In the ever-growing world of globalization and the intermingling of peoples that would have never crossed paths a millennium ago, the question of culture and its role in society has inevitably risen to the forefront of political discussions. What patriotic men and women would have flaunted years ago is now being criticized by those who prefer to establish a globalized cesspool of cultural syncretism. This naturally flows out of the pluralist approach to many immigration policies, believing that groups maintaining contradicting political or moral convictions can live in the same area while each maintaining their respective beliefs.
In the past century, mass immigration has become a defining characteristic of American society, perhaps best exemplified by the tradition motto of the U.S. – E pluribus Unum, “out of many, one.” Many have classified the U.S. as a melting pot of people groups and belief systems, amalgamating the social, economic, and even spiritual state of the American people today. Despite these differences, a common American identity can be said to have historically existed since its foundation, including a strong faith in democratic societies, the power of privatized free markets, and the national influence achieved by individually driven change.
These three aspects of traditional American identity, among others, are what social conservatives stress in discussing regarding mass immigration. The United States is a country founded by immigrants, and it is a matter of fact that the immigration of workers, thinkers, and other foundational individuals has been the building block of American society. In discussions with the regressive left, however, these aspects, along with other significant denominators of a recognizably American identity, some conversants will dismiss the necessity for immigrants to adopt these doctrines in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism. While leftists who claim that immigrants should not be expected to conform to an American identity may do so out of sympathy, “tolerance,” or the desire to establish a global culture, their denial of this expectation has led to the rise of a particular movement. One that has been labeled by many in the mainstream media as the forefront of the alt-right, that is, neo-Nazism.
Neo-Nazism strikes feelings of disgust and anti-racist rhetoric into the hearts of those who believe that blatantly contradicting cultural structures can co-exist, or even prosper, within localities. The advent of this anti-leftist, anti-multiculturalist, and anti-globalist political movement can be attributed to the forsaking of patriotism and culture by the mainstream, in favor of establishing a globalized society, wherein everybody can believe and support contradicting worldviews. Such a society cannot, nor can it ever, exist. Neo-Nazism in North America is a reactionary movement against the leftist conviction that mass immigration without the adoption of the American identity is a plausible, or even favorable, immigration policy.
During an interview with CNN, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said that “the big issue in non-assimilation is the fact that you have people that want to come to our country but not adopt our values, not adopt our language and in some cases want to set apart their own enclaves and hold onto their own values.” The allowance of autonomous Muslim neighborhoods within cities, such as Gwynn Oak in Baltimore County, which calls for the total protection of “Muslim social, economic, and political structure,” accurately represent the reality that the far left strives for: immigration with assimilation. When cultural relativism and the promotion of Islamic society as capable of synergy with American values are held as views one must hold to be considered tolerant or modern, the neo-Nazi movement is stroked, and its flame kindles brighter every time a pink haired, armpit hair dyeing, third-wave feminist defends the mass immigration of anti-American individuals in the West.
Another example of Islam’s political and social dismissal of national identity and refusal to assimilate can be seen in Germany’s open-door immigration policy which stoked an enormous surge in its Muslim population, surpassing 6 million for the first time in 2016. The anonymous editor-in-chief at ZeroHedge records that the effects of this massive Muslim immigration include “the proliferation of no-go zones, Sharia courts, polygamy, child marriages and honor violence,” in addition to ” social chaos, including jihadist attacks, a migrant rape epidemic, a public health crisis, rising crime and a rush by German citizens to purchase weapons for self-defense — and even to abandon Germany altogether.”
Similar attempts at establishing a multicultural cesspool without the integration of national assimilation are what initially contributed to the advent of Adolf Hitler in the 20th century. It is extremely easy to label Hitler as a racial supremacist, but his chief aim was to preserve Germany’s culture as a nationalist state, and through his eyes, the Jewish people were a foreign infiltration, unable to conform to German identity. In fact, the very first point of the National Socialist Program (a.k.a. “the a.k.a. the 25-point Programme) states that “We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people’s right to self-determination.”
This idea of a national identity was crucial to the German people and pre-dates Nazi Germany in the sense that the advent of Romantic nationalism subscribed to a very high view on the national assimilation to a common tongue. Johann Fichte, a German philosopher in the 18th century, writes in his thirteenth national address that “The first, original, and truly natural boundaries of states are beyond doubt their internal boundaries. Those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, long before any human art begins; they understand each other and have the power of continuing to make themselves understood more and more clearly; they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole.” This idea of a unified linguistic and cultural identity within a single nation is essential to conservative thought, and it is the abandonment of this value that has sparked growth in the neo-Nazi movement.
This directly relates to our current situation. The political left, at least those who are far-leaning, are continuously pushing for the abandonment of this form of national identity through rejecting the need of assimilation. The continuous push for a globalist culture will inevitably cause history to repeat itself and give birth to a contemporary movement dedicated to the eradication of multiculturalism altogether.
Newton’s Third Law states that for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The venturing of the political left further and further west of classical liberalism will inevitably evoke a response from the right, which will then venture further and further east of classical conservatism. Therefore, leftists and those who believe that political and social assimilation is not necessary for the integration of immigrants should not be shocked at the advent of neo-Nazism, a reactionary manifestation of an antithesis against the forsaking of patriotism and national culture.
We are all immigrants, in some sense, but our ability to maintain peace and unity lies in our common cultural assimilation, namely in our adherence to traditionally American values. If immigrants of any background, ethnicity, or religion cannot likewise subscribe to these values, then American citizenship should be considered off-limits. If we insist otherwise, the inevitable result is the growing advent of neo-Nazism. This is not a threat, it is a philosophical analysis of the consequences brought on by how far left many have gone. When one forsakes the value of culture and national identity, patriots and traditionalists necessarily undergo a process of social radicalization. By providing scathing rebukes to those who wish to maintain the traditional values and projection of their nation, one stokes the flames of patriotism, converting those who would have otherwise identified as social conservatives to the ideology of neo-Nazism.