column
Do you want a right-wing state government? Because that's how you get a far-right state government.
Surprise: "You" here not only refers to the usual suspects, ie media and politics, but the entire civil society. Where are the unions? The churches? The foundations and cooperatives? Sports clubs, universities, theaters, the cultural industry? The companies and their bosses, the economy and the thousand associations that usually sing the lament of the site's downfall with each unfavorable comma in a bill? Across the bourgeois society, one can observe a dumb but outrageous helplessness in the face of fascism.
Most helplessness, especially German, begins with silence. With the words missing or staggering vaguely through the sentences. Of course, it is catastrophic when a presenter implicitly calls the far-right AfD "bourgeois" because that is exactly the sheepskin that the right-wing werewolves want to deceive the conservative-good-natured bourgeoisie until it's too late. But the moderator's mistake is nothing more than a symbol of complete lack of conception of how to deal with fascists. To recognize Fascism at all, if it stands directly in front of you, whether on the Internet or on television or in the real world.
Accordingly, the future of the country decides on exactly one point: whether the CDU will eventually work with the AfD or not. That is the crossroads of liberal democracy. Nevertheless, there is still this miserable chattering of neutrality - there is no neutrality when it comes to the existence of liberal democracy and thus literally destroyed by the existence of people who are ousted by fascists, chased away. Because this is what characterizes fascism: sooner or later it will kill.
You can not defame anyone as a Nazi just because he's a Nazi
Party leader Gauland says "Vogelschiss" to Nazi time and Holocaust and "seizure of power" to the planned AFD rule. The most powerful AfD wingman is a Nazi who does not even half-heartedly distance himself from the multitude of right-wing extremists. Why should he? He has long since realized that a shallow smile on the camera and an evasive answer reassure a large part of the audience. The basic rule of the conservative bourgeoisie: who smiles, can not be a Nazi. The swastika flag in the background? No, a misunderstanding, an isolated case, a youthful sin. Or an old, Indian sun symbol, who can say that without a court order? You can not defame anyone as a Nazi just because he's a Nazi.
The powerful habituation effect occurs, the normalization: I've seen him so often on TV, as he has said friendly harmless things and the moderator has not jumped him at the throat, so he can not be a Nazi. Part of the conservative-discouraged disaster is not to call Nazis Nazis, not to call racism racism, and not even to think fascism. In principle, not to use lull and null phrases such as "right-wing populists" or even "right-wing conservatives". The aggressive absence of the word "racism" in the German public is a constant slap in the face of all non-white people.
The absence of adequate responses to obvious fascists in state structures or in public is an essential part of normalization. Angela Merkel knows the reports of extreme right-wing excesses and cliques in the Bundeswehr, police, authorities, justice. What did she do about it, what did she say publicly? But then there is the danger that the right-wingers will play the role of victim, say the prudent citizens, who insist on laying the bedspread on the bed even when they flee the burning house. The truth is: Rights still throw themselves into the sacrificial pose even if they have just been appointed Grand Emperor - because they reinterpret the sheer existence of the other as an attack on themselves. Then they hallucinely come here to "fight back" and unfortunately end up killing.
I wish I could sing, after the Conservative scolding, the praises of the left-wing and liberal lances (to which I count myself). Unfortunately, I have to do the opposite, because even the left and liberal bourgeoisie sucks in their own superiority, and sometimes even more self-righteous than the conservative-prudent citizens.
It starts with a completely absurd basic assumption: Left believe that politics and the media just have to be left, then everything would be fine. In a bang-conservative country like Germany, this is not just courageous, but already magical thinking, political globules with extra Bach flowers. The number of people who would rather choose right-wing (or not at all) than left-green - that's very, very big. Who just said "alas, the few right-handers" should now choose a CDU that turns sharply to the left? LOL no, as we say on the internet. We make it too easy for the analysis and our reactions. For example, by the single fixation on the East, which is often nothing more than a self-pacification. Or in the question of media debt.
Whoever chooses Nazis chooses Nazis and thus their politics
After conviction of many leftists, the talk shows have almost single-handedly stalked the AfD in the parliaments. This is the most comfortable interpretation of a shift to the right that you could ever wish for, because the solution is virtually built into the problem: If in all talk shows only Claudia Roth, Ferda Ataman and I discuss the right day of the week for the vegan canteen, then vote for rights and right-wing suddenly no longer AfD. Of course, talk shows like most other media urgently need to change their dealings with fascists. Away from normalization, away from the alleged disputability of racism and enmity. But the fixation on the evil talk shows shows the left willingness to undercomplex wishful thinking.
Many commentators in social and editorial media pretend that both can not be true at the same time: the AfD is not elected despite, but because of their racism. And the AfD is chosen by people who feel disconnected or are. If you think racism is acceptable because you are not affected, then you can do it very easily: people are disappointed because all the previous parties have let the infrastructure deteriorate, they have not been able to prevent rural exodus, they have driven the desertification of rural areas. So why not choose the blue sky-shattered one? Explanations are no excuses here, but the beginning of a necessary analysis. How entire tracts of land have been taunted and betrayed one after the other by fiduciary mischiefs or by the bitterly foolish rage of Merkel's black zero or both. Civil society needs a vision of the future and its infrastructure to thrive. Nazis profit from the absence of both if there is no definition.
Of course, the AfD is a form of protest party, namely racist, authoritarian protest against liberal democracy, the open society, including ethnic mixing - and against the previous achievements of the governments Kohl, Schroeder, Merkel.
If in one village 50 percent of voters choose a Nazi like Andreas Kalbitz, then 50 percent of the people in this village are Nazis? A wrong question, because it directs the view away from the essential to the definitive. It is a shame to say, with a fair amount of credit, which political position somebody thinks they are choosing a Nazi. Whoever chooses Nazis chooses Nazis and thus their politics. Our question must be why they choose Nazis to know how to prevent it. Because it must be prevented without question. But obviously the previous strategies are not working well enough. And the first thing to do is exit our self-inflicted, liberal-democratic helplessness.
