That’s what happens when liberals regain power: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security leaked a paper in early April warning of neo-Nazism.
Naturally, no concrete facts were made available, but given the fact that a black man was elected president in addition to the ongoing economic downturn, that was presumed to be enough for extreme right-wingers. They would be able to recruit followers more easily. Lone perpetrators or networks could easily develop into terror attacks. Few facts, free use of the subjunctive – but a clear message nonetheless: Danger from the right is at our doorstep.
Struggles against the right occur throughout the world. Many rightists in Germany are inclined to see any objection to them as freshly minted propaganda emanating from Germany’s left. That’s pure hogwash, of course. And the same arguments are popular in other countries as well.
That happens even when the right can’t be linked to the Nazi era. In the United States, conservative non-conformists are also branded as terrorists. It works the same here: German conservatives are stigmatized as Nazis.
Seeing conservatives as potential terrorists is a long-standing tradition in the United States. It began with Theodore Roosevelt, who first warned of a Ku-Klux-Klan revival, and later of a Nazi fifth column in America. The danger was always perpetuated by Hollywood’s pop culture.
Any number of films and books in the 1930s advanced the lies. Whenever Democrats were in power, they pushed the idea of “the dangerous right.” The latest example was the box office hit “Arlington Road” at the end of the Clinton era.
Two things make it easy for American liberals to attack conservatives: First, Republicans are generally supportive of the Constitution and its amendment protecting gun ownership while liberals suggest gun ownership leads to violence. Second, there were a couple of misguided right wing extremists who actually did commit serious attacks.
Best known is Timothy McVeigh, who blew up a government building, killing over 100 people. But to paint Republicans with the same brush would be like the Germans saying Andreas Baader was the same as Oscar Lafontaine.*
Now it begins again, the hounding of so-called right wing extremists in the United States. It’s historical irony that the Department of Homeland Security, created under President Bush, is now being used against the Republicans. It’s highly reminiscent of what’s going on here in Germany: While attempting to distance themselves from extreme rightists for opportunistic reasons, the CDU/CSU and FDP will find that the chickens come home to roost sooner or later.
Actually, it would serve those bourgeois hypocrites right if they’re forced to pay tomorrow for their cowardice today. That goes for Germany and, in particular, for America. The Republicans had a hand in everything George Bush did in furthering big government, war, public debt, the Patriot Act, and on and on. Now the tables have been turned on them. They only have themselves to blame.
*Translator's Note: Andreas Baader was head of the terrorist Baader-Meinhof gang, and Lafontaine is currently the leader of the German Left Party.
The American Way
Ronald Gläser
18 May 2009
So ist das, wenn die Linken wieder die Macht haben: Anfang April ließ das amerikanische Ministerium für Heimatschutz ein Papier durchsickern, das vor den neuen Nazis warnt.
Zwar lägen keine konkreten Verdachtsmomente vor, andererseits würde den Rechtsextremisten durch die Wahl eines Schwarzen ins Weiße Haus und durch die Wirtschaftskrise in die Hände gespielt. Sie könnten jetzt leichter Anhänger rekrutieren. Einzeltäter oder Netzwerke könnten zu Terroranschlägen übergehen. Wenig Fakten, viel Konjunktiv – und doch eine klare Botschaft: Die rechte Gefahr ist da.
Den Kampf gegen Rechts gibt es wohl auf der ganzen Welt. Viele deutsche Rechte neigen dazu, den Kampf gegen Rechts als einzig auf uns Deutsche gemünztes Propagandainstrument der deutschen Linken anzusehen. Das ist natürlich Quatsch. In anderen Ländern funktioniert das mit ähnlichen Argumenten.
Politische Nonkonformisten von rechts als Terroristen gebrandmarkt
Selbst dann, wenn die Nazi-Zeit nicht gegen die politische Rechte in Stellung gebracht werden kann. In Amerika werden politische Nonkonformisten von rechts vorzugsweise als Terroristen gebrandmarkt. Es funktioniert genau so wie die Stigmatisierung von Konservativen als Nazis bei uns.
Die Konservativen als potentielle Terroristen zu bezichtigen hat eine lange Tradition in den USA. Es begann bei Roosevelt, der erst vor dem Wiederaufstieg des Ku-Klux-Klans, dann vor der fünften Kolonne der Nazis warnte. Immer mit dabei: Die Populärkultur aus Hollywood, die diese „Gefahr“ dankbar aufgriff.
Es gibt eine Vielzahl von Filmen und Büchern, die solche Lügen in den dreißiger Jahren transportierten. Immer wenn Demokraten an der Macht waren, schürten sie mit aller Macht die Angst vor der eingebildeten „rechten Gefahr“. Der letzte Höhepunkt war der Kinokassenschlager „Arlington Road“ am Ende der Ära Clinton.
