Editor's note: Last weekend, a 21-year-old German man and IS sympathiser carried out a suspected Islamist terrorist attack on Christopher Street Day in Berlin. Against the backdrop of these terrible events, we are today publishing an investigation into the topic of radicalisation that was completed several weeks ago
This text was written independently of, and prior to, the attack in Berlin, and makes no direct reference to the events of the weekend. Nevertheless, we have decided to publish it at this particular time. It offers an in-depth, psychologically grounded analysis of how radicalisation processes – particularly amongst young people – unfold, how social media acts as a catalyst, and what preventative measures parents can take.
It often starts off innocently enough. A video about love for one's homeland, a clip about social injustices, a comments section full of like-minded voices. The algorithm in the background analyses what grabs your attention, what captivates you – and delivers more of the same, and in an even more extreme form.
What begins as youthful curiosity can gradually solidify into a firm worldview. Views become more extreme and radical, and at some point, completely opposing values clash around the family dinner table.
The figures confirm what is evident in everyday life on social media: in many countries, the number of minors becoming radicalised is on the rise. The MOTRA Monitor is a comprehensive annual academic report that examines current radicalisation trends and extremist tendencies in Germany.
The internet – and, in particular, the algorithms used by social media platforms – acts as a powerful amplifier.
MOTRA stands for «Monitoring System and Transfer Platform for Radicalisation». This very monitor shows that openness to far-right ideologies has risen from 21.8 per cent (2021) to 29.6 per cent (2025) – with a particularly sharp increase among younger age groups.
This trend is also evident in Switzerland. The Federal Intelligence Service (FIS) states: «In Switzerland, there has been a noticeable increase in the radicalisation of minors, particularly in the context of jihadism, but also in relation to violent right-wing extremism. This radicalisation takes place online, within a short space of time, and can lead to the commission of a terrorist attack.»
Not a new phenomenon – just a new platform
But anyone who thinks this is a problem of our time is mistaken. As early as around a hundred years ago, so-called «youth hiking clubs» emerged in Germany that combined far-right ideology with a love of nature and one's homeland. They specifically targeted insecure young people, offering simple explanations for a frightening world – the financial crisis, industrialisation, post-war poverty – and created a sense of belonging where there was a lack of direction.
Kaspar Padel has been supporting people who are on the path to radicalisation – or who are already deeply involved in it – for many years. As an expert at the City of Bern's Centre for Radicalisation and Violence Prevention, he advises those affected, their families and professionals.
These ideologies offer simple answers in a complex world. At first, this feels like a liberation to the young people affected.
Kaspar Padel, violence prevention expert
He traces the historical thread right up to the present day: «Groups such as ‹Junge Tat› deliberately draw on a love of nature, a love of one's homeland and a sense of belonging – much as was the case during the early days of National Socialism, when the idyllic ‹Wanderjugend› movement was used as a counterpoint to the frightening process of industrialisation.» The pattern is the same. Only the platform has changed.
«Junge Tat» is a vivid example of how recruitment works today: the initial approach begins online – with nature videos, a sense of belonging, and images of community – and is then, in a second step, transferred to the real world: hikes, camps and face-to-face encounters. The objective is the same as it used to be. However, technological advances are increasing the reach of these efforts and ensnaring young people even more insidiously – often without their parents even realising it.
The catalyst: algorithm and echo chamber
The internet – and in particular the algorithms used by social media platforms – acts as a powerful amplifier. Once people start consuming such content, they may find themselves drawn into an echo chamber where alternative views are discredited and negative stereotypes are reinforced.
The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution describes this mechanism precisely: in addition to the consumption of propaganda on Instagram or TikTok, relevant digital echo chambers in the form of chat groups and forums are of great significance. They act as «catalysts for radicalisation» and can mobilise individuals to carry out extremist attacks within a short space of time.
On the internet, there are far-right chat groups, some with several thousand members, in which extreme fantasies of violence, calls for torture and murder, and ideas of terrorist overthrow are shared. In some forums, attackers are celebrated as «Saints». This was also the case with the Australian Brenton Tarrant, who murdered 51 people in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.
The fact that this adoration is not merely an abstract, digital phenomenon was recently demonstrated by an incident in the US: on 18 May 2026, two teenagers opened fire on San Diego's largest mosque, killing three people. In their 75-page manifesto, filled with far-right, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic ideology, they explicitly name Brenton Tarrant as one of their heroes. FBI investigators established that the two perpetrators – aged 17 and 18 – had met online and become radicalised there.
