First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
- Martin Niemöller
I’ve long been perplexed by this poem, ubiquitous as it is. Of course this is not because I harbour any sympathies at all toward the Third Reich, and in fact I do think I am an outspoken critic against the Fourth one. Rather its morality seems self-serving above all.
The focal point, the “mic drop moment” of the poem is when the author’s apathy comes back around. There is no one left to speak for him, and so he is alone and vulnerable to the mercurial oppression of the Nazi party. There is power in numbers, but his own actions have led to a situation in which solidarity is impossible, because his would-be compatriots have been “dealt with” already. The lesson here is that oppression of one is oppression of all, and so selfishness leads to self destruction. The tragedy is that resistance became impossible.
I’d say the tragedy was not the vast unchecked power that the regime gained against Lutheran preacher Martin Niemöller, but rather it was the systematic slavery and murder of Jewish people, members of the labour movement, and other untermenschen. The honourable theologian Niemöller bemoans the oppression of good people such as himself, and recognizes that it can only be avoided in protecting people he may not agree with. Those infidels and apostates who do not attend his church, those satanists and sodomites who oppose the traditional hierarchies of European social existence - those degenerates who practice homosexuality or transsexuality, left unmentioned and unmourned. Indeed the positioning of himself as categorically separate from socialists, trade unionists, Jews in his poem reaffirms his preexisting moral separation from them; It only condemns his lack of solidarity. What place would this poem have in a world where Hitler held on to power for at least a generation? Perhaps our paragon of liberal morality, our compass away from fascism, would never have been written as there would have been nothing to apologize for in the conscience of a new Prussian-Hellenistic empire.
Graduate student Mahmoud Khalil’s detention without due process has been appalling to American liberals, who are disgusted by the bold-faced gangsterism of it all. The media, learning Niemöller’s lesson, has jumped to Khalil’s defence, criticizing the ICE agents’ lack of warrant, the upturning of precedent that the Supreme Court treat green card holders as legally equal to citizens, the revoking of Khalil’s freedom of speech (a petition? really?) - First they came for Mahmoud Khalil, then they might come for us! And then we might have a real tragedy on our hands.
Left uncriticized are the “crimes against humanity and war crimes” committed by Israel (take it up with the ICC if you disagree, and might I suggest appropriate treatment if you are unconvinced) which Khalil was protesting in the first place. These victims are Niemöller’s apostates, their victimization is not a tragedy in and of itself to the liberal media class and its subscribers. To those who oppose Khalil’s arrest mainly on legal grounds, the genocide that Israel “failed to prevent” is less of a concern. Certainly it is not relevant, they attempt to construct an argument against his persecution independently of “the situation in the Middle East”.
And yet, they are inextricably linked. Khalil’s persecution is only a continuation of Israel’s genocide but on American soil, and liberals fail to recognize American institutions as willing collaborators in this genocide. To them, Trump is doing this because he is an “authoritarian” and would like to impose his personal individual will against those he considers too rowdy, and loser immigration cops comply because they’re bad people. (I mean, that is right too.) Bourgeois morality and secondhand embarrassment at the breaking of norms by liberal democrat Donald Trump can only criticize the crimes against Mahmoud Khalil because they happen in America, where we’re civilized. Fascism can’t come home, the gaze of empire must stay abroad.
What Niemöller never considered was becoming a socialist - something as impossible to him as becoming a trade unionist or a Jew - and having a coherent antifascist political ideology. Fascism seeks to crush labour and establish autocratic rule, a rejuvenated dictatorship of capital, while socialism seeks to establish the rule of the masses. Liberals are too cowardly to adopt a framework of holistic and whole-hearted resistance to capital, just as they are too cowardly to even holistically and whole-heartedly resist genocide.
Thank you to J and Z, who socratically helped me develop this piece through conversation.