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.
as
First they banned laws against abortion
and I didn’t speak out because I was fine with that.
Then they came for drugs,
and I didn’t speak out because I was just an alcoholic.
Then they came for my soda,
and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t drink soda.
Then they came for my coffee,
and without coffee I can’t function.
It was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek, but as I ponder it, it is actually prescient. In Niemoeller’s formulation they came first for the non-Nazi socialists, but what had to precede that? Is there not a lengthy process of the eradication of rights required to “come” for anyone?
You have to have secret police who accept in principle the propriety of taking people whose only “crimes” are political.
You have to have confiscated people’s guns.
You have to have a court system, or at least a processing system, where these people are taken.
And most of all, you have to have a frightened populace that views silence as vastly safer than speaking out. You have to have developed some method of shutting people up. This can be actual violence, but for social control social violence is normally vastly preferred. What happened in Hitler’s Germany, for example, if you did not have a copy of Mein Kampf in a prominent place in your home?
And as far as the Jews and Trade Unionists (or gypsies, or homosexuals, or handicapped), were their rights not progressively constrained over a period of many years? The first anti-Jewish laws were passed in perhaps 1935, and they did not start officially “disappearing” Jews until roughly 1940.
But before that, the property rights of Jews were restricted. Their speech rights were restricted. Their freedom of movement was restricted.
So in some respects Niemoeller is betraying a profound mediocrity of intelligence, or perhaps an understandable lack of moral courage, when he pretends he was surprised that after all the violations of basic rights that the worst did in fact happen.
EVERYONE’S RIGHTS MATTER.
The essence of the brouhaha about Chick-Fil-A is this: does the right still exist publicly to denounce homosexuality as wrong? Yes or no? This man has that right, and the Left is doing everything within its power to punish him with violence. From my perspective, this is SA–Hitler’s professional hooligans that he used to take power–behavior. It is thuggish, undignified, unprincipled, and unnecessary.
To be clear, this man is not supporting any restrictions on the activities of homosexuals. What he is saying is that he does not support gay marriage. Homosexuality is specifically prohibited in the Bible (which is to say, for Christians, Jews, and Muslims), and this man is a Christian. Why does he not have the freedom of his beliefs? He is not out picketing anyone. He is donating money to causes he believes in, just as his opponents are free to do.
But they want to label him as evil.
What I want to be clear about is that egalitarianism has no content. It has no principles but equality. This means that all religions–based as they are on the principle that all people are different morally–must be rejected not just due to atheism (the doctrine that man and matter are equal)–but structurally. That, or they must be diluted to the point where no actual differentiating features remain.
The end is, must be, cannot be other than, perfect conformity. But conformity to what? Who is to decide the meaning of life, when all meanings not associated with perfect conformity have been rejected? Individuals cannot, since individuals may differ in the relative capacities, and of course conclusions. This would lead to diversity.
No: the conformity must be in relation to an all-powerful government. And it will not matter much what the content of the daily cause is, just that it is communicated, and obedience compelled, then eventually willingly undertaken.
In my own view, there is no substantial difference between the goal of silencing Dan Cathy and working directly for the implementation of a Fascist government. I will no doubt be misunderstood by some on this, but that is my view. I have been making these cases for a long time, in particular my essay on what I call Cultural Sadeism.
The net, for me, is this: true Liberalism is about compromise. It is about persons of differing views tolerating one another, not infrequently avoiding one another, and when necessary negotiating in good faith their differences. Force has nothing to do with it.