What actually happened to the rightist extremists? Is it still the Molotow Cocktail throwing skinhead? A review of media doesn’t reveal a scandal like the attacks in Rostock Lichtenhagen 1992. Maybe racist violence becomes just interesting if it happens in connection with big events like the Football World Championship in 2006, just as the notorious “no go areas” especially in the newly-formed German states. Marie Louse gives her view of the rightist movement in Europe and far most Germany.
But oppositional to the medial perception xenophobia actually exists. It resurrects in pseudo intellectual facade. It just appears outrageous because it is not easy to classify the social commitment of notorious camaraderie and parties. You can find them at demonstrations and activities of the peace movement or anti-globalization movement – alongside of activists who are involved into fighting for a peaceful world. The platforms of rightist extremist parties proclaim the “Ethno-pluralism”. Does the Right dispends itself and is currently on the Walk of Canossa for its caused agony of millions of people? To get straight to the point: the self proclaimed New Right (Nouvelle Droite) didn’t change the fronts. It didn’t change the strategy. It just changed its vocabulary. The modified terminology is hardly hiding the same racism and general misanthropy as usual. In defiance of all efforts the Right does to give it an intellectual structure. It will stay the same bearish and inhuman scourge of humanity. Even the strategy of abusing the keywords of left philosophy for the own polemics is not an invention of presence. It can be retraced in times before the epoch of fascistic dictatorships in Europe. In reference of the term of “Nationalistic Socialism” it is easy to explain that the genocides that have been committed by this regime couldn’t have less in common with left paradigms than define and illustrate Ethnocentrism, hate and inhumanity itself.
It is obtrusive that the “New Right” applies a vocabulary that is positively assessed by the general consensus. To understand the right demagogy it might be important to analyze primarily the term of Ethno pluralism. A superficial view it could emanate from liberal vocabulary. But it is important to have a more intensive preoccupation to distinguish between the suggestion of peacefulness and its true intentions.
The term of Ethno pluralism is functional because it pretends the overcoming of racism in the rightist world view. But it is nothing else then juggling with euphemisms. And it is no surprise – ethnocentricity and chauvinism are the main contents of conservative ideology. Ethno-pluralism sounds like a liberal formulation but in rightist rhetoric it means offensive declaration of combat against liberal values. Phrases like “Diversity of cultures!” of the NPD (national democratic party of Germany) are modified and abused to demand ethnical segregation and in the end the institutionalization of worldwide apartheid; all in all nothing but hollow covers that can be filled by every imaginable perfidiousness. The construction of different valences of cultures and creation of far-fetched hierarchies, influenced by an ethno-centrist view of the world, exposes pure racism. “Culture” is used in rightist polemics as a synonym for “race”. And that isn’t any kind of innovation of the New Right because racism ever was and will be a process that connects actual existing or just claimed physical distinguished marks to social characteristics and their different assessment.
Actually no differences seem to be perceptible between nature and culture; both seem to exist as one fixed inseparable union. Culture is apparently a strategy to survive and absolutely “natural”. That is why one culture is not able to be mixed up with others because then it is threatened by destruction. The cultural potential of every individual, as the right theory claims, is determined in the genetic code of one group (“race”) and not change-able with external influences. The most threatening imagination for racists is, in con-sequence, the multicultural society, where no collective identity could survive. The content of collective identity, of common culture, stays undefined and arbitrary variable and is adapted to current political conditions. The contemporary trends pointing the way to creating a new myth of a common genetic source – the Indo-European that replaces the Aryan.
Unfortunately it is ascertainable in summary that the New Right isn’t new. Quite the reverse – the same chauvinistic, misanthropic, racist aims are planned to be fulfilled with the usual criminal methods. Only the vocabulary is modified and pretends political correctness. It is still necessary to fight white pride in sheep’s clothing!
By Marie-Luise