Die Linken suggerieren, Waffenbesitzer seien potentielle Täter
Zwei Dinge erleichtern der amerikanischen Linken ihre Hetzkampagne gegen Konservative: Erstens sind die Republikaner in der Regel verfassungstreu und verteidigen das Recht auf Waffenbesitz. Die Linken suggerieren, Waffenbesitzer seien potentielle Täter. Außerdem gab es ein paar fehlgeleitete Rechtsextremisten, die tatsächlich schlimme Anschläge durchgeführt haben.
Der Bekannteste ist Timothy McVeigh, der 1995 ein Regierungsgebäude in die Luft gesprengt und dabei über 100 Menschen getötet hat. Ihn mit den Republikanern in einen Topf zu werfen, wäre so, als würde jemand in Deutschland Andreas Baader mit Oskar Lafontaine gleichsetzen.
Jetzt geht sie wieder los, die Hatz auf angebliche Rechtsextremisten in Amerika. Es ist ein Treppenwitz der Geschichte, daß sich das unter Präsident Bush gebildete Ministerium für Heimatschutz jetzt gegen die Basis der Republikaner wendet. Das erinnert stark an das, was bei uns läuft: Der Kampf gegen Rechts, bei dem CDU/CSU und FDP aus opportunistischen Erwägungen nicht abseits stehen wollen, wird sich auch gegen sie richten. Früher oder später.
Eigentlich ist es nur gerecht, wenn die bürgerlichen Duckmäuser morgen teuer für ihre Feigheit von heute bezahlen müssen. In Deutschland – und in Amerika erst recht: Die Republikaner haben alles mitgemacht, was Bush an Big Government, Krieg, Staatsverschuldung, Patriot Act und so weiter verzapft hat – jetzt wendet sich das Blatt gegen sie. Selbst schuld.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The U.S. must decide what type of foreign policy it wants to pursue: one based on the humanism of Abraham Lincoln or one based on the arrogance of those who want it to be the world’s policeman.
U.S. companies, importers and retailers will bear the initial costs which most economists expect to filter through the supply chain as a cost-push inflation.
I would like to point out a couple things that you
misrepresented or failed to mention. First Teddy
Roosevelt was a Republican, (conservative) if you will. Next, the report that you make reference to
was begun on the Bush watch. One thing that you are
totally correct about–they asked for it. But let’s not confuse the run-of-the-mill Republican with the radical right-wingers whom this report is about.
Thought this article would at least make passing reference to America’s history of the exact opposite, red scare, hollywood blacklists, McCarthyism etc. On the whole though I can agree with most of this articles assertions.
On a side note, while conservatives in the U.S. can’t be linked to the Nazi era that hasn’t stopped people from trying. I think it was Gore Vidal who either referring to William F. Buckley or conservatives in general (can’t remember which) coined the term “Crypto-Nazis”. Also, because of the amount of negative connotations that go along with the label “Neo-Conservative”, a word thrown around quite a lot, it’s an effective synonym for Nazi.
Ha, so true. I think the same thing every time I read a Pravda article. I’m also in the habit of wiki’ing most sources I’m unfamiliar with but i didn’t do this one. The most telling thing for me was their limited circulation of 35,000 copies.When a paper has a small reader base it’s usually because their slanted in someway and fill a niche market. Ultimately though, whether you think a paper is slanted or not comes down to where you stand politically.
I would like to point out a couple things that you
misrepresented or failed to mention. First Teddy
Roosevelt was a Republican, (conservative) if you will. Next, the report that you make reference to
was begun on the Bush watch. One thing that you are
totally correct about–they asked for it. But let’s not confuse the run-of-the-mill Republican with the radical right-wingers whom this report is about.
Interesting source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Freiheit
I wouldn’t say they don’t have an agenda.
Thought this article would at least make passing reference to America’s history of the exact opposite, red scare, hollywood blacklists, McCarthyism etc. On the whole though I can agree with most of this articles assertions.
On a side note, while conservatives in the U.S. can’t be linked to the Nazi era that hasn’t stopped people from trying. I think it was Gore Vidal who either referring to William F. Buckley or conservatives in general (can’t remember which) coined the term “Crypto-Nazis”. Also, because of the amount of negative connotations that go along with the label “Neo-Conservative”, a word thrown around quite a lot, it’s an effective synonym for Nazi.
@peterhun
Ha, so true. I think the same thing every time I read a Pravda article. I’m also in the habit of wiki’ing most sources I’m unfamiliar with but i didn’t do this one. The most telling thing for me was their limited circulation of 35,000 copies.When a paper has a small reader base it’s usually because their slanted in someway and fill a niche market. Ultimately though, whether you think a paper is slanted or not comes down to where you stand politically.