracting opportunists and troublemakers. But according to many observers, he is also a deeply suspicious and solitary figure by nature, someone who prefers total control and avoids consultation. His permanent security detail, a result of a fatwa, has likely reinforced these traits and made it even harder to establish a party structure. 'If I wanted to speak to a candidate, it had to happen in a hidden hotel, on the sixth floor, with six policemen in front of my bedroom door,' he once claimed in an interview. As a result, the PVV remains entirely dependent on Wilders' personal political instincts. While parties such as National Rally, League and Fidesz have large organisations with tens of thousands of members, local chapters, professional offices and well-funded campaign machines, the PVV is little more than Wilders' small, tightly controlled entourage. When he wants to change direction, there is no party congress or critical internal faction he has to convince. This is an undeniable advantage in today's volatile political landscape, but its cost is high. First, the PVV remains poor. In the Netherlands, only parties with more than 1,000 members qualify for state subsidies. The impact of this underfunding is evident in its amateurish election campaigns, low-quality videos, clumsy communication and a lack of skilled personnel. Second, the party operates in near total opacity. Its hierarchy, finances and candidate selection process are a mystery not only to outsiders – politicians, journalists, lobbyists – but even to its own supporters. As a result, many potential candidates and volunteers shy away. Who is willing to risk their reputation for a career in such a controversial and opaque organisation? Who dares to become a minister or junior minister for a party that revolves entirely around the unpredictable whims of one man? When Wilders was required to nominate ministers, he discovered he had no capable candidates with administrative experience, an understanding of the Dutch political system or knowledge of the constitution. He had never invested in training his own people or building a network of future administrators. In desperation, he appointed a few loyal early followers such as Marjolein Faber as minister for asylum and immigration; she subsequently got herself embroiled in a scandal for refusing to sign off on royal honours for individuals who volunteered to help asylum seekers and falsely stating that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not democratically elected (she retracted her words). Other PVV ministers also stood out mainly because of their blunders and incompetence. After the cabinet's collapse, his party's ministers seemed almost relieved when speaking to the press. They had been cast in roles they couldn't fulfil and never truly wanted. Wilders claims he wants to become prime minister after the next elections. But does he truly mean it? There is little evidence that he is taking the country's governance more seriously. After the failed experiment of the past months, future coalition partners will also take this aspect into account – this week the VVD ruled out entering another coalition this with this 'unbelievably untrustworthy partner'. It seems that Wilders, the solitary ideologue, is really more interested in opposition, where the burdens of responsibility are far lighter. Koen Vossen is a political historian and the author of The Power of Populism: Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
The World Tonight Will voters feel better off from Chancellor's spending plans?
What would you do with a trillion pounds of public money over the next four years? The Chancellor says "renewing Britain" is at the heart of her plans. So when will voters start to feel better off? We ask a Treasury Minister. Also on the programme: After the US Ambassador to Israel told us that Muslim countries should give up their land to create a Palestinian state - we get reaction from a senior Palestinian official. And one of the most influential figures in the history of pop music, Brian Wilson - the creative genius behind the Beach Boys - has died. The veteran DJ Bob Harris - who knew him for more than five decades - pays tribute.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
ANDREW NEIL: Starmer's claim to be 'investing in Britain's renewal' is delusional drivel in a class of its own - even for a Government that's a stranger to the truth
Our first job was to stabilise the economy and public finances,' Keir Starmer tweeted yesterday morning, a few hours before Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered Labour's spending plans for the rest of the decade. 'Now, we move into a new chapter . . . we're investing in Britain's renewal.'
