» Lesen Sie diesen Artikel auf Deutsch
A particularly outrageous example of this normalization of far-right positions is the decision by the European Parliament to break with one of its most firmly established political practices. Among the centrist democratic parties, there has been an unwritten rule that they should never cooperate with far-right or right-wing-populist forces—at least when it comes to key issues such as immigration policy. This »firewall« was intended to prevent racist and ethno-nationalist positions from finding their way into legislation.
»The European People’s Party has sacrificed its principles to political expediency.«
Yet the European People’s Party (EPP) under the German CSU politician Manfred Weber deliberately crossed that line. The result? A massive tightening of asylum rules across the entire EU, with far-reaching consequences for people seeking a safe haven. Now, deportations to unsafe third countries are being sold as a »pragmatic solution,« bureaucratic obstacles in the way of refugees are portrayed as »necessary controls,« and organizations that save lives are denounced as »smugglers‹ accomplices.« The EPP, once a bastion of the Christian center, has sacrificed its principles to political expediency. In doing so, it is paving the way for a further erosion of democratic and human rights standards in Europe.
A deliberate strategy of making far-right innovations seem like »nothing new«
The extent to which far-right positions are becoming commonplace is evident not only in high-level politics but also, more palpably, in language. The term »remigration« is a particularly vivid example of this tendency. Coined by the Austrian far-right extremist Martin Sellner as a rallying cry for the illegal deportation of people with a migration background, it was named the »Euphemism of the Year« in 2023. In January 2025, Alice Weidel, chair of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party, used it publicly for the first time. It was subsequently included in the AfD’s federal election platform. Today, it is used in political discussions and by the media as a matter of course, as if it were a neutral, technocratic term. Yet the expression carries a clear message: People whose personal history includes migration do not belong here; they are to be expelled from Germany, by force if necessary.
The fact that the word »remigration« is used today on talk shows, in newspaper articles, and in political debates shows just how successful this deliberate strategy of downplaying radical linguistic innovations has been. The AfD deliberately uses terms first as a provocation in order to gradually normalize them and thereby make the substance of their ideas acceptable. Language is not a neutral tool. It shapes our thinking. Those who adopt the language of the far right also adopt their ways of thinking—consciously or unconsciously.
»Political education must always be grounded in the Basic Law.«
Another area in which the normalization of far-right discourse is particularly evident is education. More and more people agree with the thesis propagated by right-wing circles that teachers, organizations, or educational institutions must be »neutral”—and that this neutrality means, for example, inviting AfD politicians to panel discussions or presenting the party’s ethno-nationalist positions in the classroom as opinions on a par with those held by mainstream parties.
This demand is completely unfounded. The Beutelsbach Consensus, the cornerstone of political education in Germany, states that teachers must not »overwhelm« their students by acting as though certain opinions were the only accurate ones. Furthermore, the consensus holds that controversy must be addressed in the classroom, and that teachers must never indoctrinate students, who should be enabled to form their own opinions and judgments. However, the Consensus does not require neutrality on the part of teachers. Political education must always be grounded in the Basic Law, which means that the free democratic basic order, human dignity, and human rights are non-negotiable. Extreme or unconstitutional positions must be classified as such.
Yet far-right extremists and right-wing populists denigrate efforts to educate students about the AfD’s misanthropic platform points—which contradict the Basic Law—as »one-sided« or »indoctrinating.« Their calls for pedagogic neutrality amount to the demand that positions incompatible with democratic values be treated equally. When the AfD’s platform is presented in schools as »one opinion among many,« students conclude that racism and misanthropy are valid points of view. The AfD’s aggressive propaganda against teachers—which in some cases escalates into threats and insults—deeply unsettles them and is increasingly affecting school administrations, which all too rarely step in to defend teachers when they come under attack.
