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
Martin Niemöller’s famous quote has been echoing in my mind lately. As we navigate this new era of political uncertainty, the impact of rising protectionism and isolationist policies remains to be fully understood—not to mention the alarming ascent of right-wing extremism.
It is not merely the state of affairs in the United States that troubles me. For years, we have witnessed the slow but steady rise of far-right populist political parties across Europe. In some countries, a political firewall has been constructed as a safeguard against extreme views on migration and diversity. Yet, in a minority of European nations, far-right parties have managed to gain power, as seen in Hungary. The banishment of extremism from the political arena has proven to be a formidable challenge, leaving politicians from established democratic parties at a loss regarding how to address these societal shifts.
Many have drawn comparisons between this period and the 1930s—the era of Nazism and the Third Reich. I have touched on this theme in my blog post titled “Humanity at a Crossroads: Revisiting Yeats in Troubling Times.” The parallels are stark and unmistakable. The pressing question remains: is this a reversible trend in Western democracies, or are we on the brink of a dramatic shift in the course of Western civilization?
J.D. Vance surprised both supporters and critics with his remarks at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025. He asserted that European institutions and the right to freedom of speech are being undermined. Vance further claimed that the firewall erected around the AfD (Alternative for Germany) should be dismantled, directing European countries to prioritize more pressing issues, such as migration, rather than silencing unconventional viewpoints. He characterized Europe’s main challenge as migration, accusing European nations of shirking their responsibilities in this regard. According to him, in a democracy, all opinions—including those of the AfD—merit consideration. He even met with the AfD’s chairwoman.
In all honesty, Vance’s position isn’t entirely without merit. In a democracy, every voice deserves to be heard. It is up to society to discern which opinions align with its socio-ethical values. These values are fluid, never static, and can shift faster than one might imagine.
Furthermore, attempts to construct a firewall, stigmatizing extreme political parties and marginalizing them from the political sphere, have not proven effective in keeping them at bay. Recent election results indicate growth for these parties, and polls suggest they may continue to gain traction. The essential question is: why haven’t such initiatives curbed the rise of far-right populist movements and political parties?
Connecting Past and Present
There are significant parallels between the 1930’s and today. The post-pandemic world, economic downturn, and the rise of individualism are defining characteristics of both times. The exuberance of the roaring twenties—offering a release after the pandemic and the war—was soon overshadowed by the Great Depression, echoing today’s challenges.
In the 1930’s escapism, society’s opium, led the masses unsuspectingly toward an impending collapse of their world—great economic despair and a desperate search for scapegoats to avoid confronting their complicity in their fate. This sense of disillusionment allowed Germans and Austrians to rally around a leader who promised them what they craved: dignity and economic renewal. They believed they could reclaim their legacy on the international stage. Little did the majority anticipate that discrimination could culminate in mass gas chambers or concentration camps; they did not foresee the catastrophic loss of neighbors, family members, and their livelihoods. They never imagined living in fear, and ultimately, in war.
Warnings were plentiful, yet many chose to ignore them. Other nations recognized that the threat of a dictator and the devastation of Europe must be halted. They rose to the challenge: great leaders of the time—Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle—foresaw the full potential of a Nazi regime. Many were inspired by their resolute words and actions, believing in a freedom anchored in democracy. The resistance fought valiantly, the armed forces engaged, and eventually, they triumphed—only to uncover the horrific realities of the regime afterward.
Today, we perceive unsettling similarities to the Interwar period. In our post-pandemic era, people are still grappling with the consequences. Mental health has emerged as a pressing issue, with many facing loneliness and despair. The Western world is increasingly struggling to reboot its economies, while escapism flourishes on social media, where influencers dictate standards of beauty, success, and popularity. Television entertains with a plethora of talent shows and competitions, serving to numb the mind. Yet, discontent festers—people are unhappy with their lives, dissatisfied with the rising cost of living, and losing faith in their political leaders. Housing is unaffordable, healthcare costs are astronomical, and democratic values seem not to suffice in addressing basic needs.
So what does this analogy teach us? Why do so many resist acknowledging the lessons of history?
Most people do not envision atrocities happening to themselves.
The role of social media
One crucial distinction between the Interwar period and our time is the advent of social media. This fictional realm allows individuals to achieve fame, wealth, and popularity with a mere click. Displeased with someone’s presence? They can be effortlessly erased from your virtual world. Have a strong opinion about someone you’ve never met? It’s all too simple to voice your comments. We can curate our own bubbles, managing a reality that aligns with our preferences. That is not all; the influence of social media must not be underestimated.
It provides marginalized communities—shut out by mainstream media—a platform to express their views. In this space, individuals can share their ideas anonymously, and virtual communities can mobilize rapidly. Social media has also paved the way for misinformation to spread unchecked. Historical events can be questioned, human rights violations can be denied, and the integrity of the law can be challenged. With such disinformation, discerning truth from falsehood becomes increasingly difficult. If someone you follow contests the murder of six million Jews, who determines the truth? If an influencer claims that immigrants are the reason for your financial struggles, who is to say otherwise? While social media has its virtues, it can also exacerbate fears and insecurities, feeding into the narratives of the discontented. For those who harbor malicious intentions, social media becomes a breeding ground.
Defending democratic values
In this era of discontent, extremist movements find fertile ground to flourish. We are witnessing a resurgence of agitation, as people seek scapegoats and quick fixes to their frustrations. The complexities of modern-day politics, economics, and foreign policy overwhelm them. They crave immediate solutions and leaders who can deliver results in an instant. Many yearn to erase their discontent as swiftly as possible.
We have lost sight of the idea that meaningful change requires time and effort. In our digital realm, tasks can be accomplished in moments. Our attention spans have adapted to a quicker pace, making speed a qualifying factor for decision-making with detrimental effects. Media-savvy individuals who can captivate audiences are more likely to be perceived as effective leaders. It no longer matters how knowledgeable someone is; the ability to convincingly project empathy and the assurance of solving problems is what engenders trust. Social media plays a crucial role in this dynamic, where images and narratives can be manipulated to appear real.
The danger of allowing extremists ample room to thrive is that those who are discontent often fail to realize that such rhetoric can easily be turned against them. No one is immune to persecution. Once in power, narcissists, dictators, and oligarchs can and will pivot their views in an instant. Supporters can swiftly be labeled enemies if they demand too much or become interchangeable. The harrowing reality is that one’s potential victimization by extremists is beyond personal control; it is dictated by the leader. This is precisely why many believe it won’t happen to them. They ignore the scenario where they too could face discrimination and persecution. Frustrated and in scapegoating others, they lose sight of what lay ahead for their society—a situation reminiscent of the Germans in the 1930s, who could never fathom the atrocities that would unfold, especially against their neighbors, friends, or themselves.
Vice President Vance is correct in asserting that we should not suppress divergent voices in society. If anything, we must know they are there so we aren’t taken aback when they fully manifest. We must continue to nurture a society where free speech is one of our greatest goods. Moreso we must be vigilant in defending the vulnerable and upholding our democratic values. We cannot remain passive when our legal principles are under attack, human rights are violated, or our collective humanity is put to the test. Ideally, we should act proactively to avert such crises. As we refrain from creating firewalls, we should ensure the public understands the potential dangers that hover on the horizon, and we must actively engage in moral combat to preserve our shared humanity. Only this will save us from an echo of the 1940’s.
RosieGlobal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.