Why Bernie Sanders is the most dangerous man in America.

He wants to bring European style socialism to the U.S. But American society is radically different than the homogenous European states. History, as well as the present day shows us that socialism doesn't work in multicultural societies.

With less than two weeks until the Iowa Caucus, Sanders is shaking up the Democratic race. He's popular. Very popular. Several polls have Sanders even with Clinton in Iowa and leading in New Hampshire and it's not hard to see why. Bernie represents an alternative to the establishment in Politics that people have grown wary of.

Sanders has made no secrets about what he wants for America: a European-style socialism like we see in the prosperous countries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. High tax, free education, healthcare as a "right". He's even been quoted as saying a "90% tax rate isn't too much".

But America is a vastly different society than the settled and homogenous states of Scandinavia. The key determinant of whether a socialist system will succeed is not its levels inequality, nor by its political tradition, but by the demographic composition of the society itself.

History, as well as the present day shows us very plainly that the kind of socialism he advocates while maintaining any sense of freedom is only possible within the mono-cultural societies he envies. Societies that have had very little migration, and where an entire people share a common culture, language, history, belief, sense of identity, and yes – ethnicity too. When a society shares these basic commonalities, it's citizens don't hesitate in contributing to one another in a highly redistributive economy. The inhabitants are genetically and culturally very similar, so spotting your countrymen $100 if he/she needs it isn't a problem. Even better if it's automated by the state.

Think of it as contributing to your extended family: people with whom you share a close affiliation. It's a widely accepted fact – popularised by Richard Dawkins in his theory of altruism and kin selection – that people are far more altruistic to those with whom they share a close genetic or cultural proximity.

The Japanese are acutely aware of this. They are hugely sceptical of migration and prize cultural cohesion above all else. They've seen the consequences of multiculturalism in the west and don't wish to repeat the same mistakes.

The United Kingdom, since becoming a multicultural society while attempting to maintain a welfare state has found great difficulty maintaining race relations and a well oiled economy.

Whereas Sweden, Norway and Denmark are all highly evolved homogenous societies with a rich monoculture that sport some of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Income tax goes up to about 60% for its citizens which some say is already hitting the upper limits of what society will tolerate. The European people have tolerated it because they are one nation and one people.

The question that we should now be asking is what will happen now that most of these countries have thrown open their doors to mass migration? We may have caught a glimpse on New Years eve 2016 when European states were plunged into racial hostility, turmoil and violence because of an obvious cultural division. Will a welfare state continue to function in a society now overrun with racial tension? I wouldn't bet on it.

Throw many cultures and ethnicities into the mix and the laws of natural reciprocity must be replaced with forced reciprocity, mandated from above. In this way, multiculturalism is a legitimate threat to liberty. When the interests of discrepant cultures clash, it's only the heavy hand of the state that can suppress them.

The incompatibility of multiculturalism and socialism should be a critical line of enquiry in the west, but political correctness has rendered subjects like "race", "ethnicity" and "culture" as off limits. It may be a deterministic view of humanity, but it's a fact of nature so bound into the human psyche and so clearly understood that to prevent discussion would be foolish, and to dismiss it may be disastrous.

It doesn't matter how often a demagogue like Clinton or Sanders yell slogans of "Unity" from the pulpit. The differences between people and cultures are deep and can't be covered up with mere political sophistry or attempts of censorship.

America today is as divided in its culture, ethnicity and ideas more than any time in its history. Under the Obama administration, the African American community is now worse off than when he took up the presidency, illegal immigration from Mexico has proven a polarizing topic for voters and race relations have never been more hopeless. A socialist system under these circumstances isn’t only impossible, it will likely bring about total revolt.

This reveals one of the greatest chink's in the progressive armoury. Migration and multiculturalism – core tenants of the progressive agenda – and a high-tax redistributive system are wholly opposed.

I'll admit, the idea of a president Trump isn't exactly ideal, but Sanders in the white house may be fatal. His determination and sincerity give him a magnetic appeal, especially since he's voicing concerns about the things that distress us all: deep inequality and people suffering in neglect. Like any decent person, he's using the channels available to him for reform. But the road to hell is always paved with good intentions and the worst atrocities in human history were almost exclusively committed with the goal of reducing inequality.

All modern nations balance their economies on a tightrope of taxation. Too low and you get inequality. Too high and you'll destroy the economy. What I fear most about a Sanders victory isn't an immediate slide into communism, as is often touted by far Right alarmists, or even a stagnant economy that drives American businesses overseas, but rather that America discovers that because of its demographics, the magic limit of taxation will be exceeded and the balancing act will tip.

A man like Sanders wouldn't just test that limit, he would certainly push it over the edge.

Share this