No one expects them to end up in government (not this time, at least) with the centre-Right Christian Democrats (CDU) as favourites to lead some sort of coalition. Florian’s colleague, Guido Hornig, offers one explanation of sorts: ‘We used to have a lovely country. But now people won’t walk through the centre of this town after 8pm because they feel it is too dangerous.’

The fragile state of Germany’s once-mighty economy is clearly a major factor, too. Having relied for so long on cheap Russian gas and a global appetite for their petrol-powered cars, Germans suddenly find the world has moved on. Infrastructure is creaking, be it the roads, trains or internet access, while one national obsession remains as healthy as ever: bureaucracy. Yet all the opinion polls are clear that immigration is the number-one issue in this election – and that was before Thursday’s outrage in Munich.

Less than a month ago, in the Bavarian town of Aschaffenburg, another (Afghan) asylum seeker wielding a knife attacked a party of children in a park in scenes reminiscent of last summer’s Southport atrocity. A child and an adult lay dead, with many injured. The suspect should have been deported months earlier but for a series of bureaucratic blunders.

This is prosperous West Germany, just an hour from Frankfurt’s banking district. ‘I hope the AfD don’t get a majority,’ says pensioner Elfriede Reck. ‘But it’s the politicians who caused this. Officials knew about that killer before he did it, yet two people had to die before anything happened.’ Now, they are saying exactly the same in Munich this weekend. Germany’s political class has not felt this nervous in living memory.

Farhad Noori, the alleged attacker named by German media, injured 39 people. Born in Kabul in 2001, he came to Germany as an asylum seeker in 2016. His asylum application was subsequently rejected but he appealed.

His case dragged on for three years and, even though it ended with a decision that he could be deported, he was given a temporary residence permit instead. He became a bodybuilder and a security guard, gaining 68,000 followers on Instagram for pictures of him posing at bodybuilding competitions.

For Germans, this sort of attack is becoming normalised. Only a fortnight ago, another Afghan asylum seeker, armed with a knife, attacked a kindergarten outing in a park. He murdered a two-year old Moroccan child and the 41-year old man who intervened to protect the children. Yet, the German political class seems largely indifferent.

Meanwhile today’s nationalists have coined a new one – “remigration” – reminiscent of mass deportations. This week’s watchword was “Munich”. The Bavarian capital suffered an alleged terrorist attack when an Afghan migrant drove his car into a crowd. But it was also the scene of the annual security conference, attended by JD Vance, the US vice-president; Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary; and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state.

New forms of nationalism have arisen in a country that had thought itself permanently inoculated against the atavistic forces that propelled Hitler to power nearly a century ago and left Germany divided for 40 years. All it took was a potent combination of mass immigration, net zero and no growth to sweep aside the taboos that had surrounded the politics of ideology, religion and race. For the first time since 1945, Germany has a party on the far-Right, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is both large enough and extreme enough to pose a real threat to the post-war Western order.

As Germans prepare to cast their ballots in a Europe riven by war, memories of dictators and death camps are stirring again. The AfD may dismiss the duty to keep the demagogues out as a “guilt cult”, imposed by the Allies on a defeated nation, but for the majority of Germans any harking back to the Nazi or Communist eras is a nightmare. Yet the old parties and business elites are seen to have failed, leaving a nation whose identity is built on material success to ask itself where it all went wrong.

Last week, the Gen Z tree was shaken again, this time with a major study into their attitudes. There were many eye-catching if not entirely unpredictable facets of the survey, commissioned by The Times in conjunction with Public First, an opinion consultancy. There was the conviction that Britain is without a doubt a racist country; that the police are untrustworthy; that marriage is impermanent and thus should be entered into frequently; that mental health should be king among topics and, repellently, that drugs are preferable to booze.

The most sobering take-home, though, was their attitude towards the country. They seem to feel about being British like most people feel about having to take out the bins; that it’s an unpleasant encumbrance. Only 40 per cent were able to admit to being happy they were British, which is a dramatic decrease from 2004 – the year yours truly was 21 – when 80 per cent of us wore that mantle proudly. And then the biggie: only 11 per cent would certainly fight for Britain, while 41 per cent – no matter the cause – would not.

A pastor told the meeting Jesus would be a drag queen, a trans man or non-binary were he alive today while a seven-year-old stood behind the microphone to declare that making Worcester a trans haven was his birthday wish.

Of the more than 70 people who spoke, the majority referred to Donald Trump’s inauguration speech in which he declared there were only two genders – male and female.