Deliberately fomented hysteria
The media play an ambivalent role in the creeping process of normalizing far-right ideology. On the one hand, they are in a position to educate the public about the strategies of the far right and often do just that. On the other hand, they frequently contribute to this normalization themselves by uncritically adopting certain interpretive schemes, inviting far-right guests onto talk shows, and portraying far-right positions as »legitimate concerns of citizens.« When reports on »crimes committed by migrants« fail to mention the context of poverty, discrimination, or statistical realities, they reinforce a narrative that has been pushed by right-wing extremists for decades. When debates on migration constantly invoke »public concern« without asking who is fueling these concerns and who stands to gain from them, it creates the impression that the cause is a natural fear of the unfamiliar—rather than deliberately stoked hysteria.
»The far right has succeeded in discrediting freedom of the press and the value of independent journalism.«
Through the continuous disparagement and denigration of quality journalism, a free press, and public broadcasting, the far right has succeeded in discrediting freedom of the press and the value of independent journalism. Talk of »manipulated mainstream media« and the »lying press« arises whenever the media do critical reporting on far-right parties. Criticism directed primarily at ARD and ZDF, both public broadcasting networks, has led the federal states to »suspend« (contrary to established procedure) an increase in the broadcasting license fee, on which public broadcasting depends for funding. The case brought to resolve this matter is still pending before the Federal Constitutional Court.
The far right has also succeeded in defaming gender-inclusive language. In five federal states, gender asterisks and other special characters are prohibited in schools and in communications by government agencies. Minister of State for Culture Wolfram Weimer has also banned the use of gender-specific symbols within his department. Under the inflammatory term »gender mania,« measures aimed at increasing the visibility of diversity are attacked and denigrated. The rainbow flag is a symbol of those very measures. Consequently, heated debates ensue whenever it is raised in front of official buildings, and in many cases, the flags even get destroyed.
»A serious threat to groups of people who do not fit into the right-wing’s ethno-national, ›biodeutsch‹ (ethnically German) worldview.«
But far more dangerous than symbolic attacks on rainbow flags are the increasing assaults on pride parades and queer people. In smaller cities in the eastern part of the country, activists are now calling on supporters from major cities to travel to pride events and take up positions around the parade, thus acting as a human vision shield. Their goal is to prevent far-right extremists from taking photos of participants. The justified fear is that the footage will later be analyzed, the participants identified, and after the pride parade is over and the police have left, that queer people will be attacked on the spot. The threat has already reached this level for groups of people who do not fit into the right-wing’s ethno-nationalist, »biodeutsch« (ethnically German) image—and only a few are speaking out vociferously against it.
Even the word »woke,« which for decades referred to people who actively fight against discrimination, demand equality, and question societal power structures, no longer carries positive connotations. Much like the expression »do-gooder,« it has become a term of abuse. Today, wokeness is used by right-wing critics as a battle cry to portray anti-discrimination measures, for example, as excessive, restrictive, or moralizing. We should remind ourselves once again that normalization of far-right discourse is not a natural development. It is the result of decisions—such as those taken by democratic parties and the media to assimilate the narratives of the far right—and the fact that many schools and organizations shy away from drawing red lines. And many people accept this development as inevitable, thinking: »That’s just the way it is now.«
Calling things by their right name and resistance
There are ways to counter this creeping acceptance of far-right language. The first step is to accurately depict what is happening, including the continuous reinterpretation of terms, the erosion of taboos, and the exploitation of fears. None of this is coincidental, but rather reflects deliberate strategies. In fact, the far right doesn’t even make a secret of this tactic!
The second step is resistance: resistance in language, by not accepting terms like »remigration« without comment, but rather calling them what they are: battle cries of the far right.
Resistance in politics, by having democratic parties rule out any cooperation with far-right extremists at all political levels.
Resistance in education, by defending the Beutelsbach Consensus and making it clear: shedding light on anti-democratic attitudes is not a matter of opinion; it’s an obligation.
Resistance in society, by refusing to accept the trivialization of these issues and standing in solidarity with those who are increasingly under attack.