The platforms make money from attention – and attention is generated by content that provokes outrage, fear or a sense of validation. This provides an ideal breeding ground for radicalisation: people who find themselves in a state of turmoil and outrage are more receptive to simplistic enemy stereotypes and clear-cut worldviews.
Young people are deliberately kept glued to their screens
At the same time, the format itself has an effect: on TikTok, you move on to the next video in a matter of seconds. There's no time to think. And that's no coincidence. According to media psychologist Daniel Süss, Professor of Communication and Media Psychology, mechanisms such as «infinite scrolling» are deliberately designed to be «addictive by design» – in other words, specifically crafted to be addictive. The system makes it extremely difficult to stop using the app: it takes significantly more energy and self-control to close the app than simply to carry on.
Looking ahead, Padel warns of an even greater danger: «Algorithms could analyse a young person's search history and mental state in detail and generate fully automated, tailor-made extremist content – simply to keep that person glued to the screen.»
The question is not simply: Is this attitude extreme? But rather: Does it harm the child themselves, or others – or does it jeopardise their future?
Particularly at a time when information has become the most important currency, it is worth taking a closer look at what is actually being consumed. After all, raw figures appear objective – but they are not necessarily so. Ferdinand Thies from Bern University of Applied Sciences, who specialises in statistical manipulation, knows: «Anyone who skilfully selects and contextualises data can use it to tell any story – even a false one.»
Why young people are particularly vulnerable
Radicalisation does not only affect «difficult» young people. It affects those who are going through a phase of life that Padel describes as precarious: puberty. If a critical life event is added to this – the death of a loved one, the loss of a training place, or a profound social upheaval such as the coronavirus pandemic – this can act as a trigger for radicalisation.
«Young people find themselves losing their footing and looking for a new sense of stability,» explains Padel. «If they cannot find this in their immediate surroundings, they may slip into a state of depression – or they may seek out new points of stability.»
Extremist ideologies are tempting at this very moment. They offer clear rules, a clear distinction between «us» and «them», and the feeling of finally understanding how the world really works. «These ideologies provide simple answers in a complex world,» says Padel. For the young person themselves, this initially feels like a liberation – which is why they see no reason to change.
Not all forms of radicalism are equally dangerous
That sounds alarming – yet it is reassuring for parents to know that not every extreme attitude is dangerous. Here, Padel makes an important distinction: experimenting with extreme positions is part and parcel of being young. A «radical hippie» who preaches unconditional love does just as little harm as a teenager who dyes their hair green or goes to school in a caftan because Friday prayers give them a sense of structure.
According to Padel, it only becomes problematic «when the behaviour becomes self-harming, puts others at risk, or when young people ruin their own future through rigid attitudes». He cites the example of a young man who did excellent work in nurseries but, as a result of religious radicalisation, suddenly decided to stop working with women – and thus gave up that career path. «He exercised his right, but caused himself immense harm,» says Padel.
So the question is not simply: Is this attitude extreme? But rather: Does it harm the child themselves, or others – or does it jeopardise their future?
Parents should focus on the things that are still working and that they both enjoy.
Kaspar Padel, violence prevention expert
What parents can do
When parents notice that their child is drifting towards extremism, their first instinct is often to confront them. Yet this is precisely what Padel advises against. The relationship itself is more important than having the better argument. «Parents should focus on the things that are still working and that they enjoy together,» he says. These positive moments offer the young person an alternative to the extremist community – without it ever having to be stated explicitly.
When discussions arise, Padel recommends first asking sincerely: What lies behind these views? What do they offer the child? Genuine interest rather than lecturing, in other words. Only then – and as a «I-message» – should you express your own viewpoint: not «But in reality, it's like this», but «The way I see it, it's like this». This difference may sound minor, but it is crucial: the young person does not feel attacked, but rather heard.
Padel sums up the aim of long-term prevention in a single word: tolerance of ambiguity. The term originates from psychology and describes the ability to tolerate contradictions and ambiguity without immediately needing a simple answer. The researcher Else Frenkel-Brunswik coined the term in the 1940s and found that people with low tolerance of ambiguity are significantly more susceptible to extremist worldviews – a finding that still holds true today.
According to Padel, the reason is simple: extremist ideologies always offer the same thing – clarity. Good versus evil, us versus them. This provides psychological relief, particularly during periods of uncertainty. Those who can cope with grey areas have no need for this.
Yet tolerance of ambiguity is not a trait one is born with. It develops – through genuine encounters with people who think differently, through role models who accept contradictions, and through a culture of open dialogue.
There is one area, however, where there can be no grey area: «If legal violations occur, parents must set clear, firm boundaries,» Padel warns. This is not a matter for negotiation.