He has always been determined that Russia would be one of the great powers – along with the United States and China – qualified to carve the rest of the world up between them. That is why he always wanted to talk to Washington, not Kyiv, about the fate of Ukraine. Anything else would be a humiliation.

Pete Hegseth, Mr Trump’s secretary of defence, drew the outline of the US president’s vision of peace in blunt terms during Wednesday’s meeting with Nato defence ministers.

Occupied territory will not be given back to Ukraine, he said – implying a freeze along the current line of contact. Ukraine will receive neither Nato membership nor an Article Five security guarantee. And absolutely no US troops will be involved in the peace-keeping force. Britain and the other allies who have stood with them since the invasion began will also be able to claim a part of that victory.

But there is a catch. As Mr Trump has made clear, and Mr Hegseth spelt out in language even a child could understand, America is not interested in underwriting either Ukrainian or European security. So the shape of the peace will depend on Europe – and that includes Britain.

“I’m… here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe,” he told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at Nato headquarters.

He said the blueprint would end the “bloodshed” by bringing Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table and backed by “robust security guarantees to ensure that the war won’t begin again”. But he warned that any diplomatic deal would have to be enforced by European armies without the help of American troops.

“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must – and we are – focusing on securing our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in China with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific.”

The remarks, his first at a Nato meeting since being confirmed as Donald Trump’s Pentagon chief, will spark fears amongst European allies that they could be left on their own in the face of a resurgent Russia.

Trump’s move sent shockwaves through European capitals, which want a central role in peace talks because any settlement in Ukraine, hit by a full-scale Russian invasion three years ago, will have ramifications for their own security. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned that the Ukraine conflict must not end with a “dictated peace”.

French Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu on Thursday warned that NATO faces a moment of reckoning as the US and Russia set in motion negotiations to end the Ukraine war. "It's a crucial moment of truth," said Lecornu. "People call it the most important, the strongest military alliance in history. That's historically true – but the question is, will it still be true 10 or 15 years from now."

“It can be a political response. It can be a legal response,” he continued. “I want to analyze this calmly after this election campaign. The fact that someone from outside Europe intervenes in a national election campaign in this way is new.”

As Germany drowns under the strain of mass immigration and cultural disharmony, Musk has publicly expressed his support for the AFD and even made an appearance at their conference via video link. “I think it could decide the entire fate of Europe, maybe the entire fate of the world,” Musk said during his address. “That is the significance of this election. So that’s why it’s very important to talk to your friends and family and convince them to consider voting for AfD.”

The leaders also discussed a possible Ukraine settlement. Donald Trump spoke in favour of stopping the hostilities as soon as possible and solving the crisis peacefully. In turn, Vladimir Putin pointed out it was necessary to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and agreed with Donald Trump in that a sustainable settlement could only be reached via peaceful negotiations.

Additionally, the President of Russia expressed support for one of the US President’s key arguments, which was that it was time for both countries to work together. Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump agreed to maintain personal contact in the future, involving in particular in-person meetings.

So it’s no shock to read that a recent survey commissioned by Channel 4 found that 52 per cent of Britons aged 13 to 27 have lost faith in democracy and would welcome a dictator - a strong leader ‘who does not have to bother with parliament and elections’. A third of my generation believe ‘the UK would be a better place if the Army was in charge’. Drug use, shoplifting and defrauding the state go unpunished. Millions of economically burdensome migrants from places and cultures vastly different from our own are invited in, housed and fed at our expense - and we are attacked and slurred as bigots if we complain.

Supposedly neutral institutions such as the Civil Service, the judiciary, the NGOs, the BBC, schools and universities and corporations and their HR departments all have the same worldview: an unmistakable left-wing agenda. From mass immigration to net zero and trans dogma, these institutions walk in ideological lockstep. That is not a meaningful democracy. And that is why so many of us are looking elsewhere.

Britain is crying out for leadership that can steer the country to safety. Gen Z’s demands are not unreasonable: fairer taxes, affordable homes, cheaper energy and an end to unlimited immigration. We ask that everyone contributes their fair share and that crime is properly punished. We want to trust our neighbours, and talk to them in our own language. We want a sense of identity and belonging.

Which is why, I believe, we now need decisive action: a leader who would declare a state of emergency in response to illegal migration. Yes, there would be outrage from some quarters - and many would squeal about the ‘death of democracy’. But young people in particular recognise that political leaders of all parties have made an abysmal mess of running things. No wonder so many believe it’s time for a radical alternative. It sounds drastic - because it is drastic. But otherwise we all face the continued rule of grey, miserable politicians with grey, miserable ideas, dragging us towards disaster.